Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Obama Continues to Inspire

Who else today can speak the truth so eloquently, without spin and subterfuge?
"But if the next President can restore the American people’s trust – if they know that he or she is acting with their best interests at heart, with prudence and wisdom and some measure of humility – then I believe the American people will be ready to see America lead again. They will be ready to show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city. That is not who we are."


Anonymous said...

I'm new to this blog and find your posts very interesting and sometimes compelling. And I agree that Obama is in many ways inspiring. However, how can a Catholic - even one committed to catholic social teaching - vote for him when he has recently shown himself to be pro-partial birth abortion?

Morning's Minion said...

Good question! I've dealt with these questions elsewhere in great detail: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2006/10/theology-of-voting-guides.html and http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2006/10/proliferation-of-catholic-voting.html.

The basic issue boils down to proximity to the evil act. Obama may support partial birth abortion, but is he actually in a position to affect an actual abortion? Highly unlikely. The distance between the voter and the act is even more remote. That is why moral theology allows voting for a candidate that supports an evil such as abortion provided the voter does not share the intention, and there are sufficient proportionate reasons. Now, some people will try to tell you that "proportionate reasons" only apply when there are two pro-abortion candidates, but that is has no basis in moral reasoning.

Remember, it's about proximity. It's quite possible that the average Bush voter's proximity to the intrinsic evil of torture is greater than the average Kerry voter's proximity to the intrinsic evil of abortion (Kerry would not likely have affected the abortion rate, and may have reduced it, while the election of Bush is more directly related to the institution of torture as a policy).

Franklin Jennings said...

The lglaring difference being that Bush didn't hint at his willingness to torture in his campaigns while Kerry was adamant that abortion is a right that must be defended.

A position you were just praising Chaput for calling unacceptable, right?

This is the big reason I'm not beholden to either party. I lack the flexibility to tie myself up in pretzels.


Robert Burns said...

This is the big reason I'm not beholden to either party.


Would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.

Franklin Jennings said...

Don't care what you see. I voted for a Republican once in my life. That was only because the Dems ran a pro-abort Catholic.

If the reps nominate Giulliani, I'll vote for Hillary if need be.

But no, if I don't agree with your stale 60's crap, I MUST BE A REPUBLICAN!!! Stupid Myopic American Political Molds. Get over your provincialism.

paul zummo said...

Politics aside, I am amazed at how many people are taken in by Obama's "eloquence." The guy is one of the most vapid candidates on either side of the aisle, but he's managed to dupe otherwise intelligent people into thinking he's some sort of grand prophet.

I mean, look at this bit of imbecility. The opening two lines are completely meaningless, and the rest of is a bit of tripe than can be found on Daily Kos.

Wow. I can't stand Hillary, but she's a model of statemanship compared to Obama.

Anonymous said...

Someone who voted for Bush and is now suddenly worried about "vapid" candidates "duping" intelligent people? That's really rich.