Category Archives: Religion
What If We Removed Wartime Conscience Exemptions?
Last Friday, President Obama responded to Catholic bishops ’ concerns over his controversial mandate compelling Catholic institutions to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. Many media sources reported Obama’s action as an “accommodation,” with some describing it as a “reversal.” It is hardly that. Many Catholics find it arguably worse. Without dissecting the president’s action, the overriding problem remains: We are facing a continuing creep—really, an assault—on the consciences of not only committed Roman Catholics but millions of pro-lifers when it comes to abortion . Slowly but surely, whether through taxpayer funding of abortifacients or Plotted Parenthood or Plotted Parenthood International or the deliberate destruction of embryos—just for starters—we are sliding down the slippery slope. I fully agree with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who believes the ultimate objective is for taxpayers—all of them, regardless of religion—to forcibly pay for women’s abortions. As a Roman Catholic intimately involved in the pro-life movement, I can report that many of us are certain that “ Obama-care ” is carrying us across that dark threshold. Moreover, it pains me that the Obama administration is proceeding with far higher support among liberals than I ever imagined in America. All of my life, my pro-choice friends insisted that they simply want the “right” to an abortion. They told me to back off, to leave them alone, to allow them their “choice.” Well, they have that, and more—but apparently it isn’t enough. An alarmingly high number of them will not rest until my pro-life allies and I help pay for their decisions and send our tax dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider. It is truly shocking to watch them casually and crassly disregard or deny us the quintessentially American notion of conscience exemption. And there, I warn them of another slippery slope they ought to consider: Do they really want to go down this road of banning conscience exemptions? Reckon about it. How many liberals reading this article embraced the right of conscientious objection during the Vietnam War? During times of mandatory military service, this nation has mercifully granted conscientious objection. If you were convinced, based on your faith in particular, that war was incorrect, you had the option to not participate. I could fill this page with the words of Catholic monks and priests who publicly defended that right during Vietnam, from Thomas Merton to the Berrigan brothers. They were heroes of liberals for taking that stand. In fact, here, too, the Catholic Church, as an institution, has a lot to say: The monumental Second Vatican Council (“Vatican II”), which convened in the early 1960s, issued a Declaration on Religious Freedom affirming that Catholics are duty-bound to faithfully follow not the dictates of a government but their conscience, and that no person should be “forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience.” The Church’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World states that governments cannot compel a citizen to engage in military service if that person is convinced that physical combat is sinful. The Church condemns “blind obedience” to unjust regimes that commit unjust actions. Popes and bishops and Catholic theologians before and after have consistently reaffirmed these positions. During the heart of the Vietnam War, the American bishops issued major documents supporting both universal and selective conscientious objection. On a related point—which, again, liberals will applaud—the Church has demanded humane treatment for wartime non-combatants, for the wounded, and for POWs. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this explicitly. Generally speaking, the Catechism , which is the official teaching of the Church, proclaims that, “Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order.” Quoting the New Testament ( Acts 5:29), the Catechism states: “We must obey God rather than men.” The Church is firmly against the unjust violation of human life, beginning in the womb. Importantly, though I’ve cited Catholic teaching, millions of non-Catholics follow these principles. And huge numbers of secular liberals adamantly endorse these teachings on conscience and war. Conscientious objection is a precious right in this nation. It must remain so. Have “abortion rights” become so sacred to liberals that they are willing to sacrifice conscience exemptions at the altar of Roe v. Wade ? Do they really want to head down this road? I suggest they stop and reckon hard about what they’re advocating. What If We Removed Wartime Conscience Exemptions? by Dr. Paul Kengor syndicated from The Land of the Free .
Originally posted here:
What If We Removed Wartime Conscience Exemptions?
If Bush Had Done That
15414 Bedrock Dr Corpus Christi, TX, 78410 USA
support@ifbushhaddonethat.com • 361-443-4402
15414 Bedrock Dr Corpus Christi, TX, 78410 USA
support@ifbushhaddonethat.com • 361-443-4402
Judging Presidential Timber at CPAC
Friday’s session of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was crucial for Republican presidential candidates, but it started with an audition for Vice President. Our own Gov. Bob McDonnell proved once again if you want a VP candidate who is not teleprompter dependent and has not expressed strong feelings regarding the very poor, McDonnell is just your man. Much of McDonnell’s speech obliquely stressed his Vice Presidential qualifications by running through his resume and focusing on his administration’s record. McDonnell characterized the election as choice between Constitutionally limited government and a constantly expanding federal government. McDonnell concluded by saying his family came to the US from Ireland, and 100 years later he sits in the governor’s office holding the same position held by Thomas Jefferson. Which, come to reckon of it, also applies to the office of Vice President. Four years ago Mitt Romney withdrew from the race during his speech at the conference, this year he wanted to use a CPAC speech to revive it. After suffering three consecutive primary losses to Rick Santorum, Romney needed a strong rebound and straw poll victory before an audience filled with many people skeptical of his conservatism and commitment to the cause. Romney described the Obama administration as the “last gasp of liberalism’s fantastic failure.” And he urged the participants to “reaffirm what it means to be conservative.” This involves a reverence for the founding document, “Conservatives aren’t just proud to cling to our guns and religion, we are also proud to cling to our Constitution,” Romney declared to enthusiastic applause. One of the largest applause lines of the afternoon came when he declared he’s been successful in business and he’s not ashamed to say so. Romney assured the audience, “I’ve served in government, but I didn’t inhale. I’m still a business guy.” Santorum’s goal was to establish himself as the only viable alternative to Romney and consolidate the ABM (anyone but Mitt) vote. Santorum clarified, “Conservatism did not fail our country. Conservatives failed conservatism.” Specifically by adopting the philosophy that winning is more vital than staying right to your principles, a veiled reference to John McCain. “We’ve learned our lesson,” Santorum said. “We will no longer abandon and apologize for the principles that made this country fantastic.” Santorum addressed his chances by downplaying the influence of money, of which he has small, and stressing the power of contrasts. “We aren’t going to win with money. We’re going to win with contrasts, by making Barack Obama and his failed policies the issue in this race.” For Newt Gingrich the presidential campaign is a four–letter word and that word is BOLD. Bold thoughts. Bold plans. Bold solutions. Bold politics. “When the conservative movement offers bold solutions, it wins decisively. I want to talk about bold solutions to get America working again,” Newt boldly announced. Gingrich intends for the entire GOP congressional establishment to campaign with him this fall, which will require a large fleet of buses and a huge block of rooms on the cruise ship. And in the few days between the swearing in of the new Congress and Newt’s Bold presidential oath of office, he has a to–do list for Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader (he hopes) Mitch McConnell. Newt expects both houses to pass bills repealing Obamacare, Sarbanes–Oxley and Dodd–Frank. So by signing these bills in the first 20 minutes of his new administration Newt can expunge 40 percent of the late Obama administration. Then Gingrich can really get to work with Bold executive orders: approve the Keystone pipeline, go the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, reinstate the Mexico City policy banning the expenditure of tax dollars for abortions in other countries and break ground on the moon colony. Then he plans to pause for lunch. Gingrich’s speech also included a larger role for Callista, the new wife, who introduced him to a tepid audience response. This probably marks the first time in campaign history The Other Woman 2.0 has been brought out of hiding and used in a prominent role, which really does qualify as Bold. The result of Saturday’s straw poll was excellent for two of the three candidates. Romney won with 38 percent of the vote, followed by Santorum at 31 percent. Gingrich was a very poor third, barely beating Ron Paul — who did not attend the conference — 15 percent to 12 percent. The conclusion is Romney can speak “conservative;” and head–to–head in a setting where ad spending and organization does not matter; Santorum is a viable ABM alternative. Unfortunately for Santorum those conditions don’t apply in the vast majority of remaining primaries. Judging Presidential Timber at CPAC by Michael R. Shannon syndicated from The Land of the Free .
Read more:
Judging Presidential Timber at CPAC
