You have to admit
that the Republicans (we're talking about the United States here) usually have bigger coglioni than the Democrats. This is especially true of the Roman Catholic brownshirts within the Republican party. The latest case in point, in my opinion, is their attempt to position Rudy Giuliani as the Great White Hope of the pro-life cause in the U.S. These are the people who, during the last presidential election, opined that burning at the stake and an eternity in the deepest pit of hell was too good for John Kerry because he was only "personally opposed" to abortion. Now they will have us believe that a man who has been consistently outspoken in his support of abortion rights is the best candidate for the pro-life cause. According to this group, he should be elected president, if not canonized, because he has promised to appoint only "strict constructionist" judges. According to this (as yet untested) theory, strict constructionist judges would have to overturn Roe v. Wade because it legislates from the bench. And this despite the fact that every judge he ever appointed was pro-choice.
To which I say, in the immortal words of The Who (the best rock band in the history of the world—don't even TRY disputing that on these pages!), "Won't Get Fooled Again." After all, the world stands in awe at how much our current "pro-life" president has done to protect innocent life. Can you spell Iraq?
I'll give him an "A" for chutzpah, but he won't get my vote. Pro-life, indeed. Ha!
To which I say, in the immortal words of The Who (the best rock band in the history of the world—don't even TRY disputing that on these pages!), "Won't Get Fooled Again." After all, the world stands in awe at how much our current "pro-life" president has done to protect innocent life. Can you spell Iraq?
I'll give him an "A" for chutzpah, but he won't get my vote. Pro-life, indeed. Ha!
posted by BroLo | 9/23/2007 10:16:00 AM
6 Comments:
Oh my dear friar friend...when are you going to realize that talking politics in mixed company isn't a good idea. I can't wait to see how we're going to be "told" to vote in our fair diocese - hope it is not a repeat of last time. That was almost enough to make me leave.
It is ironic, isn't it? We don't really care about talking, breathing, praying, tithing, loving individuals. Who cares if they die.
We care about a few cells that only 50 years ago were not determined as "life". And call that pro-life.
What a weird, weird time in history.
Wicked - don't even try fooling us into thinking you are part of the proletariat! We know you're part of the gouty crowd.
OGC - Don't get me wrong. I am as opposed to abortion as the next friar, but it is the inconsistencies of some members of the "pro-life" group that really irk me.
OK, now your hitting below the belt. Just cause I married someone who happens to not be as enlightened as I am shouldn't mean I am lumped in with "their" group!
Also, from this point forward instead of saying pro-life to refer to the group that is against choice, I think we should be more accurate and say pro-choice verse anti-choice because that is what it is. There are plenty of people who are pro-life but support choice - for very humanitarian reasons I might add. Let's start having a more nuanced conversation on this topic.
yes, yes, the inner Capuchin in my head is taking on a strange Kansas accent... When are you coming back?
It has always seemed particularly bizarre to me that our great leader (not) protests too much his concern for life while sending thousands of young men and women off to die for the great humanitarian cause of oil.
No matter where one stands on abortion, this is not only inconsistent but patently wrong. Thank you for calling it as it is.
Post a Comment
<< Home