Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Here are the options:

McCain singing "Bomb Iran."

Obama: Babies, like venereal disease, are a punishment he doesn't want his own daughters to endure.

If I vote for either one, grant my yes to either one, then I am sure to have innocent blood on my head. Archbishop Chaput says that it is fine for me to vote for Obama, so long as I am prepared to explain myself to the victims of abortion I will meet in the next life* (I should be so lucky to make it to where they are for the interview), but what about the civilian children who will surely be casualties if this other insensitive man should be elected? What about the children who have already been victims of U.S. bombing attacks who were witnesses to McCain's "joke"? They will meet me with their questioning eyes, too.

* "But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed" (from Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08” By Charles J. Chaput)


Marie said...


There are other options, although most would tell you that a vote for one of them is a vote for (whomever they feel has the better chance of losing UNLESS voters step out of the two party system).

I don't want to sound like a commercial, but I'm kind of interested in the "Campaign for Liberty" which the Ron Paul people are now running. The idea is to move his message (anti-war and pro-life issues being key, as well as financial/economic etc) through the grassroots into effect on local levels of government, sort of like the mustard seed, to make way for something other than the stifling two party system we currently face for fall.

Suzanne said...

Well, but the Ron Paul people have a fierce desire to "protect" the second amendment -- in such a way that guns are way too available. We lived in Chicago, where elementary schools had to have metal detectors and children were being killed in crossfire or by accidental use of handguns or even by shooting themselves or each other. I am certain that this is not an outcome either intended or foreseen by those who drafted the 2nd amendment, and the fact that Libertarians think that the "abstraction" that is the Constitution is more worth defending than these victims of gun violence really leaves me feeling that they are just as bad. Sorry to be so negative.

Marie said...

I can see the point. I have no particular affection for guns, but I do have respect for the function the Constitution has in our government. Without affirming it, we really are at the whim of whomever thinks what in whatever moment in history, which is totalitarianism of the moment.

I agree that reasonable local restrictions on guns are a good idea (whether Ron Paul does or not, I'm not sure and isn't my primary concern). For example, anyone who has ever had arrests involving substance abuse, domestic violence, and other similar situations could be barred from gun ownership. (Not that it would stop gun use, but that's another issue...) But the real Constitution limits the power of the federal government, rightly so I think. New York City is not Wyoming and it makes sense to me that different States need laws due to their different settings.

Dumbstruck by the Mystery

...our temptation is always to impose our prejudices or our measure on reality -- except when we are faced with a fact that leaves us dumbstruck, and instead of dominating the fact ourselves, we are dominated, overcome by it. If there were no moments of this kind, the Mystery could do anything, but in the end, we would reduce everything to the usual explanation. But not even a Nobel Prize winner can stop himself from being dumbstruck before an absolutely gratuitous gesture. If there were not these moments, we would find answers, explanations, and interpretations to avoid being struck by anything. It is good that some things happen that we cannot dominate, then we have to take them seriously, and this is the great question of philosophy. If the conditions for the possibility of knowledge (see Kant) impose themselves on reality or if there is something that is so powerfully disproportionate that it does not let itself be "grasped" by the conditions of possibility, then the horizon opens. If this were not the case, then we could dominate everything and be in peace, or at least without drama. Instead, not even the intelligence of a Nobel Prize winner could prevent him from coming face-to-face with a fact that made him dumbstruck -- instead of dominating, it was he who was dominated. Here begins the drama, because I am called to answer. It is the drama that unfolds between us and the Mystery, through certain facts, certain moments, in which the Mystery imposes itself with this evidence. These are facts that we cannot put in our pocket, which we cannot reduce to antecedent factors.
-- Julian Carron in "Friends, that is, Witnesses."