My reply to your posts can be found here http://the-american-catholic.com/ under the heading “Not Just for Catholics: Pro-Live Secularism and the Preservation of Our Republic.”

David, would you mind providing a link to American Catholic if you open a topic on this? I’d like to read what others add to the debate.

The thrust of my comment on the Catholic vote was that while faith guides many in their daily lives, we seem to have a case where those without faith take the position that faith not only over-rides reason, but that having faith makes us, by definition, unreasonable beings.

When called irrational, it’s not terribly long before that term ceases to have any meaning.
I believe there was a book, something like “What’s Wrong with Kansas” whereupon the author determined that Kansans were too stupid to vote their own interest. Which might be a chortle in Manhattan, but I doubt had much of a sales history in Kansas. Or garnered many converts.

I’m not an expert on religion, nor claim to even have that much faith. I just find the attack interesting.

Take Psalms 91:11-12 (thanks to Google). Angels are here to protect us, from falling and injuring ourselves in effect. Using logic alone one might look upon this as an outsider and think, “Max believes he has invisible friends who will keep him from stubbing his toe when he walks. Max is, therefore, insane.” You and I would find this conclusion laughable.

Consider how much faith the Left (thinking the Bolsheviks here mainly) had in, say, planned economies and the inherent worth of labor a la communism and socialism, this being the same Left that thought faith a opiate for the masses and did all they could to outlaw religion and turn the State into a diety. The history of the early 1900’s is full of such trappings, even here in the US. They had faith too, you see.

Don’t even get started on the eugenics movements.

I also have personal friends who’ve told me of visions, of feeling a presence, some of seeing angels. I may personally think they ought to lay off the pepperoni pizza before retiring but I wasn’t there, I can’t prove it didn’t happen, and why should I care if Gabriel himself showed up and raided my friend’s fridge if it doesn’t affect me one iota?

Point being, we may all be taking ourselves a little too seriously in this argument. Until that belief directly infringes upon our freedom, it’s not much to be concerned about.

I ask these same folks (and I hang out with a bunch of them) why they disparage religion so when it was out of religion that we grew the rule of law? From the Ten Commandments to the Code of Hammurabi, to the Halakha, Sharia, and even Canon law, these faiths provided a framework for social interaction, for trade to flourish, for appeals to authority in the case of disputes, and for individual rights. Seems like a pretty good thing to me, but apparently having an invisible friend makes my opinion easily dismissed.

The Gail Collins article is what happens when you’ve a point to make, no editor, and are starting on beer #3 and it’s just not coming together towards a conclusion. Kind of like this posting, actually, though I’m only on my second.

As for Kristof, I was unaware that all birth control had to be approved by the Bush Administration. Now I can certainly imagine that when My Good Wife goes into the pharmacy her script is wired to the White House, at which point George Bush pauses from his Gas Price Manipulation machine and decides if he will accept or reject her choice of contraceptives. Probably sends a copy to the White House Office of Demographics, who will crunch the numbers and report back that we’ve too many Ethnic-0 and not enough Ethnic-1 and before you know it all the cars will have little crystals hanging from the rear-view mirror and you won’t be able to find a decent lutefisk anywhere so start denying a few!

Somehow I don’t think it’s all that clear-cut.

Kristof does have a good point, contraception does have a vital role in family planning, but he concludes that if your standard of living is low and you can’t afford to eat you need to have fewer kids.

That’s what Europe is doing and they have plenty to eat. Contrast with a mere 50 years ago when we easily had 5 or 10 children per family. The answer isn’t to reduce family size, though I agree having a family should be a choice and not necessarially chance, but to increase food and the economy. Africa doesn’t need a pack of Trojan’s, they need steady government with respects to land deeds and a container ship full of seed and tractors so they can actually farm that land to feed their populace.

I won’t presume to tell them what to do, but force condoms on them they’ll limit their workforce. Give them tools and they, like people everywhere, will through industry raise their own standard of living. Better yet, lease them farm tools and make a buck so you continue to have a farm tool manufacturer.

Kristof sees unemployment and sees a need to have fewer people to match the jobs. He never seems to grok that a bunch of unemployed are a readily-available, low-cost workforce ready to start that economic engine.

Which, as an economist, he’s kind of suprising that way.

— Max

I have been attending an Elderhostel program on US Diplomacy given by a group of retired Ambassadors since Monday. Two sessions in the morning, two sessions in the afternoon, one fun session at night, and lots of palaver during lunch, diner, and in the evening. The above blogs, were done at night, and into the wee hours of the morning.

Kind of tuckered out, if Lex opens up a thread where we can continue this discussion, I will do so, for you have raised some interesting points in your above post. As luck would have it, the Gray Lady Op Ed columnists today had something to say which blends into the above discussion.

The first is by Nicholas Kristof where he examines the recent Bush Administration moves on US family planning aid to African nations. Kristof has written extensively on Darfur and other disasters in Africa. Warning, he is not very kind to either President Bush or John McCain. But he does raise the question as to whether contraception aid should be captured by political needs or religious beliefs of a minority of our population.

The second is by Gail Collins, which is a spoof on the Ayers humbra. Worth a read, if you have a flexible fun bone, and enjoy good writing.

Peace my good man, and may all in comings not be direct hits on your quill.

I’m going to address your posts at American Catholic since I think the issues your posts raise would be better tackled over there – but suffice it to say I reject the claim that I’m taking the positions I am out of subterfuge or an inability to distinguish between faith and reason.

I actually had an atheist once ask me if I could be a coal miner if I believed the earth was only 6000 years old. Which, as gotcha questions go, pretty much defines the lowest level of of the bar when it comes to reason. Probably made him feel an intellectual though.

Now then, you stated that the reason Obama is so dangerous to the political establishment is that he had the audacity to run, and thus say race no longer counts. I beg to differ.

If he were dangerous to the establishment he would have been shut down at the start. No major funding, no gala fundraisers. He’d be joining Ross Perot, Mike Huckabee, and that consumer advocate who’s mainly advocated for his own job as a consumer advocate… Nader! That’s it! Yeah, Nader would be there too.
Ross Perot would be drinking at the other end of the bar, sniffling about what only grass-roots support and a few billion dollars can do.

Don’t get me started on Nader. Ever ridden in a 327-powered Corvair? I have. Nader hasn’t. Ever driven a 427 Shelby Cobra? I have. Nader hasn’t. I should note that of the approximately 600 people to have tried the Cobra, I am one of the few who returned to women as our first love.

Reluctantly, of course. But I digress…

Obama thus says race isn’t a factor? Again, I disagree. He made a prominent speech to address the very subject quite soon after clinching the nomination. Wouldn’t have done that if it weren’t a factor, and if you scan Drudge there’s every number of punditry and politicians saying it does matter.

Which sort of negates his speech.

I was merely pointing out that if I’m called a racist often enough, I may very well cease to give the term any weight or negative consequence.

I understand this was actually a tactic with the word queer, by adopting it the gay rights/homosexual groups adopted what had been an epitaph and made it acceptable, at least to the target audience.

But to those who used it, those who voted? It didn’t result in acceptance, it didn’t foster tolerance, it just made the bigots immune and gave the oppressed a less effective weapon.

Interesting times, aren’t they?

– Max

My exposure to “Teddy”, as he was universally known on campus, was from 1951 to 1955. Fortunately we had him as our own, for he had not yet become prominent. His was available to students, his mind illuminated the campus, and he stretched the boundaries of parochial Catholicism. The man was a force, and he certainly energized me. I am but a minor product of his University, yet as described in the link given above, I probably reflect some of the fire in his soul:

Despite the responsibilities of the Notre Dame presidency, Theodore Hesburgh remained very much involved in political and social affairs. He became extremely vocal in opposition to the Vietnam War and the draft, particularly following the Cambodian invasion. To many, this stance contradicted the tight control and suspension policy he exercised over student disruption at Notre Dame. He continued to be outspoken in many areas of concern, even publicly disagreeing with his church. His opposition to abortion was unwavering, but he believed the Vatican position on birth control to be a mistake. He supported celibacy for himself and those who choose it, but reminded his audience that the apostles were married and clergy in the Middle Ages “kept women.” He disapproved of sex outside of marriage and was exceedingly proud of the fact that 93 percent of the marriages of Notre Dame alumni held together. He was an ardent supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment and answered his critics who said passage would have pushed women to become like men by saying, “I think women will have to work overtime to catch up with men at evildoing.” He also advocated creation of a Palestinian homeland as part of an overall Middle East peace settlement.

That said, there is that shop worn story about a Giuseppe, new Italian immigrant, going to his first baseball game. His friend from the neighborhood, having spent more time in the US was explaining the fine points of the game while Joe DiMaggio was at bat. A ball four was called by the umpire, Jolting Joe dropped his bat, and trotted to first base. Puzzled, Giuseppe asked what was going on.

He has four balls his friend said, therefore he gets to walk to first base. Giuseppe jumps and joins the applauding fans at Joe’s at bat, waving his fist in the air, he screams: Walk a proud Joe, walk a proud!!!

Now then, to David Curp, Bryan Audler, geo6, Scott, and others… If your rejection of Obama is faith based, ie. Abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, then say it, walk a proud, shake your fist in the sky, and say this is what I am, this is what I believe. When you didle daddle with this nonsense of an “empty suit” all you do is confuse others, avoid the issue, tick people off, and actually look a tad bit loco.

Lex , having attended a Trade School with a heavy concentration in engineering, will surely be able to describe the normal distribution curve. He will be able to point out that in religious matters, there is the middle, the right, and the left. He may, or may not wonder, as I do, why those on the right of the curve are so convinced that their campf will earn them a special spot in heaven…