For pulling this, Trump deserves to lose. 'Single-issue voter' is a slur I wear proudly. I'm a conservative on 95% of things, but if Bernie Sanders was the pro-life candidate, and [Generic Conservative] was pro-choice, I'd vote Sanders. I don't understand how any pro-lifer could disagree. The idea that any issue or semblance of issues on today's scene outranks the murder of >1 million children per year is insane. If Trump succeeds in burying the pro-life cause, he won't do so with my help.
"If Trump loses, and his loss can be traced to pro-lifers staying home, we be as good as dead as the rest of the Right scapegoats us for our role in allowing the radical-woke Left to triumph."
I'm skeptical of this claim. If Republican Inc. thinks that it needs us to win the next election, then they'll overcome their grievances.
"Trump deserves to lose" - Meaning we should get an administration that wants no restrictions, rather than an administration that wants the issue left to the states? Those are the choices. Please don't help outright evil win the presidency. Nothing you can do or not do with your vote will contribute to the national outlawing of abortion.
You are right, Linda. Trump is a disappointment yet he is a product of our degenerate culture. Pro-lifers should accept that Trump is 90 % on our side on abortion. Kamala Harris is 100 % against us.
Right. He doesn't believe in fidelity either. He's on his third wife and is a proven adulterer with the wife is still married to. He's got all the morals of an alley cat. And he's on our side most of the time. Sort of like Jean Lafitte helping out Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans.
Proven by who...the sham courts of NYC? Are you vote for Pope in Nov? The lawfare and the policy of the progressive left should be enough to make any rational person hold their nose and vote for Trump.
Is there any doubt that Trump is serial cheater? Go ahead and respond "That should have no political import"-- I would agree with you (and thought the same about Bill Clinton). But don't deny the facts. Trump is not a saint (and maybe we shouldn't want a saint to be president)
If the 90% is a problem for his ambition, he’ll betray that too. Years before he got axed by Henry VIII, St. Thomas More’s son in law complimented him on his friendship with H8, specifically how he’d walk around with More with his arm around More’s neck. More responded that “if my neck would purchase him a castle in France, it would not fail to go.” We know how that turned out.
Choosing an evil is NEVER a "moral" choice. Sometimes it's necessary, but evils remain evils. Necessity does not baptize them. And it's not necessary in this election as there are other possible choices.
You write from a strongly principled position, I concede, but do you think it is remotely possible to pass a ban on abortion in America **as it actually is** today? As the Hungarian pro-lifer said to me, when you live in a polity that is not pro-life, you cannot realistically make pro-life your only voting criterion. If you lived in Hungary and voted according to your purist principle, you would see no meaningful difference between Viktor Orban -- who opposes open borders, gay marriage, and LGBT propaganda aimed at children...all of which his government has forbidden by law -- and the left-wing opposition, which favors all those things. So, you withhold your vote, you still have abortion on demand, but you also get those other horror-show results. What sense does that make?
How do you reconcile your purity with the fact that the pro-life movement has lost every post-Dobbs state ballot contest, even in red states? Let's say you were a gay American voter in 1992. Neither Bush Sr. nor Clinton advocated what for you is by far the most important issue: gay rights. Would you be justified in sitting out the race? Or would you grasp that though your cause is not supported by either party, you'd have a far greater chance at incremental progress under a Democratic administration than a Republican one -- and therefore vote Clinton, pragmatically?
"Do you think it remotely possible to pass a ban on abortion in America **as it actually is** today?"
No, I don't. Not even close. I think it's possible to push the Republican party back towards the pro-life side.
I live in Maryland. My state is going blue-- it won't be close. Voting Trump does nothing; writing in a pro-life candidate may be part of a movement to signal to the Republican party that what remains of the pro-life movement will not just accede to them every time they sell us out.
In the 1990's, if I was a gay rights activist, I may have voted for Clinton, but I think the analogy fails in one key respect. The establishment Left is committed to its social/cultural issues, and knows that it needs to bide its time to make some of the wackier ones happen. Concomitantly, the Left keeps pushing its agenda, and so far, has eventually won pretty much every battle. The establishment Right sees the cultural stuff as an embarrassing sideshow. They want it to go away, and my decision to withhold my vote is, at least an attempt, to push them back in the direction of taking the pro-life side seriously.
P.S. I don't mean to come off as a purist or an ideologue. I respect your stance, Rod. But I don't agree.
To put it another way, I'm not voting on some ethereal, hyper-principled grounds. I think my vote is a pragmatic one. This is also why I think the American situation differs from the Hungary example. Hungary's abortion politics are, from what you say, fixed. America's, and the Republican Party's, are currently in shift. I don't like the way they're shifting, and insofar as I can vote against it, I will do so. To my mind, four years of Kamala, as awful as that sounds, is not as bad as having both parties committed to abortion.
You can call your vote "pragmatic" because you live in a Deep Blue State and your vote doesn't matter. You're free to throw it away as you wish. There's nothing wrong with that. I live in a Deep Red State that Trump will win by double digits and will still be throwing my vote away on RFK, mostly for the lulz at this point, as the kids say.
But if I lived in a swing state or even a light Blue state, I'd be sucking it up and voting for Trump. I'd tell myself that I was mostly voting for Vance, but that's just a mental cope I'd be soothing myself with. Cheeto Jesus is at the top of the ticket and will be the one charged with setting the agenda for the next four years, not Vance.
And, frankly, Trump's right to be doing what he can to blunt the only real issue that Cackles and Fat Ted Lasso have to hit him on. The economy is a wreck. The world is in shambles as we face conflicts on multiple fronts. The illegal immigration issue is absolutely out of control to the point that Venezuelan gangs are creating "No go Zones" in the suburbs of Denver.
The only issue they have to try and fire up their base (which is mostly women anyway and has been for awhile) is abortion. Which means that Trump and Vance have to totally reject the more extreme ends of the pro- life position, such as opposition to IVF, birth control, and Plan B while playing coy on any state referendums that might be on any ballots this fall.
I'd prefer that they stick to something bland like "Whether such initiatives pass or fail is up to the people in those states. The important thing is that the people are getting to decide what's best for their communities because justices that Trump appointed overturned Roe." But in this specific case, as Trump is a Florida voter, it was fair game to ask him the question and, credit where due, he at least gave what is certainly his honest answer, even if it hurts him on the margins with pro- life ideologues.
At any rate, the campaign season is only now really kicking off for the majority of the country that aren't political news junkies as most of us are. I imagine there are still a lot of twists and turns to come between now and November. Nobody outside of the zealots on either side of the abortion question will remember or care what Trump's position on the Florida constitutional amendment was come election day.
Trump is "personally pro choice" but he governed as the most pro life president in history.
Biden is "personally pro life" but he has governed as the most pro abortion president in history.
Trump is like the first son in Jesus' parable who says he will not work in the vineyard but goes anyway. Biden is like the second son who says he will work, but doesn't go.
Kamala is like a wicked sister who grabs a torch and cackles that she's going to burn the vineyard down.
Simply, Trump did not appoint Supreme Court justices as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy like Ronald Reagan did, or as bad as David Souter like George HW Bush did or as bad as John Roberts as George W. Bush did.
Well as a "white" evangelical nondenominational pastor said in a sermon yesterday, "When he turn to the powers of this world for a spiritual victory, we never win. We always lose."
Understand your points, but a) the economy is not "a wreck." (I suspect that people much younger than I don't really understand what a wrecked economy looks like.-- it's certainly not what we have now.) And b) while the world may not be "in shambles," we have not faced an international situation so fraught since 1948. And, unfortunately, the Trump foreign policy team was just about the most incompetent in living history -- and some of those in his camp coming to the fore now make the last group look like Dean Acheson. For my part, a retired diplomat and pro-life ex-Republican, the only reason to consider a Harris vote is the f.p. question.
Also, (thanks to Eric Mader below) there is the issue of judges.
Did you know this almost did not come to a vote in Florida? Antiabortion groups who argued against the amendment said it was overly broad and vague, and its title misleading. By 4-3 the Florida Supreme Court let it go to the ballot.
Trump appointed pro-life judges and there is no reason to think that would stop. He also appoints judges that oppose minors taken for parents for transgender surgeries, men in women's sports, and many other things. But we can't have those judges if we stay home in order to have a pure Republican party.
Yes. Conservatives should be pragmatic in their voting. I no longer live in Maryland but if I did, I would vote for Larry Hogan for senate. He's pro-choice and supports codifying Roe v- Wade. Yet if Hogan is elected senator, he will vote for the vast majority of Trump's judicial picks. His opponent, Angela Alsobrooks, will vote against every Trump judicial nominee.
So you want a totally manipulated court system, where judges check "How is our party on this one, who will it benefit?" rather than following the law. Got it.
Want? No, absolutely not. But it’s already happening (not that anybody asked me for consent), and if it must happen I’d rather it be my guys on the bench.
Four years of Kamal will mean abortion is cemented as policy and law at the federal level. You think you can hide and wait this out. They are on the verge of a radical revolution that is just starting not ending. Kamala will be lubricant to this radical change and no state or party in the future will be able to claw back to what we have now, state controlled abortion. The likelihood of of new states restricting abortion in the future is higher than reversing federal abortion law once Kamal wins.
As Rod has acknowledged, with deep and sincere regret, the pro-life movement has lost the battle. After years of demanding that a federal constitutional restraint on the police powers of the state be breached to "return it to the states" and subject the peoples' liberties to the whims of state level politicians, they got their wish. It turns out that the people of "the states" are not going to allow their somewhat disconnected legislative elites impose draconian criminal penalties on abortion. Pro-life doesn't have the popular majority at its back to implement its dearly wished for program. Four years of Kamala will make rather little difference one way or the other. In saying that, I anticipate that the Supreme Court will shoot down any federal bill either providing national criminal penalties for abortion or "codifying Roe v. Wade." Congress lacks the constitutional authority to do either. Even if most justices are motivated more by the preferred result than by the constitutional principles at issue (likely), I expect a different majority will strike down either type of legislation. Furthermore, statutes can be repealed every time there is a new majority leaning the other way, unlike constitutional clauses. Pick anything but abortion as your basis for voting, no matter who you vote for.
Your reasons for not voting are "to bring the Republican party back to the pro-life side" and because you live in a blue state.
A majority of Americans are not pro-life, nor will they be. America would become a one-party country, like the one-party state of California, if Republicans had a pro-life, no abortion (except to save the mother's life and maybe rape or incest) platform.
I once had the idea my vote did not matter if I did not live in a swing state. Thus, in New Jersey 2016 I did a write-in: neither Trump nor Hilary. What I've come to believe is that every vote counts! This is because we want them - youth, media, everyone - to know we are not a minority, or if we are, we are not as small a minority as they may think. In this way the voices of conservative Americans continue to be heard as viable and important.
Linda, 1980s style social conservatives (if that's who you mean by "we") are a minority. The evidence is pretty much overwhelming on that, and Rod mentions some of it above.
Even more generally Trump fans are a minority. So are Harris fans. The election comes down to how many people who hate both of them in a few swing states will hold their noses and vote for one over the other.
I'm with you. With all these Trump betrayals I instinctively want him to lose like Dukakis did (I know that a Mondale/McGovern wipeout is simply not going to happen). I want FL, TX and other states to go blue. Giving Harris every state (plus ME-1) that went red but only by less than 10% gets her to 413 electoral college votes. That's not quite Dukakis but it's really close to it. Close enough to totally humiliate Trump. See this: https://www.270towin.com/maps/gnbQd If you edit the map to give Harris everything Trump won by less than 15% then it's a worse than Dukakis blowout. Don't think it's impossible. Between J6, the abortion issue and Harris getting women out to vote, and Trump's total betrayal of social conservatives these flips can possibly happen. There's A LOT of social conservatives in these "safe" red states that are within 10% or 15% of flipping.
What I want is not necessarily the best strategy. If I was in a state that was within maybe 10 percentage points then I'd have to vote for Trump, but I'm in a 20%+ Biden state. The current plan is to write in Thomas Sowell.
Do social conservatives not have any interest in warring against the irreversible mutilation of minors? If you have, you cannot say that Trump has committed a "total betrayal of social conservatives." This is the kind of destructive, performative nonsense which every true social conservative should shun.
I'm sorry that the presidential election campaign isn't being conducted along the lines of debate heard at the annual General Convention of The Presbyterian Church in America, but as Lincoln said, facts are stubborn things.
What mind I have left is boggled at your childish obstinacy about this.
Trump came out swinging IN FAVOR OF irreversible mutilation of minors. In this campaign season he has come out in favor of so much evil. It's not "childish" to oppose evil. As I stated, I live in a Biden +20 state. I'm not voting for him. I don't have to and will not. He deserves to lose in a landslide and if you don't agree, you're wrong. You are morally and intellectually bankrupt to disagree with me re: that. The point of contention is that the other side is worse. So both sides are completely unacceptable, and that's a massive problem.
Trump represents some serious an important politics that I do not want to see buried. I do not want to see a return to the politics of the 2000s. While I would like to see Trump finally bounced out of the political system once and for all, I want the future to include many of his issues.
We were ready for that with Ron DeSantis but Trump came along and decided to become Woke Trump for 2024. Perhaps out of what he sees as political expediency (and, with abortion, it sure is), perhaps to spite socially conservative "traitor" Mike Pence, perhaps because he's surrounding himself with libs (his family, Musk, RFK, etc) who are telling him to do this, and perhaps because it's what he's always believed. Perhaps all of the above. Had Trump retired and DeSantis picked up the torch we would have been fine.
Re: Trump came along and decided to become Woke Trump for 2024.
If Trump is "woke" the word has no meaning, just a filler word rather like the way some rough-tongued people insert "f***ing" into sentences as an empty adjective every so often.
Trump's loyalty to his family is one thing that does make me think a bit better of him. Family is something I place a high value on.
In most states, write-in votes are not counted, unless for a registered write-in candidate. I used to do a lot of write-ins, but since I've been working polling sites in elections, I know nobody bothers to count. I also understand why. At the end of a 15 hour day, it would mean potentially another hour counting whimsical notions that aren't going to have any impact at all. Much as I used to enjoy doing write-ins.
The present situation in the U.S. is a good argument for moving to proportional representation, rather than the effective binary choice of D or R.
For example, a pro-life voter might cast their #1 (highest) vote for a pro-life party such as the ASP, hold their nose and vote R #2, rank the other parties accordingly, and put the Dems at the bottom at #5 or 6 or whatever.
It would allow people to vote both with their hearts and strategically.
Absolutely. A lot of people would have voted for Buchanan or Nader first, and then someone else in 2000. A fair number would have ranked the two of them 1 and 2, in whichever order.
The UK is a bit like the USA in that we only have two main parties (although the minor parties do better than in the USA). I always felt that proportional representation would enable a wider spread of views, giving me a party nearer my values. However, that's the situation in Japan, with a dozen or more parties, and there still aren't any that I much like.
Better to write in Thomas Sowell and have it counted as nothing than to leave the ballot blank and for a Democrat operative to fill in for me. Not that it matters, Trump came crawling back (some may say he was in tears, crying like a baby and begging for forgiveness) after the backlash. He's back to pretending to kind of care about us. In truth, he cares very deeply about our votes. A transactional relationship it is...
That's the most we can expect from him. We can't just roll over and go along with him betraying us on key issues and destroying Florida in the process.
There are not enough Democratic operatives with enough time to fill in the bank spots on your ballot for you. Plus, at least in my state, when your ballot is fed into the tabulating machine, it counts the number of blank votes for each line, information which is printed out on a physical tape, recorded on a thumb drive, and transmitted to the election commission via wi-fi after polls close. Thus, a large number of votes filled in later would be glaringly easy to document.
Caterwauling about massive voter fraud is initiated by petty politicians in a fit of denial that voters could possibly have rejected them, and believed by people who have no clue how elections are actually organized. I did once hear from a fervent Trump voter in Texas who also works elections, who told me she had figured out a way voter fraud could be perpetrated with all the safeguards now in place, but its none of the airy notions people have been floating the last few years, and of course she's not telling anyone what it is.
As for Trump crawling back, yes, I noticed that, but he ALSO wants the votes of pro-choice Republicans back, and he changes his focus every five minutes, so don't expect much. He's wobbling because he wants the pro-life vote and a chunk of focused pro-choice voters.
LOL. No, I'm serious and people who are serious like me got Trump to flip flop. If Trump doesn't at least pretend to be on our side we don't have to vote for him. It appears we still have some power.
". . . but do you think it is remotely possible to pass a ban on abortion in America **as it actually is** today?"
Allow me to commend to you, a writer and student of history, this more forceful statement, one that Cromwell made to the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk 374 years ago and safely in the public domain: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Perhaps a bit of context is in order. Cromwell spoke in 1650 on the eve of the Battle of Dunbar where his New Model Army decisively defeated the army of the Scottish general David Leslie. The General Assembly of the Scottish Church (Kirk) held out for Charles II as King following the execution of his father Charles I. The British Parliament, on the other hand, had created a Parliament-led Commonwealth. Now Cromwell, with an overwhelming force, intended to force the Scots to conform. It was Cromwell's (lifetime) belief he acted on behalf of God that prompted his "advice" to the Scots. To answer your question directly, then, the delegation sent to convince these two senators should be convinced of the rightness (if not the righteousness) of their cause AND have the overwhelming numbers (or "divisions" if you prefer Stalin's POV) to demonstrate God's Favor.
Susan Collins represents Maine, one of the least religious states in the country. You have no leverage over her.
Lisa Murkowski represents Alaska, but she isn't up for reelection until 2028. We had a chance to primary her in 2022, but pro lifers didn't prioritize getting rid of her.
Reciting Cromwell isn't going to get senators to become pro life when doing so is against their personal and political interests.
Look, they're both dogs, but though the one we call Donald snaps a lot and frequently makes contact, he's had his shots. The other one is rabid.
Is it prolife to vote for a candidate who may be able to tamp down overseas nastiness which could realistically lead to a use of nuclear weapons? Is it prolife to vote for a candidate who will appoint judges who will rule to protect children from sexual mutilation?
Have you read about the insane situation in Aurora, Colorado, where MS - 13 has taken over an apartment complex? Just this morning, it's being reported that in California, illegal aliens have been attempting to hijack school buses. I have to hope this second item is a hoax of a story, but if it isn't, I think it's prolife to vote for a candidate who will try to do something to stop the phenomenon.
Mr. Blaihr, I appreciate your dedication and commitment to the cause, but I believe your logic lacks consistency. If you vote someone who states during a campaign rally that they are for your single issue and you ignore their past record, past deeds or lack of deeds, then you are no better in some ways than the people who literally want to turn us wholly into the citizens of "Oceania". Or, you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, I couldn't think of a better or more trite phrase... but it is kind of apropos, no?
I can respect that, as long as you understand other Christians may make similar choices on other issues other than abortion. IF you are going to insist that everybody else needs to accept things like the USA covertly supporting nun raping Sunni militias as the price of the rights of the unborn, then we have a problem.
Oh, I think I figured it out. Would it be fair to say that you believe my logic is faulty? My take is that we look at the total picture of the candidates we are currently presented with. I am not voting for a Marxist puppet of who knows what master, over someone who is indeed flawed, doesn't exactly stand for every single solitary policy/ideology that I believe in, but is generally a much better choice overall.
In my own state, the Lt Gov is a Dem walkaway. Don't always trust them because of some of the devious things they have done in our state. I don't care for his choice of business fundamentally, but when I hear him speak at length, repeatedly, he is generally for the things which this state needs desperately and with which I agree. And his past record of fighting his previous party, the Dems, on big issues, going against the supermajority is important.
Am I out in left field in your opinion or was that what you were trying to say?
That wasn't what I was saying at that moment, but I agree with you.
What I was saying is that I wouldn't support a candidate that regards Christian communities overseas as acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of expanding American influence, which by the time we got around to Syria it was clear that both parties were okay with.
Ah. I wasn't aware of that particular situation so maybe that is why I didn't understand the reference. Thank you so much for pointing it out.
And... I can't read more than a few lines of the headlines and leading sentences. It is too disturbing at the moment. So, your comment is fully, or as fully as I am able to understand. Appreciate your patience with me Andrew.
"Christian communities overseas as acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of expanding American influence"
That's one of the things I feel most strongly about. I wish Candace Owens hadn't made herself look an idiot by toying with flat-earth theories and a monster with her borderline Holocaust denial, as I thought she was on the right track with her advocacy of "Christianity First" politics.
This is yet another unforced error on Trump's part. He didn't have to say a damned thing, but since he cannot resist whoring himself out for votes, changing one set of principles for another if the winds shift, and selling out groups who supported him once they're no longer convenient, of course he chose to blurt this out, stab pro-lifers in the back, and ineptly pander to pro-choicers as he moves to the left. So much winning...
Yes. The whole thing could have been elided. He doesn't have the skills for that. He's going to say what he's going to say in the way he's going to say it. Get used to, at least until Nov. 5, pray beyond that.
Could this be virtue signaling dressed up as a principled stand? Obviously you truly believe what you say but it seems to be mixed but certainly not with prudence.
With regards to your first point, given the specifics of your voting situation, I suppose I can see a certain logic in casting a protest vote - it is an interesting predicament caused by the exigencies of our electoral system. I have never cast a protest vote, though (being in a similar yet opposite predicament in a very red state) I have definitely sat a few presidential elections out, at least in part because I tend to think we would be better off if there were no popular component to the presidential election, as our founders originally intended (of course, this also presumes a smaller federal government of specific enumerated powers, a stronger role for the states in the federal system via their direct appointment of senators, the vice president being the runner up candidate from the general election rather than a party running mate, etc.. - in other words, me playing the game of wishing the system were other than it is).
I'm not sitting this one out, and I am voting for Trump. I don't consider myself in a position to say whether he DESERVES to lose or not (to paraphrase Gandalf, "Many that are elected deserve to lose and some that lose deserve to win. Can you give it to them [ed. and as you have admitted, you cannot]? Then do not be so eager to deal out losses in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends."
Rod is correct, the cultural predicates necessary to support a culture of life are gone, and will not return without great (pre-political) struggle. That is not to say that the pro-life movement should not seek creative ways to fight this darkness (they should). It is just that the struggle has moved beyond one where a particular moral issue has taken root and needs to be painfully removed from the body politic. Rather, the whole tree is rotten and dying, and depending too much on our righteousness with regards to a single issue is as likely to cause the whole thing to collapse (with untold death and suffering to millions of both the unborn and the born). We need what provisional allies we can gather, even recognizing that these allies are as like to stab us in the back the next moment.
You would rather have late term abortion in all states than have many states restrict it? You need to understand he is running for POTUS not king of your heart.
They both deserve to lose. But Trump's dilemma is he needs the votes of Republicans who never worried about abortion because they relies on Roe v. Wade, and he needs your votes. It appears he can't have both, and may lose both trying to appeal to both.
The question, Stan is not whether "Trump deserves to lose." It's whether pro-lifers are willing to saddle themselves with possibly 8 years of moral evil on an unimaginable scale, for the thin gruel of expressing their anger with Trump. That's a no-brainer for me.
I'm preparing to send in the Florida ballot absentee when the time comes. The text of Amendment 4 :
<<<" No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.">>>>
"Before viability" are the key words. 24 weeks is currently considered viability. That is probably what will be upheld if this passes. And as a Floridian, I think it will pass, even at 60 percent required to pass. I think it might have failed if we had a 16 week, rather than 6 week law currently in place.
Trump, in an interview said he thought 6 weeks was too short a time, since many women do not even know they are pregnant at that point, so he will vote for this amendment.
I will vote against this amendment, of course.
I think Trump would likely prefer the types of laws much of Europe has - about 15-16 weeks, but he is doing this. - -Personally, I don't see why those not wishing to be pregnant can't check every four weeks, or use two tests since there are false negatives. They know birth control can fail. But I don't support abotion at all except for the life of the mother (or because of an already doomed fetus.)
<<<I think it’s over for the pro-life movement as a meaningful political force in national politics.>>>
In that case, could there not be a movement to fight for 16 weeks, or a movement to fight those who would allow abortion after viability for any reason. It would take being willing to unite with people who want to allow early term abortion. But we need such a movement to save lives.
The Florida amendment would restore Roe, basically, because it provides a "health of the mother" loophole, which, given psychological health, is a massive loophole, same as under Roe.
Roe was at its start fairly restrictive. IMO, I'd rather the state control this issue than the Federal Gov as we can possible expand restriction to abortion in a few more states than reversing a federal policy/law if Harris were to win. I think Trump has figured out he needs to win an election for POTUS not for the local K of C chapter. I say that with all due respect for the K of C....and myself would vote against the FL amendment if possible.
I think you are right that a 16 week law might have been sufficiently acceptable to enough voters to avoid a constitutional amendment. I also think a better amendment would have drawn the line at 20 weeks. But this is what happens when everyone has their eyes on a political football, rather than arriving at a sober compromise, not because morality doesn't count, but because an enforceable law requires a substantial body of public support.
Ooh, juicy topics today. I will write more on my own substack, but just quickly, a few things jumped out at me straight away.
First off, the obsession with abortion, being anti-family and opposing strong, potent men, reminded me of the obsession the Western, Occult, Feminist Left has with the Jewish Mythological figure of Lilith, supposedly Adam's first wife, but in truth an amalgamation of the various Mesopotamian and Levantine malevolent female spirits that were much feared by people in the region, including by the Jews. The two main types were the Lilitu and the Ardat-Lili, who can be summarized as follows:
"The Lilitu and Ardat-Lili are figures from Mesopotamian mythology, associated with demonology and supernatural elements. Both are considered to be female spirits or demons, but they have different characteristics and roles within the mythology.
Lilitu
Origin: The Lilitu originate from ancient Sumerian and Akkadian mythology and later influenced Hebrew demonology, where they are linked to the figure of Lilith.
Description: Lilitu are typically depicted as storm demons or wind spirits, often associated with the night. They are portrayed as beautiful but dangerous and malevolent figures, roaming the wilderness and desolate places.
Behaviour: Lilitu were believed to seduce men, cause harm to children, and bring disease and misfortune. In some traditions, they are depicted as a succubus-like figure, preying on men while they sleep.
Role: They represents untamed feminine power and sexuality, often linked with infertility, sexual desire, and the dangers associated with uncontrolled or harmful sexual energy.
Ardat-Lili
Origin: The Ardat-Lili is another demon from Akkadian mythology, closely associated with the Lilitu but with a more specific role.
Description: Ardat-Lili is often considered a ghostly or vampiric entity, associated with young women who died before marriage or childbirth. Her name can be translated as "maiden of the night" or "maiden ghost."
Behavior: Unlike the more general Lilitu, Ardat-Lili was believed to haunt and seduce young men, often causing them to become ill or leading to their untimely death. She represents the restless spirit of an unmarried woman, particularly one who died young or childless.
Role: Ardat-Lili embodies the tragic aspects of femininity—unfulfilled potential, lost youth, and the sorrow of unachieved womanhood. She is a more specific manifestation of the broader Lilitu concept, focusing on the restless, wandering spirit of a deceased young woman.
Key Differences:
Lilitu is a broader, more encompassing figure often associated with various forms of harmful feminine energy, particularly related to sexuality, seduction, and disease. She operates in a general sense as a nocturnal demon.
Ardat-Lili, on the other hand, has a more specific identity tied to the spirits of young, unmarried women who died prematurely. She is often seen as a ghostly figure who preys on young men, representing unfulfilled womanhood.
In summary, while both are dangerous female spirits in Mesopotamian mythology, Lilitu has a broader scope as a nocturnal demon of the wilderness, and Ardat-Lili is more specifically associated with the tragic spirits of young women who died before marriage.
---------------------------------
If you read that, don't you recognise the whole anti-life, anti-male culture of the West as it currently stands?
Feminists have taken up Lilith as an icon of their movement and have even promoted her to a Goddess, which she never was in the original mythology. Isn't this the best symbol for what the anti-life movement wants today? The death of babies, infertility in women, the impotence of men?
Honestly, I disagree with the premise, which equates pagan gods with demons. There is a huge difference and they shouldn’t be equated to each other. Ancient Mesopotamians were just as aware of demons and performed exorcisms regularly, but of malevolent spirits and not of gods. The Lilitu were always considered demons, they were not deities.
From a strictly Judeo-Christian cosmology, the old gods never existed. Their gods are clay and metal, the work of men's hands. Our God is in the heavens, he has done what he pleased.
In general, I agree that there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian." And a Talmudic scholar I once accidentally connected with via email emphatically said the same. But, when dealing with demons and pagan gods, we are dealing with questions right on the boundaries of where Christianity grew out of Judaism, and then became distinctly non-Jewish. The notion that the ancient Greek gods correspond to demons from then-ancient times is all in the mix.
I think both (1) and (3) have much to recommend them. The first, objective, and the third, understanding people developing such gods at all. Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart" presents two very different Anglican missionaries. The first had long conversations with a village elder, who said true, that is a carving of wood, not a real god, and acknowledged that his people knew there was one God, who they called Chukwu, a word still in use among Christian Igbo today, since there is no other word for one supreme God in their language. (Similarly, al-Lah is Arabic for The God.) But, they did have a tradition of such an expansive God needing messengers to help him keep on top of everything, and there the two had less common ground. I've mentioned this before, but my Talmudic friend said Gautama and his associates worked out a great deal correctly, its too bad they never considered a creative deity.
I'd say that the OT tends to alternate between positions 1 and 2, whereas St. Paul leans towards position 3. However, this might just be that the Greek religion was more humane and decent than the Canaanite one.
I don't find anything of (2) in the Old Testament, which is probably a good deal of what shapes my view on the whole discussion. The Old Testament does refer to "the gods of other nations," but when there is anything more about them, it is a gold statue, the works of men's hands, etc. What Elijah proved to the priests of Ba-al was not "Our God is stronger than your God," but, "Why doesn't your god answer when you call on him? Is he even there? Maybe he is asleep?" There is also "Let no man worship any god but you oh, king," which is another kind of idolatry, but again, not positing demons.
He is a deeply flawed person who doesn't hate us. And she is a person who not only hates us but wishes to control us. So, as always, we are having to choose between the "lesser of two evils" is what I hear you saying. Not that you are calling Trump "evil"... it's just a saying.
You may be right. But if I recall, he never was a pro-lifer. Unless I've missed some major article.
You can make a law, you can change a law... but that doesn't change a culture, it doesn't convince people of the values associated with the new or changed law. That takes time. And it takes faith.
I personally think they should manage their own reproduction the way they see fit... and their fate will be that of the Shakers. They had 18 communities at their height in the 19th century, now they are only 1. We Christians need to continue to adopt and foster to keep the children in an environment that is conducive to raising a moral generation.
I'm so sorry, I could not watch Ms. Harris. They moment nonsense came out of her mouth, I had to turn away.
I have to go back and watch RFK Jr. on Tucker this past week because RFK Jr. talks about how to communicate with Democrats. In a way no one else has ever mentioned. I figure he's got an inside scoop. Notice he specifies Dems and not Prog/Woke/Left/Marxist's. Dems. We need to be talking to Dems... at least in my home state which is decidedly blue. The old school Dems. Without them we can't defeat the Prog/Woke/Left/Marxist's who parade under the cloak of old school Dems and brainwash them.
I know my parish priest, a truly Godly man, says his congregation has increased in the last 2 years. It could be a function of the end of "lockdown" mindset or it could be that people crave fellowship. We still haven't resumed the sign of the Peace, and this makes me so very sad... and if I am honest, a tiny bit angry. No matter how you frame it... the fact that you don't want to shake my hand in church, in a holy place, says way more that you think. It tells me, you fundamentally don't like other people, you only tolerate them. I say, stay home, watch on the livestream and get your communion in the drive through. But that is my opinion.
No, that's the way it is if you edit a long comment. If instead of looking at it immediately you refresh the page you will see that the whole thing is there.
I think moderate democrats who would listen to RFK Jr's interview with Tucker might start to have a change of heart. Not sure they can be pried away from CNN and MSNBC though.
They did, but I think this was mostly to float the most obvious objections to each, so that they can now say "I've already answered that, let's move on".
Never mind the non-answers. The important thing is that Harris-Walz has thrown off the "Why haven't they spoken to the media in 40+ days and counting?" criticism. It seemed all rather rehearsed to me, as though they had the questions in advance.
OK, gotcha, not surprised. They are master manipulators, aren't they? (I mean the media-Democrat complex, not just CNN) Look at how they used Trump to get rid of Biden because they couldn't reverse their "Nothin wrong with Joe" narrative from the inside.
Re your parish: I've seen a real uptick in young people at Mass - including weekday Masses. I remember twenty years ago: our weekday Mass was in a small chapel that seated about 15-20. Now we have 40+ at the daytime Mass, and probably 80 at the 6pm Mass with Adoration. We are a university town, and have a significant number of college students at the evening Mass. I'm also seeing plenty of mothers with their little children. Re the sign of peace: I honestly never liked the handshake. It was a loud moment in the middle of Mass. Now I see people nod or give a wave, and it is done, and the Mass goes on.
I'm Protestant. My denomination has the sign of peace, as well, and I've never liked it. Communion is about Jesus Christ, and yes, I understand that The Body of Christ which is the Church is inseparable from The Body of Christ which we are about to eat, still, I wish we would cease to do it.
I sit next to the same couple every Sunday. The husband is an Elder, so as the communion part of the service begins, he will have gone forward to assist. While shaking his wife's hand I've said, "Peace to you, Sally, though I had nothing against you anyway."
My wife and I got to know Anne Mansfield (Sen. Mansfield's daughter) in London years ago. Used to meet after Mass at the Oratory to go to lunch. One Sunday, Anne was a bit late, and apologized, saying that she had been next to an American woman who asked what happened to the kiss of peace. "We don't do the kiss of peace at the Oratory." "Well! Jesus would have done the kiss of peace!" "I could have wrung her neck," said Anne.
Ms. Bowman, you would not be alone in your thinking. As a matter of fact, almost all online chat formats say the same thing. Clearly, I am in a minority.
That being said, I think it is a fundamental part of Christ's ministry (maybe not the correct phrasing as I am in no way a scholar or well educated on Catholic doctrine) and our duty to each other. Do we not recite the Penitential Act where we ask our brothers and sisters to forgive us at the opening of mass? Then wouldn't the sign of Peace be that forgiveness? That is the way I always understood this part of the mass from when I was confirmed almost 50 years ago. I could very well be wrong. I usually am.
I don't know where you are located, nor did I attend mass when I lived out west. Westerners are a much more exuberant and open people. New Englanders are more reserved. So, in the past and the few people close to where I was sitting, who by the way were older than I, made quiet polite handshakes and it took less than 30 seconds to accomplish and then mass moved on in my mind, seamlessly. I am deeply intrigued by this and will be asking our priest shortly. Because the Bishop of the Diocese has no intention of resuming that part of mass. Which again, makes me so sad. I come to church, because I find the sanctuary beautiful, inspiring and spiritual. I find the ritual of mass and praying together fortifying. I could pray and did for many unsuccessful years alone and at home. I chose church because I chose people. To be rebuffed is spiritually disheartening. Although I completely understand the many objections. I just don't see how it matches with Christ's ministry.
Just my humble opinion. I do hope I have not offended.
From a new Catholic, I’m understanding that many don’t like it because it’s not traditional. I liked it at first and now I don’t because it does feel distracting. I understand the point you are making, though. To me, we’ve already greeted and acknowledged each other and I don’t currently feel a need to awkwardly wave at the same people again. Just me.
Appreciate your point of view. I'm not sure what your time frame would be regarding the "traditional". We did this in the late 60's up till 1980 (60 years ago) when I last went to mass. And some of the older folks looked so pleased to be able to shake hands. So many people miss touching each other. I know when I lived out west, as a transplanted New Englander, I was taken aback by the hugging and kissing. I got used it in a big way. People who know me now, have come to accept me and that I will be hugging you. Unless of course you tell me no.
So, you aren't the first to say it's distracting. I'm awaiting what our parish priest says. In my mind then, what's missing is the education around it if indeed it is part of the mass. And I believe it is. Historically or traditionally, instead of a handshake it was a kiss. How about that??? Can you just imagine that now? Oh my. That would be a shocker.
If feels silly and awkward to wave, to me. I'm literally standing 3 feet in front or behind you... but I don't wish to make people uncomfortable. I'm really, really tempted to shake my mother's hand and then proceed to look straight ahead and not look at anyone else. But that is just me being mean and with a bruised ego. So I smile and do the pope wave like everyone else. But my soul hurts a little bit each time.
I think, in my flawed and humble opinion, when the author says: "Its weakness lies in undermining the connection between the peace exchanged among the people with the peace that comes from Christ, really present on the altar." I think it strengthens the peace we all share in Christ. Or should. It says we are of the same body, His body. And that we are forgiven and that we forgive.
Instead, the immediate cessation of the sign of Peace with the "Covid pandemic" just further alienated people and made them more afraid of each other. We still have folks walking around with masks. Which are of no infection control use in any way shape or form (I'm an RN). If you are wearing a mask because you or your family is immunocompromised, you shouldn't be out in public unless absolutely necessary. Not a criticism but a piece of medical advice.
I think we need better leadership and counsel on this from our clergy and from the Catholic church. Just my simple opinion.
Fair point from a fellow hugger and cheek kisser. Currently, I just prefer it before and after, not during. Then again, I’m working on practicing stillness and quiet which is impossible in the Novus Ordo.
I don’t want to debate the Mass, I’m just personally being called to more stillness and quiet. The last month, I’ve bowed my head at the beginning and been remembering my ballet training of how to stay still in a particular posture. I don’t respond except for the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. I’m trying to follow the actual line of the prayers and really internalize them. The hustle and bustle of Novus Ordo makes it hard.
I also veil which as a middle age woman earns me a fair share of dirty looks from the Boomer women, though, a few have more openly supported me.
I understand where you are coming from, I think. I'm still trying to remember the parts of mass and when and what to say. Many came back to me immediately and some had changed. I have the missal in front of me and the readings marked.
I can't debate the mass, I literally am illiterate in that regard. I was only sharing my concept of what we are doing. And am expecting to be told by my priest that my idea is sweet but not what really is going on. Or something along those lines.
Thank you for saying you veil. I finally received the one I ordered months ago. A handmade lace cowl one and I am quite afraid to wear it. There are only 4 maybe 5 women who wear it. I don't want anyone to think I am just affecting a look, or that I am somehow better in any way. It was just what my mother and grandmother did when I was very young and I feel pulled to it. In a really profoundly strong way.
You be strong Ms Laura, in your veil wearing. It's just the unknown that folks are pushing against. No one likes change. And to some it's a return to pre feminist "improvements" and feels threatening. At least I think so. And those words are as much for me as they are for you. Thank you for the great discussion today. God bless.
I'm mystified by Rod's declaring her "likeable," or did I hallucinate that? Now, Estee Palti, the national treasure of a Harris impressionist, is likeable, but Harris?
Fantasy: Estee Palti in character as Harris debating Harris.
"Likeable" doesn't mean that **I** like her. I don't! She grates! But I have a feeling that she is appealing to other kinds of people. Look, Bill Clinton was not my favorite politician, but he came across as likeable. His wife did not.
To say Rod, that Trump is single handedly destroying the pro life movement is a little ridiculous. You know that there are so many factors at play as you mentioned in your column. With it being put back to states we have less abortions than we would if it was still Roe. I don’t like the culture of death just as much as you, but I have to balance that with the idea that I totally agree it should be left to the states and not a national ban. I will always pray for life, but those that have abortions and seek to make it legal…that’s on them with God. I am not one of those single issues voters. We got what we wanted with overturning Roe and it seems like now nobody was prepared for what the states would actually want.
I say Trump is destroying it **as a political force**. He is doing this by recognizing the appalling reality of life in America today: we are a functionally pro-abortion nation. Since Reagan, no Republican who wanted the presidency could afford to be pro-choice. Now they most likely can. I hate it too, but that's political reality.
What does it mean to be pro life or pro choice in the Dobbs era?
A smarter cohort of pro life leaders would have defined pro life broadly to grow their numbers and consolidate our gains. They could have emphasized moderate Republican opposition to national abortion legalization. They instead fixate on Trump's opposition to national abortion bans which never had a chance of passing this decade due to the 60 vote Senate filibuster.
In other words, Trump has been an apocalypse (as in, an unveiling), allowing us to see what we truly are as a nation. Perhaps that is his roll, not (as MAGA followers believe) as the salvation of the body politic, but as the herald of coming judgment and destruction. I find myself pondering the books of Kings in the Old Testament, where it recounts that the people of Israel (many, never all) would begin to worship the gods of the peoples surrounding them, including those gods that demanded of them child sacrifices. God punished them with a series of evil kings, and eventually slavery in a strange land. I suspect that we might be in a similar predicament.
People always sacrifice their children to whatever god they serve.
Americans have been sacrificing their children, literally through abortion, and figuratively through their selfish, materialistic choices, to their false gods, for much longer than nationalized abortion has been around.
It's horrible, but it's a liberating factor in some ways, because it means one can vote on other issues.
One difference between the UK and USA is that in the UK hostility to abortion, as a minority position, overwhelmingly Catholic, cuts across the political spectrum. There are Catholic Worker types on the left of the Labour Party who are pro-life, and SPUC's current campaign is against the two-child benefit cap, i.e. a leftist position. On the other hand, Thatcher was pro-abortion, and some of the right-wing of the Conservatives have been rabidly so, in their eugenic drive to stop the working class breeding.
Despite this, I will still vote for Trump, because the alternative (not so much Harris/Walz, but the Democratic party, whose platform is written in a combination of blood and semen) is so much worse.
What this WILL do, however, is make me considerably less disappointed if Trump loses. In either case we will be getting what we deserve. Barring some miracle, we're toast. But such a miracle would require repentance, and that's something we don't have.
(I should hasten to add that my hatred for the Democratic party in no way implies an endorsement of Team R. I despise them almost equally, for different reasons. Their one positive is that they at least have an actual respect for the Constitution, however minimized it's become. The Dems would pull the plug on it tomorrow if they could.)
You’ve stated my position as well. I think there’s no good choice, but the appointment of judges means the choice is obvious. I think many conservatives are not assessing where we’re really at in this new century.
I was a teen when Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but can still remember reports about one Harry Truman, an old man who lived on the mountain and refused to evacuate in the weeks before the blast.
“I’ve been here fifty years, and I know this country,” he told reporters. “The mountain isn’t going to hurt me.”
Truman, rest his soul, made the mistake of equating geologic time with the span of his personal life lived on the side of the mountain.
I believe millions of older Americans, and many Europeans too, are making a similar mistake, this time equating long historical time, with its rises and falls, with their own lived experience since the 1970s.
“I know this country,” they say. But in fact they don’t. Or rather: Their knowledge leads them to downplay evidence of radical changes in the body politic in the same way Truman’s years on the mountain blinded him to the meaning of the tremors that shook his cabin in the weeks before the end.
Having scoffed off all the signs of impending disaster, Truman was buried under an avalanche of ash. Many of us are similarly scoffing, supposing that our constitutional republic is a permanent reality.
We’re going to wake up one day and realize that our once free America is functionally gone, overlaid by a totalitarian social credit system that assesses our children’s every statement for thought crime and awards or punishes accordingly. We should already be aware that wide swaths of our young adult citizenry no longer even comprehend why this emerging social-credit regime is deeply un-American. Many naively support it, because they’ve known nothing else and have been taught that this is what progress looks like—that free speech is somehow a “right-wing” thing.
Many support it, and they vote, and the administration they vote into office will appoint judges. In my view, judges are the last bulwark holding back what could well prove a “progressive” avalanche of ash that buries our liberty.
The next administration will either appoint judges that hew to the constitution on speech and religious liberty issues, or judges that rubber stamp the expansion of the censorship regime.
As Rod says, if already we don’t like the status quo in terms of its systemic bias against conservatives, we need to remember: It could get much worse.
Agreed. Had the Dobbs ruling come in 2003 or even 2013 the current backlash in Red states would not likely have happened. It now seems that the Supreme Court publishing of Dobbs was like the Western Union biker showing up at Pearl Harbor on the morning of 12/7/1941 with the message to go on alert: a truth told too late.
Re: Had the Dobbs ruling come in 2003 or even 2013 the current backlash in Red states would not likely have happened. I
I think you are very wrong about this. Polling on abortion has fluctuated a bit but overall it has changed much in my adult life. Even back in the 80s it was the case that most people would support restrictions, but they wanted a big enough loophole so they or their family members could squeeze through.
When polled in past years abortions up to birth (i.e., third trimester) were not supported by a large majority of people, so I don't think I am wrong on this. I think it is highly likely that Dobbs forced people who had said they supported third trimester bans to really examine their stated views, and it would seem that a large number did an 'about face.' Dobbs was a definite catalyst. Also, polled cohorts do shift from decade to decade: a non-trivial number of people polled in 2003 are no longer with us - that alone supports my view.
Thomas, I think you are too pessimistic. The voters approving these super-liberal abortion laws are not necessarily voting FOR late term abortions but rather AGAINST restrictions on early abortions that were rushed into law by hasty legislatures, or sometimes revived from stasis by the overruling of Roe. These referenda do not offer multiple possibilities after all. Never underestimate the ill-informed state of the low information voter. Many are probably unaware of how liberal these laws are.
And again, choosing an evil, even under necessity (which is not the case in this election as more choices are available) is NEVER moral. Evil remains evils.
Yup, Trump's use of the code phrase "reproductive rights" last week gave the game away...though anyone paying attention was already well aware what direction the wind was blowing in his mind.
All six of my kids and their families are hard-core pro-life. My wife prayed in front of an abortion clinic every Saturday morning for years. All my four daughters were activists...two of them once arrested (later won a lawsuit against the police; long story).
Regardless, here's the text of an e-mail I shared with everyone last month, pretty much tracking the points made by Rod today:
>>I remarked recently that I've changed my views on the politics (as opposed to morality) of abortion. There was a time when it was controlling as regards my vote. No longer. The overriding priority now in my mind is to defeat the singular evil of the Dem-Media Party.
I'm painfully aware it may be too late to save this country. But we have to try. Too many uncounted millions of people sacrificed too much over the course of 250 years to create and preserve a dream called America for us to accept chucking it all overboard in favor of the Regime's Frankenstein mutation of Brave New Amerika. If there's any hope left at all, it resides in significant part in defeating the Regime's ruling party. This is the most influential factor in my thinking on abortion...Trump...everything.
The bitter reality is that we no longer live in a pro-life country...and neither legislative or judicial action have the power to make it one. That would require a wholesale conversion of heart that is not in the cards. Meanwhile, the enemies of God are demagoguing the literal Hell out of the issue to advance their corrupt agenda and tighten their grip on power. The whole thing sucks, but we have to deal with reality as it is rather than as we wish it would be.<<
350 years, we should count the colonial defense of freedom too.
I know of a women's prayer group where a couple of leaders maintain that providence will be evident in a Harris win which will then prove catastrophic. We will get what we deserve.
I was praying one of the psalms this morning, and it hit me hard that when Israel abandoned the way of the Lord, disaster befell it. So shall it be with America. We can't say we weren't warned.
Whether it be 250 or 350 years, the United States has already had a longer run that the united kingdom of Israel from the Old Testament. We like to think of ourselves as the heirs of Rome, the eternal city, but I suspect that we aren't going to last that long as a cohesive nation (to the extent that we are even a nation--I tend towards us U.S. being more akin to a (largely) inland empire). In any event, just as we faced a reckoning for the sin of racialized slavery plaguing our early republic, we are bound to face punishment for these sins of child sacrifice, sexual abomination, and idolatry of our latter days. We shall see if we can survive the cure of such punishment as a cohesive people.
Recently, one of the Fathers at my church preached in his homily the same thing, no political solution or this that and the other activists actions can save us only : Repent and Prayer.🙏
No one is forcing American women to have abortions. What we are seeing now is the complete rejection of motherhood, and laws cannot help that. The only person who can protect the life of a human being when it exists as a fertilized ovum inside a woman's body is the woman herself.
I’ve read this is true. My previous comment should have been more precise, but I could write an essay. Abortion is a rejection of motherhood, even by women who are already mothers. Our culture demeans mothers in subtle ways, and stay at home mothers themselves especially feel this rejection and lowering of status. Abortion further demeans it.
True, although the father can and should exert whatever verbal influence he can muster to protect the baby from a mother who's decided to terminate their pregnancy.
Verbal influence? See, this too is a pretty new notion. A human being in danger of being aborted has a father as well as a mother. Yes, sometimes the father is a man uninterested in being a father to the child, for reasons ranging from the most malign to the most powerless ignorance. I know some men who wanted to be fathers and weren’t allowed to be, whose verbal influence did not carry the day. This is another evil.
I know people who have prayed outside abortion clinics, and they tell me that women being literally dragged in by their men is not uncommon. Pro-choice indeed, but for whom?
Well, I volunteered in a pro-life clinic that did counseling and pregnancy testing. It was next door to the abortion clinic in our city. A woman came in with her 15-year-old pregnant daughter. When she realized where she was, she literally snarled, "I'm not taking care of this kid," and dragged the daughter out almost by the hair. I have never forgotten the woman's evil expression, or her daughter, who seemed completely cowed. As the mother continued down the street with the poor girl, the director of the pro-life group gathered us together to pray. She closed her eyes and began praying that Satan would strike the mother dead before she could have her grandchild aborted. I became alarmed as the prayer continued. The woman, her eyes still closed, said, "I sense a spirit of dissension in the room." I raised my hand and said, "That would be me." I told her I didn't feel comfortable praying, essentially, to Satan to kill somebody. I was asked to leave the pro-life ministry after this incident. I was one of only two Catholics in the ministry. I think they were conservative Presbyterians.
Wow, I don't think I have ever heard such a warped prayer, especially by someone calling themselves a Christian. Multiple tragedies played out that day.
Indeed. I sometimes wonder about that poor girl and her mother. It was 35 years ago. However, I walked out of the clinic that day holding a little plastic human fetus that we had tried to give them. My 6-year-old son loved it after I told him that was what he looked like in my tummy and he carried it around and played with it, then dropped it under the china cabinet in the kitchen. It was lying there when my 17-year-old daughter told me a few months later that she was pregnant. She and my mother were both weeping and looking at me for an answer. I was looking at that little plastic fetus when I asked her, "Do you want to keep this baby?" And all the crying stopped. I had started volunteering for Catholic Charities at that time and they let me go when they found out my daughter was pregnant and she was keeping the baby. I never worked in pro-life again but I think I've walked the walk. My grandson is a teacher now and has two full siblings. His parents married when he was a toddler and are still married. My daughter never missed a day of college.
So, what's the next, big contentious issue on the horizon now that the left has won on abortion and "gay" and "trans" rights? Free speech. We will lose on that one, too, regardless of the First Amendment. Count on it. The culture has shifted. The same folks who support abortion and the LGBT agenda are the same people who can't tolerate opposition, so they absolutely will support politicians and policies that destroy the right to free speech. Get ready. Muzzles are coming.
I always thought it was strange after Roe was overturned that so many misconstrued the meaning of that change.All it meant was abortion was no longer considered a constitutional right. Logically that left it to the states to sort it out. Yet any number people on both sides talk as if abortion had been banned. Hence, to some degree its emergence as an issue in this election. From a political standpoint this amounts to an insistence that federal abortion standards be reinstated. Pro lifers have no chance of success in this area. The public supports abortion and is increasingly drifting to a position of unrestricted abortion on demand . You can’t say this will never change. But not in my lifetime.On the other hand, in the foreseeable future, chances are something along the lines of Roe on a national level will probably come back. A Harris administration will push for this. A Trump administration would probably do nothing. I think these are the facts of life.If you derive satisfaction from the thought of punishing Trump for failing to back your position, well you do. You’re not accomplishing anything but it makes you feel better about things. Look , only so much happens in politics and most of it isn’t good.
"Yet any number people on both sides talk as if abortion had been banned."
The anti-abortion side was in a small way correct about this, Dobbs ALLOWED for some state bans. As for the pro-abortion side, this was a typical example of how they have lied from the beginning: in the case of both Roe and Griswold material and factual misrepresentations were made in their briefs.
The Democrats will never allow Roe on a national level, or if they do, it will have to be in a way that it will be easy to overturn. Why? Because it is a monumental moneymaker and vote-getter for them. The right to abortion has to be constantly in peril so that the Democrats can rally their base. They could easily have passed Roe on the national level in the first 2 years of the Obama administration when the Republicans were powerless, but they would never have dreamed of doing such a thing. I know more than a few woman who vote D solely on the abortion issue.
Abortion rights as a political moneymaker and vote-getter is important for the Democrats. Losing that issue would hurt the Democrats as much as the demise of the USSR hurt the Republicans.
"They could easily have passed Roe on the national level in the first 2 years of the Obama administration when the Republicans were powerless, but they would never have dreamed of doing such a thing."
Wouldn't it require a Constitutional Amendment? After all, that's what Roe avoided.
Get your point but from Biden on down they’ve committed to federal abortion rights. Since I think almost all states will wind up with liberal abortion laws , it’s probably close to being moot.But it’s gestural politics of an important kind and it’s an embodiment of what is an important ideological fixation. So I think if they take both houses of congress and win the white house- which is likely- they’ll go for it.
I thought the reference to Tolkien speaking of "the long defeat" was very good Rod. I did not know he had said that. I followed your link, and found this - realistic and yet encouraging. Thanks!
<<<"Actually I am a Christian,” Tolkien wrote of himself, “and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’— though it contains (and in legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory” (Letters 255).">>>
Our dear poster Jon often derisively asks what is woke. Woke is Rod Dreher's last post today on the Socialist government in Spain endorsing anti-Christian and perverted "art."
Let me add this on the pro-life issue: I have been pro-life my entire adult life. However, in light of our cultural realities you describe, Rod, I am now firmly pro-choice. I fully support the right of Leftists to kill their babies. If they want to destroy the next generation of Leftists in the womb, be my guest. If a generation from now there are fewer Leftists to oppose then great! Perhaps if pro-lifers over-produce and thus overcome the Left demographically, then that's a good thing. And if not, it's still a sensible approach. As the old adage in politics goes, if you see your opponent digging a hole for himself don't stop him. Same on the life issue. If God abandons people to their depravity (see Romans 1) I'm happy to do the same. I have no obligation to stop them from destroying their lives. As for me and my house and millions of others, we will chose life for ourselves. Others can choose death and live, and die, by the consequences.
I wonder if it is true that conservatives give birth to conservatives and liberals give birth to liberals. I don't think it is true, but I would love to see empirical data on that. I definitely know a lot of conservatives who came from liberal families, and vice versa.
Children more often than not vote as their parents do, especially if they have good relationships with their parents. My wife, however, is an oddity in her family, a Republican.
When those aborted babies are more likely to be among your friends and family that is harder to take. People bring sin upon themselves it is on them but it is still sad.
Conservatives need to fight harder against perversion in schools, because there are far too many conservatives who still use public schools. Conservatives go to all the trouble to raise children and liberals try to steal them away.
I have even wondered if an end to compulsory schooling will end up being the right political move for defending children from perversion. I'm educated and I believe in Christian education, but I keep coming back to that point.
The arts have been captured for a long time. As Rod's colleague R.V. Young has noted:
"If there is no human nature, then there is nothing that works of art can reveal to us. Works of art can only be mere ideological products of their time and place and will be valued or disparaged insofar as they promote or hinder someone's political projects"
There's a group of Catholic artists in Chicago whose ringleader describes them as 'double misfits' because first they're artists and second they're Catholic artists trying to restore the sacred to visual arts and thus rejected by other creatives.
The second paragraph hits something important. I don’t know that the issue here is human nature ( I have to think about that). However, contemporary aesthetics clearly run in the direction of politics over all. Art is good to the degree that it reflects what is politically correct.All art is agit prop. Which goes a long way way towards explaining why a great deal of mediocre work gets praised to the sky and why you find book reviews in The NYT which start talking about race and gender even when the book isn’t concerned with those issues. (Of course all books should be!).
Yes, America is a pro-choice nation with a culture dominated by the left. But there are ways to save the unborn. Crisis pregnancy centers. Ultrasounds. Organizations that provide homes for women who have children out of wedlock. Politics are not a solution. Our democracy has an immoral majority.
One must look at the positive in our current situation regarding the barbaric practice of abortion. Fewer "doctors" and "nurses" are willing to do such grisly work. The average age of an abortion "doctor" is about 63 years of age the last time I looked. Many abortion "clinics" have closed to lack of workers. Only the neurotic would want to work in a profession where the innocent are killed. Many owners of buildings refuse to rent to abortuaries because few businesses wish to operate sharing an office building with an abortuary.
All the aborted unborn are deserving of life yet it is interesting that, by my guess, 80 % of the victims would have grown up to be Democrats. Democrats are killing their own children in exchange for the Democratic gospel of absolute sexual freedom. True, it is sad that any baby is snuffed out like a cold sore or a benign tumor but it is bittersweet that abortion eliminates millions of our political enemies.
Yes, that's why in "The Benedict Option" I wrote of "antipolitical politics" as an option for us. The concept came from the Czech anticommunist resistance. Vaclav Benda, for example, realized that one reason the Communist held such power was that the people had become totally isolated and demoralized. He conceived of doing simple things like getting neighbors together for picnics as a form of politics. Why? Because anything that reversed the fear and isolation imposed by the dictatorship was, in some sense, about building a healthy politics. This is still open to us, even if we lose in formal politics.
Good point. I attend the Latin Mass because I believe in it. But I also enjoy attending the Latin Mass because there are so many people who attend who see the world as I do and my wife does. We are not alone. We are not isolated. Good people do exist. Many of them.
1 Kings 19: 18: “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.”
When Leah Libresco wrote her book about the practical applications of the BenOp I had Catholic friends laugh at suggestions like this that she made. I found it very irksome.
I wish that Catholics like that could spend a year living in Europe -- anywhere in Europe, even in Hungary -- so they can come to grips with what a truly post-Christian culture is like.
And yet these are often the same people who moan about the staleness of American parish life! One friend claimed that Leah was simply taking normal things that parishes should be doing anyways and dubbing them "the Benedict Option." I told him that was correct in a certain sense, but the reason was that many parishes had ceased doing them. What was once common and natural now needed doing with a stronger intention, which if the BenOp could help provide it, why complain?
Good ideas. One more to add: We need much more support for families with children with serious disabilities, and for people with serious disabilities. I can't imagine having a child who needs intensive round the clock care, and being pregnant with another, and then trying to attend to the needs of another child. It isn't humanly possible to provide decently for multiple children, both economically and emotionally/feeding/cleaning/being on top of homework, etc., while waking up every two hours to provide breathing treatments to the sick child for years on end. Or dealing with a child who rages violently on a regular basis. It is really hard, and all these pro-life people talking about young women who don't want to be mothers . . . really misses the point.
Yes!!! I knew a married couple with multiple kids, including two children (now thirtysomethings) with disabilities, one very moderate and another severe. They were Godly people who did right by their children, but it severely strains marriages and sometimes women (and men) put health on the back burner. If local agencies yank respite care or ration it based on intersectional criteria in a woke blue city, it can be devastating.
The truth is neighbors and church people DO NOT want seriously disabled kids (into adulthood) disturbing worship, are allergic to helping, not that they should be expected to, but attitudes are poor. Luckily there are gov't resources and good ministries, but pro-lifers should not neglect this forgotten aspect.
We need to do a lot more to support people and families, period. Especially as Christians. Even among people who still regularly go to church, there's a lot of them who seem to feel that their "Christian obligation" is fulfilled by showing up to church on Sundays, and ceases for the rest of the week.
The pregnancy with my fifth was miserable. I was sick for months, and then I got to the point where I could hardly walk because she was positioned badly. Not a single person ever asked if they could help with anything. She was born, and not only did nobody ever ask if I could use help - oh, but Covid! you say - nobody offered to bring over a meal, sent a gift card, or even called with congratulations. I don't hold it against anyone, but it hurt. In the process of this divorce, there's been one lady who has watched the youngest a couple of times for court dates, and there's another friend who has come up *from Chicago* to sit with me and work on cleaning my house and one who has written a letter on my behalf, but it just seems like there are very few who are willing to reach out. Again, one consideration is that when congregations are older, they're less able to do the "help" work, but everybody seems to be so caught up in busy-ness and ends up so lonely anyway. If anything, if the Christian church wants to make an impact, building that community within the Church is going to be essential.
That is so sad. I didn't realize that your divorce was ongoing. I hope it settles soon with the best outcome for you and your children, and ultimately, your ex. If you don't mind my asking, where are you and how old is your youngest? I wish I could help. What you need are empty-nesters who miss playing with children.
I've been through a terrifying divorce, and might have advice, or words of comfort. If Rod can give you my email address, I would love to connect with you apart from this comment section, if you would like. No pressure.
Dear Katja: I send Christian love and prayers to you. I wish I was there to do more.
Somehow God has me in a place where I help a family with five children - Chabad, many know that story that I've posted about- but I have very often thought of you as I do it. It is an odd parallel that I know you, but can't physically be there, but can do some things that I wish I could do in the Christian community and specifically for you. And you know that even though I'm not physically there, we can talk!
I hope I didn't come off with the post sounding like "Poor me, poor me", but that whole idea of community is really strong in my soul right now, and I think we all feel what the lack of it feels like these days. May God bless your work with the family there, and let's talk again soon! :)
Not al all like "poor me", no worries. It helps people to be reminded that there are needs around them. Church can be such a hard thing, after the service, when there is no community. Soon!
For pulling this, Trump deserves to lose. 'Single-issue voter' is a slur I wear proudly. I'm a conservative on 95% of things, but if Bernie Sanders was the pro-life candidate, and [Generic Conservative] was pro-choice, I'd vote Sanders. I don't understand how any pro-lifer could disagree. The idea that any issue or semblance of issues on today's scene outranks the murder of >1 million children per year is insane. If Trump succeeds in burying the pro-life cause, he won't do so with my help.
"If Trump loses, and his loss can be traced to pro-lifers staying home, we be as good as dead as the rest of the Right scapegoats us for our role in allowing the radical-woke Left to triumph."
I'm skeptical of this claim. If Republican Inc. thinks that it needs us to win the next election, then they'll overcome their grievances.
"Trump deserves to lose" - Meaning we should get an administration that wants no restrictions, rather than an administration that wants the issue left to the states? Those are the choices. Please don't help outright evil win the presidency. Nothing you can do or not do with your vote will contribute to the national outlawing of abortion.
You are right, Linda. Trump is a disappointment yet he is a product of our degenerate culture. Pro-lifers should accept that Trump is 90 % on our side on abortion. Kamala Harris is 100 % against us.
At best, Trump doesn’t care one way or the other.
Right. He doesn't believe in fidelity either. He's on his third wife and is a proven adulterer with the wife is still married to. He's got all the morals of an alley cat. And he's on our side most of the time. Sort of like Jean Lafitte helping out Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans.
Proven by who...the sham courts of NYC? Are you vote for Pope in Nov? The lawfare and the policy of the progressive left should be enough to make any rational person hold their nose and vote for Trump.
Is there any doubt that Trump is serial cheater? Go ahead and respond "That should have no political import"-- I would agree with you (and thought the same about Bill Clinton). But don't deny the facts. Trump is not a saint (and maybe we shouldn't want a saint to be president)
Analogy of the week. Congrats.
I have a lot more respect for Lafitte than Trump.
Lafitte never used ketchup on steak.
If the 90% is a problem for his ambition, he’ll betray that too. Years before he got axed by Henry VIII, St. Thomas More’s son in law complimented him on his friendship with H8, specifically how he’d walk around with More with his arm around More’s neck. More responded that “if my neck would purchase him a castle in France, it would not fail to go.” We know how that turned out.
Absolutely!
And to repeat something I posted a couple of days ago:
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/trump-lesser-two-evils-is-moral-choice/
Choosing an evil is NEVER a "moral" choice. Sometimes it's necessary, but evils remain evils. Necessity does not baptize them. And it's not necessary in this election as there are other possible choices.
You write from a strongly principled position, I concede, but do you think it is remotely possible to pass a ban on abortion in America **as it actually is** today? As the Hungarian pro-lifer said to me, when you live in a polity that is not pro-life, you cannot realistically make pro-life your only voting criterion. If you lived in Hungary and voted according to your purist principle, you would see no meaningful difference between Viktor Orban -- who opposes open borders, gay marriage, and LGBT propaganda aimed at children...all of which his government has forbidden by law -- and the left-wing opposition, which favors all those things. So, you withhold your vote, you still have abortion on demand, but you also get those other horror-show results. What sense does that make?
How do you reconcile your purity with the fact that the pro-life movement has lost every post-Dobbs state ballot contest, even in red states? Let's say you were a gay American voter in 1992. Neither Bush Sr. nor Clinton advocated what for you is by far the most important issue: gay rights. Would you be justified in sitting out the race? Or would you grasp that though your cause is not supported by either party, you'd have a far greater chance at incremental progress under a Democratic administration than a Republican one -- and therefore vote Clinton, pragmatically?
"Do you think it remotely possible to pass a ban on abortion in America **as it actually is** today?"
No, I don't. Not even close. I think it's possible to push the Republican party back towards the pro-life side.
I live in Maryland. My state is going blue-- it won't be close. Voting Trump does nothing; writing in a pro-life candidate may be part of a movement to signal to the Republican party that what remains of the pro-life movement will not just accede to them every time they sell us out.
In the 1990's, if I was a gay rights activist, I may have voted for Clinton, but I think the analogy fails in one key respect. The establishment Left is committed to its social/cultural issues, and knows that it needs to bide its time to make some of the wackier ones happen. Concomitantly, the Left keeps pushing its agenda, and so far, has eventually won pretty much every battle. The establishment Right sees the cultural stuff as an embarrassing sideshow. They want it to go away, and my decision to withhold my vote is, at least an attempt, to push them back in the direction of taking the pro-life side seriously.
P.S. I don't mean to come off as a purist or an ideologue. I respect your stance, Rod. But I don't agree.
To put it another way, I'm not voting on some ethereal, hyper-principled grounds. I think my vote is a pragmatic one. This is also why I think the American situation differs from the Hungary example. Hungary's abortion politics are, from what you say, fixed. America's, and the Republican Party's, are currently in shift. I don't like the way they're shifting, and insofar as I can vote against it, I will do so. To my mind, four years of Kamala, as awful as that sounds, is not as bad as having both parties committed to abortion.
You can call your vote "pragmatic" because you live in a Deep Blue State and your vote doesn't matter. You're free to throw it away as you wish. There's nothing wrong with that. I live in a Deep Red State that Trump will win by double digits and will still be throwing my vote away on RFK, mostly for the lulz at this point, as the kids say.
But if I lived in a swing state or even a light Blue state, I'd be sucking it up and voting for Trump. I'd tell myself that I was mostly voting for Vance, but that's just a mental cope I'd be soothing myself with. Cheeto Jesus is at the top of the ticket and will be the one charged with setting the agenda for the next four years, not Vance.
And, frankly, Trump's right to be doing what he can to blunt the only real issue that Cackles and Fat Ted Lasso have to hit him on. The economy is a wreck. The world is in shambles as we face conflicts on multiple fronts. The illegal immigration issue is absolutely out of control to the point that Venezuelan gangs are creating "No go Zones" in the suburbs of Denver.
The only issue they have to try and fire up their base (which is mostly women anyway and has been for awhile) is abortion. Which means that Trump and Vance have to totally reject the more extreme ends of the pro- life position, such as opposition to IVF, birth control, and Plan B while playing coy on any state referendums that might be on any ballots this fall.
I'd prefer that they stick to something bland like "Whether such initiatives pass or fail is up to the people in those states. The important thing is that the people are getting to decide what's best for their communities because justices that Trump appointed overturned Roe." But in this specific case, as Trump is a Florida voter, it was fair game to ask him the question and, credit where due, he at least gave what is certainly his honest answer, even if it hurts him on the margins with pro- life ideologues.
At any rate, the campaign season is only now really kicking off for the majority of the country that aren't political news junkies as most of us are. I imagine there are still a lot of twists and turns to come between now and November. Nobody outside of the zealots on either side of the abortion question will remember or care what Trump's position on the Florida constitutional amendment was come election day.
Well said!
Trump is "personally pro choice" but he governed as the most pro life president in history.
Biden is "personally pro life" but he has governed as the most pro abortion president in history.
Trump is like the first son in Jesus' parable who says he will not work in the vineyard but goes anyway. Biden is like the second son who says he will work, but doesn't go.
Kamala is like a wicked sister who grabs a torch and cackles that she's going to burn the vineyard down.
Simply, Trump did not appoint Supreme Court justices as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy like Ronald Reagan did, or as bad as David Souter like George HW Bush did or as bad as John Roberts as George W. Bush did.
Well as a "white" evangelical nondenominational pastor said in a sermon yesterday, "When he turn to the powers of this world for a spiritual victory, we never win. We always lose."
Understand your points, but a) the economy is not "a wreck." (I suspect that people much younger than I don't really understand what a wrecked economy looks like.-- it's certainly not what we have now.) And b) while the world may not be "in shambles," we have not faced an international situation so fraught since 1948. And, unfortunately, the Trump foreign policy team was just about the most incompetent in living history -- and some of those in his camp coming to the fore now make the last group look like Dean Acheson. For my part, a retired diplomat and pro-life ex-Republican, the only reason to consider a Harris vote is the f.p. question.
This must be disinformation.
It's not a wreck yet, but wait for next year's tax changes before you conclude we're out of the woods.
Also, (thanks to Eric Mader below) there is the issue of judges.
Did you know this almost did not come to a vote in Florida? Antiabortion groups who argued against the amendment said it was overly broad and vague, and its title misleading. By 4-3 the Florida Supreme Court let it go to the ballot.
Trump appointed pro-life judges and there is no reason to think that would stop. He also appoints judges that oppose minors taken for parents for transgender surgeries, men in women's sports, and many other things. But we can't have those judges if we stay home in order to have a pure Republican party.
Yes. Conservatives should be pragmatic in their voting. I no longer live in Maryland but if I did, I would vote for Larry Hogan for senate. He's pro-choice and supports codifying Roe v- Wade. Yet if Hogan is elected senator, he will vote for the vast majority of Trump's judicial picks. His opponent, Angela Alsobrooks, will vote against every Trump judicial nominee.
Just now I would like any president to face a majority of the opposition party in the senate. Not a large one, but enough to put the brakes on.
So you want a totally manipulated court system, where judges check "How is our party on this one, who will it benefit?" rather than following the law. Got it.
Want? No, absolutely not. But it’s already happening (not that anybody asked me for consent), and if it must happen I’d rather it be my guys on the bench.
1000 times yes.
Four years of Kamal will mean abortion is cemented as policy and law at the federal level. You think you can hide and wait this out. They are on the verge of a radical revolution that is just starting not ending. Kamala will be lubricant to this radical change and no state or party in the future will be able to claw back to what we have now, state controlled abortion. The likelihood of of new states restricting abortion in the future is higher than reversing federal abortion law once Kamal wins.
As Rod has acknowledged, with deep and sincere regret, the pro-life movement has lost the battle. After years of demanding that a federal constitutional restraint on the police powers of the state be breached to "return it to the states" and subject the peoples' liberties to the whims of state level politicians, they got their wish. It turns out that the people of "the states" are not going to allow their somewhat disconnected legislative elites impose draconian criminal penalties on abortion. Pro-life doesn't have the popular majority at its back to implement its dearly wished for program. Four years of Kamala will make rather little difference one way or the other. In saying that, I anticipate that the Supreme Court will shoot down any federal bill either providing national criminal penalties for abortion or "codifying Roe v. Wade." Congress lacks the constitutional authority to do either. Even if most justices are motivated more by the preferred result than by the constitutional principles at issue (likely), I expect a different majority will strike down either type of legislation. Furthermore, statutes can be repealed every time there is a new majority leaning the other way, unlike constitutional clauses. Pick anything but abortion as your basis for voting, no matter who you vote for.
Your reasons for not voting are "to bring the Republican party back to the pro-life side" and because you live in a blue state.
A majority of Americans are not pro-life, nor will they be. America would become a one-party country, like the one-party state of California, if Republicans had a pro-life, no abortion (except to save the mother's life and maybe rape or incest) platform.
I once had the idea my vote did not matter if I did not live in a swing state. Thus, in New Jersey 2016 I did a write-in: neither Trump nor Hilary. What I've come to believe is that every vote counts! This is because we want them - youth, media, everyone - to know we are not a minority, or if we are, we are not as small a minority as they may think. In this way the voices of conservative Americans continue to be heard as viable and important.
Linda, 1980s style social conservatives (if that's who you mean by "we") are a minority. The evidence is pretty much overwhelming on that, and Rod mentions some of it above.
Even more generally Trump fans are a minority. So are Harris fans. The election comes down to how many people who hate both of them in a few swing states will hold their noses and vote for one over the other.
I'm with you. With all these Trump betrayals I instinctively want him to lose like Dukakis did (I know that a Mondale/McGovern wipeout is simply not going to happen). I want FL, TX and other states to go blue. Giving Harris every state (plus ME-1) that went red but only by less than 10% gets her to 413 electoral college votes. That's not quite Dukakis but it's really close to it. Close enough to totally humiliate Trump. See this: https://www.270towin.com/maps/gnbQd If you edit the map to give Harris everything Trump won by less than 15% then it's a worse than Dukakis blowout. Don't think it's impossible. Between J6, the abortion issue and Harris getting women out to vote, and Trump's total betrayal of social conservatives these flips can possibly happen. There's A LOT of social conservatives in these "safe" red states that are within 10% or 15% of flipping.
What I want is not necessarily the best strategy. If I was in a state that was within maybe 10 percentage points then I'd have to vote for Trump, but I'm in a 20%+ Biden state. The current plan is to write in Thomas Sowell.
Do social conservatives not have any interest in warring against the irreversible mutilation of minors? If you have, you cannot say that Trump has committed a "total betrayal of social conservatives." This is the kind of destructive, performative nonsense which every true social conservative should shun.
I'm sorry that the presidential election campaign isn't being conducted along the lines of debate heard at the annual General Convention of The Presbyterian Church in America, but as Lincoln said, facts are stubborn things.
What mind I have left is boggled at your childish obstinacy about this.
Trump came out swinging IN FAVOR OF irreversible mutilation of minors. In this campaign season he has come out in favor of so much evil. It's not "childish" to oppose evil. As I stated, I live in a Biden +20 state. I'm not voting for him. I don't have to and will not. He deserves to lose in a landslide and if you don't agree, you're wrong. You are morally and intellectually bankrupt to disagree with me re: that. The point of contention is that the other side is worse. So both sides are completely unacceptable, and that's a massive problem.
Trump represents some serious an important politics that I do not want to see buried. I do not want to see a return to the politics of the 2000s. While I would like to see Trump finally bounced out of the political system once and for all, I want the future to include many of his issues.
We were ready for that with Ron DeSantis but Trump came along and decided to become Woke Trump for 2024. Perhaps out of what he sees as political expediency (and, with abortion, it sure is), perhaps to spite socially conservative "traitor" Mike Pence, perhaps because he's surrounding himself with libs (his family, Musk, RFK, etc) who are telling him to do this, and perhaps because it's what he's always believed. Perhaps all of the above. Had Trump retired and DeSantis picked up the torch we would have been fine.
Re: Trump came along and decided to become Woke Trump for 2024.
If Trump is "woke" the word has no meaning, just a filler word rather like the way some rough-tongued people insert "f***ing" into sentences as an empty adjective every so often.
Trump's loyalty to his family is one thing that does make me think a bit better of him. Family is something I place a high value on.
In most states, write-in votes are not counted, unless for a registered write-in candidate. I used to do a lot of write-ins, but since I've been working polling sites in elections, I know nobody bothers to count. I also understand why. At the end of a 15 hour day, it would mean potentially another hour counting whimsical notions that aren't going to have any impact at all. Much as I used to enjoy doing write-ins.
The present situation in the U.S. is a good argument for moving to proportional representation, rather than the effective binary choice of D or R.
For example, a pro-life voter might cast their #1 (highest) vote for a pro-life party such as the ASP, hold their nose and vote R #2, rank the other parties accordingly, and put the Dems at the bottom at #5 or 6 or whatever.
It would allow people to vote both with their hearts and strategically.
Absolutely. A lot of people would have voted for Buchanan or Nader first, and then someone else in 2000. A fair number would have ranked the two of them 1 and 2, in whichever order.
The UK is a bit like the USA in that we only have two main parties (although the minor parties do better than in the USA). I always felt that proportional representation would enable a wider spread of views, giving me a party nearer my values. However, that's the situation in Japan, with a dozen or more parties, and there still aren't any that I much like.
Better to write in Thomas Sowell and have it counted as nothing than to leave the ballot blank and for a Democrat operative to fill in for me. Not that it matters, Trump came crawling back (some may say he was in tears, crying like a baby and begging for forgiveness) after the backlash. He's back to pretending to kind of care about us. In truth, he cares very deeply about our votes. A transactional relationship it is...
That's the most we can expect from him. We can't just roll over and go along with him betraying us on key issues and destroying Florida in the process.
There are not enough Democratic operatives with enough time to fill in the bank spots on your ballot for you. Plus, at least in my state, when your ballot is fed into the tabulating machine, it counts the number of blank votes for each line, information which is printed out on a physical tape, recorded on a thumb drive, and transmitted to the election commission via wi-fi after polls close. Thus, a large number of votes filled in later would be glaringly easy to document.
Caterwauling about massive voter fraud is initiated by petty politicians in a fit of denial that voters could possibly have rejected them, and believed by people who have no clue how elections are actually organized. I did once hear from a fervent Trump voter in Texas who also works elections, who told me she had figured out a way voter fraud could be perpetrated with all the safeguards now in place, but its none of the airy notions people have been floating the last few years, and of course she's not telling anyone what it is.
As for Trump crawling back, yes, I noticed that, but he ALSO wants the votes of pro-choice Republicans back, and he changes his focus every five minutes, so don't expect much. He's wobbling because he wants the pro-life vote and a chunk of focused pro-choice voters.
You are suicidal, then.
LOL. No, I'm serious and people who are serious like me got Trump to flip flop. If Trump doesn't at least pretend to be on our side we don't have to vote for him. It appears we still have some power.
You could vote for Trump in hopes it could shut up the 'popular vote' crowd.
". . . but do you think it is remotely possible to pass a ban on abortion in America **as it actually is** today?"
Allow me to commend to you, a writer and student of history, this more forceful statement, one that Cromwell made to the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk 374 years ago and safely in the public domain: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
What's your plan for convincing Republican senators like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to end the 60 vote filibuster?
Perhaps a bit of context is in order. Cromwell spoke in 1650 on the eve of the Battle of Dunbar where his New Model Army decisively defeated the army of the Scottish general David Leslie. The General Assembly of the Scottish Church (Kirk) held out for Charles II as King following the execution of his father Charles I. The British Parliament, on the other hand, had created a Parliament-led Commonwealth. Now Cromwell, with an overwhelming force, intended to force the Scots to conform. It was Cromwell's (lifetime) belief he acted on behalf of God that prompted his "advice" to the Scots. To answer your question directly, then, the delegation sent to convince these two senators should be convinced of the rightness (if not the righteousness) of their cause AND have the overwhelming numbers (or "divisions" if you prefer Stalin's POV) to demonstrate God's Favor.
Susan Collins represents Maine, one of the least religious states in the country. You have no leverage over her.
Lisa Murkowski represents Alaska, but she isn't up for reelection until 2028. We had a chance to primary her in 2022, but pro lifers didn't prioritize getting rid of her.
Reciting Cromwell isn't going to get senators to become pro life when doing so is against their personal and political interests.
Is there any point at which a candidate can be so personally terrible that making them the leader of your nation isn't worth the incremental progress?
Point to ponder. But both are personally terrible...we haven't seen the real Kamala Harris yet.
Look, they're both dogs, but though the one we call Donald snaps a lot and frequently makes contact, he's had his shots. The other one is rabid.
Is it prolife to vote for a candidate who may be able to tamp down overseas nastiness which could realistically lead to a use of nuclear weapons? Is it prolife to vote for a candidate who will appoint judges who will rule to protect children from sexual mutilation?
Have you read about the insane situation in Aurora, Colorado, where MS - 13 has taken over an apartment complex? Just this morning, it's being reported that in California, illegal aliens have been attempting to hijack school buses. I have to hope this second item is a hoax of a story, but if it isn't, I think it's prolife to vote for a candidate who will try to do something to stop the phenomenon.
The conservative party in the UK is an example. Things are different in the US.
Rod, I know you want to show respect for your readers, but "murdering more than a million children"?
This is not a serious person, and not someone one can have a rational discussion with-- no more than with someone who chants "tranwomen are women.,"
Mr. Blaihr, I appreciate your dedication and commitment to the cause, but I believe your logic lacks consistency. If you vote someone who states during a campaign rally that they are for your single issue and you ignore their past record, past deeds or lack of deeds, then you are no better in some ways than the people who literally want to turn us wholly into the citizens of "Oceania". Or, you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, I couldn't think of a better or more trite phrase... but it is kind of apropos, no?
I can respect that, as long as you understand other Christians may make similar choices on other issues other than abortion. IF you are going to insist that everybody else needs to accept things like the USA covertly supporting nun raping Sunni militias as the price of the rights of the unborn, then we have a problem.
Legitimate question and truly curious here, I can't quite make the connection in your comment. Would you consider expanding on it more fully?
What do you need clarified?
Oh, I think I figured it out. Would it be fair to say that you believe my logic is faulty? My take is that we look at the total picture of the candidates we are currently presented with. I am not voting for a Marxist puppet of who knows what master, over someone who is indeed flawed, doesn't exactly stand for every single solitary policy/ideology that I believe in, but is generally a much better choice overall.
In my own state, the Lt Gov is a Dem walkaway. Don't always trust them because of some of the devious things they have done in our state. I don't care for his choice of business fundamentally, but when I hear him speak at length, repeatedly, he is generally for the things which this state needs desperately and with which I agree. And his past record of fighting his previous party, the Dems, on big issues, going against the supermajority is important.
Am I out in left field in your opinion or was that what you were trying to say?
That wasn't what I was saying at that moment, but I agree with you.
What I was saying is that I wouldn't support a candidate that regards Christian communities overseas as acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of expanding American influence, which by the time we got around to Syria it was clear that both parties were okay with.
Ah. I wasn't aware of that particular situation so maybe that is why I didn't understand the reference. Thank you so much for pointing it out.
And... I can't read more than a few lines of the headlines and leading sentences. It is too disturbing at the moment. So, your comment is fully, or as fully as I am able to understand. Appreciate your patience with me Andrew.
"Christian communities overseas as acceptable collateral damage in the pursuit of expanding American influence"
That's one of the things I feel most strongly about. I wish Candace Owens hadn't made herself look an idiot by toying with flat-earth theories and a monster with her borderline Holocaust denial, as I thought she was on the right track with her advocacy of "Christianity First" politics.
This is yet another unforced error on Trump's part. He didn't have to say a damned thing, but since he cannot resist whoring himself out for votes, changing one set of principles for another if the winds shift, and selling out groups who supported him once they're no longer convenient, of course he chose to blurt this out, stab pro-lifers in the back, and ineptly pander to pro-choicers as he moves to the left. So much winning...
Yes. The whole thing could have been elided. He doesn't have the skills for that. He's going to say what he's going to say in the way he's going to say it. Get used to, at least until Nov. 5, pray beyond that.
I'm not hoping for beyond 11/5. I'm not voting for him.
Then you're voting for Harris directly or indirectly. What a choice.
Either way we’ll have Gay Pride Month at the White House.
Oh, you'll have more than that with Harris.
I wish Vance had learned how to "elide" on one particular matter.
Whoever wins, there will be much to pray about after Nov 5. It won't be pretty.
Presidential elections aren't about what the candidates deserve. They are about what the country deserves.
Could this be virtue signaling dressed up as a principled stand? Obviously you truly believe what you say but it seems to be mixed but certainly not with prudence.
With regards to your first point, given the specifics of your voting situation, I suppose I can see a certain logic in casting a protest vote - it is an interesting predicament caused by the exigencies of our electoral system. I have never cast a protest vote, though (being in a similar yet opposite predicament in a very red state) I have definitely sat a few presidential elections out, at least in part because I tend to think we would be better off if there were no popular component to the presidential election, as our founders originally intended (of course, this also presumes a smaller federal government of specific enumerated powers, a stronger role for the states in the federal system via their direct appointment of senators, the vice president being the runner up candidate from the general election rather than a party running mate, etc.. - in other words, me playing the game of wishing the system were other than it is).
I'm not sitting this one out, and I am voting for Trump. I don't consider myself in a position to say whether he DESERVES to lose or not (to paraphrase Gandalf, "Many that are elected deserve to lose and some that lose deserve to win. Can you give it to them [ed. and as you have admitted, you cannot]? Then do not be so eager to deal out losses in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends."
Rod is correct, the cultural predicates necessary to support a culture of life are gone, and will not return without great (pre-political) struggle. That is not to say that the pro-life movement should not seek creative ways to fight this darkness (they should). It is just that the struggle has moved beyond one where a particular moral issue has taken root and needs to be painfully removed from the body politic. Rather, the whole tree is rotten and dying, and depending too much on our righteousness with regards to a single issue is as likely to cause the whole thing to collapse (with untold death and suffering to millions of both the unborn and the born). We need what provisional allies we can gather, even recognizing that these allies are as like to stab us in the back the next moment.
You would rather have late term abortion in all states than have many states restrict it? You need to understand he is running for POTUS not king of your heart.
They both deserve to lose. But Trump's dilemma is he needs the votes of Republicans who never worried about abortion because they relies on Roe v. Wade, and he needs your votes. It appears he can't have both, and may lose both trying to appeal to both.
The question, Stan is not whether "Trump deserves to lose." It's whether pro-lifers are willing to saddle themselves with possibly 8 years of moral evil on an unimaginable scale, for the thin gruel of expressing their anger with Trump. That's a no-brainer for me.
I'm preparing to send in the Florida ballot absentee when the time comes. The text of Amendment 4 :
<<<" No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.">>>>
"Before viability" are the key words. 24 weeks is currently considered viability. That is probably what will be upheld if this passes. And as a Floridian, I think it will pass, even at 60 percent required to pass. I think it might have failed if we had a 16 week, rather than 6 week law currently in place.
Trump, in an interview said he thought 6 weeks was too short a time, since many women do not even know they are pregnant at that point, so he will vote for this amendment.
I will vote against this amendment, of course.
I think Trump would likely prefer the types of laws much of Europe has - about 15-16 weeks, but he is doing this. - -Personally, I don't see why those not wishing to be pregnant can't check every four weeks, or use two tests since there are false negatives. They know birth control can fail. But I don't support abotion at all except for the life of the mother (or because of an already doomed fetus.)
<<<I think it’s over for the pro-life movement as a meaningful political force in national politics.>>>
In that case, could there not be a movement to fight for 16 weeks, or a movement to fight those who would allow abortion after viability for any reason. It would take being willing to unite with people who want to allow early term abortion. But we need such a movement to save lives.
The Florida amendment would restore Roe, basically, because it provides a "health of the mother" loophole, which, given psychological health, is a massive loophole, same as under Roe.
Yes, that is exactly right. So I see "viability" is essentially meaningless...
Great rundown of Roe and post Roe in law: https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/upload/Summary-of-Roe-v-Wade-and-Other-Key-Abortion-Cases.pdf
Roe was at its start fairly restrictive. IMO, I'd rather the state control this issue than the Federal Gov as we can possible expand restriction to abortion in a few more states than reversing a federal policy/law if Harris were to win. I think Trump has figured out he needs to win an election for POTUS not for the local K of C chapter. I say that with all due respect for the K of C....and myself would vote against the FL amendment if possible.
I think you are right that a 16 week law might have been sufficiently acceptable to enough voters to avoid a constitutional amendment. I also think a better amendment would have drawn the line at 20 weeks. But this is what happens when everyone has their eyes on a political football, rather than arriving at a sober compromise, not because morality doesn't count, but because an enforceable law requires a substantial body of public support.
Ooh, juicy topics today. I will write more on my own substack, but just quickly, a few things jumped out at me straight away.
First off, the obsession with abortion, being anti-family and opposing strong, potent men, reminded me of the obsession the Western, Occult, Feminist Left has with the Jewish Mythological figure of Lilith, supposedly Adam's first wife, but in truth an amalgamation of the various Mesopotamian and Levantine malevolent female spirits that were much feared by people in the region, including by the Jews. The two main types were the Lilitu and the Ardat-Lili, who can be summarized as follows:
"The Lilitu and Ardat-Lili are figures from Mesopotamian mythology, associated with demonology and supernatural elements. Both are considered to be female spirits or demons, but they have different characteristics and roles within the mythology.
Lilitu
Origin: The Lilitu originate from ancient Sumerian and Akkadian mythology and later influenced Hebrew demonology, where they are linked to the figure of Lilith.
Description: Lilitu are typically depicted as storm demons or wind spirits, often associated with the night. They are portrayed as beautiful but dangerous and malevolent figures, roaming the wilderness and desolate places.
Behaviour: Lilitu were believed to seduce men, cause harm to children, and bring disease and misfortune. In some traditions, they are depicted as a succubus-like figure, preying on men while they sleep.
Role: They represents untamed feminine power and sexuality, often linked with infertility, sexual desire, and the dangers associated with uncontrolled or harmful sexual energy.
Ardat-Lili
Origin: The Ardat-Lili is another demon from Akkadian mythology, closely associated with the Lilitu but with a more specific role.
Description: Ardat-Lili is often considered a ghostly or vampiric entity, associated with young women who died before marriage or childbirth. Her name can be translated as "maiden of the night" or "maiden ghost."
Behavior: Unlike the more general Lilitu, Ardat-Lili was believed to haunt and seduce young men, often causing them to become ill or leading to their untimely death. She represents the restless spirit of an unmarried woman, particularly one who died young or childless.
Role: Ardat-Lili embodies the tragic aspects of femininity—unfulfilled potential, lost youth, and the sorrow of unachieved womanhood. She is a more specific manifestation of the broader Lilitu concept, focusing on the restless, wandering spirit of a deceased young woman.
Key Differences:
Lilitu is a broader, more encompassing figure often associated with various forms of harmful feminine energy, particularly related to sexuality, seduction, and disease. She operates in a general sense as a nocturnal demon.
Ardat-Lili, on the other hand, has a more specific identity tied to the spirits of young, unmarried women who died prematurely. She is often seen as a ghostly figure who preys on young men, representing unfulfilled womanhood.
In summary, while both are dangerous female spirits in Mesopotamian mythology, Lilitu has a broader scope as a nocturnal demon of the wilderness, and Ardat-Lili is more specifically associated with the tragic spirits of young women who died before marriage.
---------------------------------
If you read that, don't you recognise the whole anti-life, anti-male culture of the West as it currently stands?
Feminists have taken up Lilith as an icon of their movement and have even promoted her to a Goddess, which she never was in the original mythology. Isn't this the best symbol for what the anti-life movement wants today? The death of babies, infertility in women, the impotence of men?
Yes. The old gods are coming back to life. Jonathan Cahn wrote a powerful book about it.
Honestly, I disagree with the premise, which equates pagan gods with demons. There is a huge difference and they shouldn’t be equated to each other. Ancient Mesopotamians were just as aware of demons and performed exorcisms regularly, but of malevolent spirits and not of gods. The Lilitu were always considered demons, they were not deities.
OK, disagree, but note that meme is a long-standing Christian view going back to Augustine and even earlier.
Some early Christian Greek converts equated the two. I think they were wrong to even try.
Satan is a master imposter and can appear as a deity, a god, or a good 'ol boy if it suits his purpose .
From a strictly Judeo-Christian cosmology, the old gods never existed. Their gods are clay and metal, the work of men's hands. Our God is in the heavens, he has done what he pleased.
I don't think there is a single Christian position on the Pagan gods. I can think of at least these:
1. They are pure fantasy, and the idols are just wood and stone.
2. They are demons.
3. They constitute human groping after God, or perhaps a garbled memory of ancient revelation.
This is actually personally important for me, living in Japan, and thus being confronted with Shinto and Buddhism.
Side issue: There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian".
In general, I agree that there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian." And a Talmudic scholar I once accidentally connected with via email emphatically said the same. But, when dealing with demons and pagan gods, we are dealing with questions right on the boundaries of where Christianity grew out of Judaism, and then became distinctly non-Jewish. The notion that the ancient Greek gods correspond to demons from then-ancient times is all in the mix.
I think both (1) and (3) have much to recommend them. The first, objective, and the third, understanding people developing such gods at all. Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart" presents two very different Anglican missionaries. The first had long conversations with a village elder, who said true, that is a carving of wood, not a real god, and acknowledged that his people knew there was one God, who they called Chukwu, a word still in use among Christian Igbo today, since there is no other word for one supreme God in their language. (Similarly, al-Lah is Arabic for The God.) But, they did have a tradition of such an expansive God needing messengers to help him keep on top of everything, and there the two had less common ground. I've mentioned this before, but my Talmudic friend said Gautama and his associates worked out a great deal correctly, its too bad they never considered a creative deity.
I'd say that the OT tends to alternate between positions 1 and 2, whereas St. Paul leans towards position 3. However, this might just be that the Greek religion was more humane and decent than the Canaanite one.
I don't find anything of (2) in the Old Testament, which is probably a good deal of what shapes my view on the whole discussion. The Old Testament does refer to "the gods of other nations," but when there is anything more about them, it is a gold statue, the works of men's hands, etc. What Elijah proved to the priests of Ba-al was not "Our God is stronger than your God," but, "Why doesn't your god answer when you call on him? Is he even there? Maybe he is asleep?" There is also "Let no man worship any god but you oh, king," which is another kind of idolatry, but again, not positing demons.
He is a deeply flawed person who doesn't hate us. And she is a person who not only hates us but wishes to control us. So, as always, we are having to choose between the "lesser of two evils" is what I hear you saying. Not that you are calling Trump "evil"... it's just a saying.
You may be right. But if I recall, he never was a pro-lifer. Unless I've missed some major article.
You can make a law, you can change a law... but that doesn't change a culture, it doesn't convince people of the values associated with the new or changed law. That takes time. And it takes faith.
I personally think they should manage their own reproduction the way they see fit... and their fate will be that of the Shakers. They had 18 communities at their height in the 19th century, now they are only 1. We Christians need to continue to adopt and foster to keep the children in an environment that is conducive to raising a moral generation.
I'm so sorry, I could not watch Ms. Harris. They moment nonsense came out of her mouth, I had to turn away.
I have to go back and watch RFK Jr. on Tucker this past week because RFK Jr. talks about how to communicate with Democrats. In a way no one else has ever mentioned. I figure he's got an inside scoop. Notice he specifies Dems and not Prog/Woke/Left/Marxist's. Dems. We need to be talking to Dems... at least in my home state which is decidedly blue. The old school Dems. Without them we can't defeat the Prog/Woke/Left/Marxist's who parade under the cloak of old school Dems and brainwash them.
I know my parish priest, a truly Godly man, says his congregation has increased in the last 2 years. It could be a function of the end of "lockdown" mindset or it could be that people crave fellowship. We still haven't resumed the sign of the Peace, and this makes me so very sad... and if I am honest, a tiny bit angry. No matter how you frame it... the fact that you don't want to shake my hand in church, in a holy place, says way more that you think. It tells me, you fundamentally don't like other people, you only tolerate them. I say, stay home, watch on the livestream and get your communion in the drive through. But that is my opinion.
No, that's the way it is if you edit a long comment. If instead of looking at it immediately you refresh the page you will see that the whole thing is there.
I think moderate democrats who would listen to RFK Jr's interview with Tucker might start to have a change of heart. Not sure they can be pried away from CNN and MSNBC though.
I'm actually a bit surprised that, according to Rod's post, that CNN threw some tough questions at Harris and Walz.
They did, but I think this was mostly to float the most obvious objections to each, so that they can now say "I've already answered that, let's move on".
Never mind the non-answers. The important thing is that Harris-Walz has thrown off the "Why haven't they spoken to the media in 40+ days and counting?" criticism. It seemed all rather rehearsed to me, as though they had the questions in advance.
OK, gotcha, not surprised. They are master manipulators, aren't they? (I mean the media-Democrat complex, not just CNN) Look at how they used Trump to get rid of Biden because they couldn't reverse their "Nothin wrong with Joe" narrative from the inside.
Re your parish: I've seen a real uptick in young people at Mass - including weekday Masses. I remember twenty years ago: our weekday Mass was in a small chapel that seated about 15-20. Now we have 40+ at the daytime Mass, and probably 80 at the 6pm Mass with Adoration. We are a university town, and have a significant number of college students at the evening Mass. I'm also seeing plenty of mothers with their little children. Re the sign of peace: I honestly never liked the handshake. It was a loud moment in the middle of Mass. Now I see people nod or give a wave, and it is done, and the Mass goes on.
I'm Protestant. My denomination has the sign of peace, as well, and I've never liked it. Communion is about Jesus Christ, and yes, I understand that The Body of Christ which is the Church is inseparable from The Body of Christ which we are about to eat, still, I wish we would cease to do it.
I sit next to the same couple every Sunday. The husband is an Elder, so as the communion part of the service begins, he will have gone forward to assist. While shaking his wife's hand I've said, "Peace to you, Sally, though I had nothing against you anyway."
My wife and I got to know Anne Mansfield (Sen. Mansfield's daughter) in London years ago. Used to meet after Mass at the Oratory to go to lunch. One Sunday, Anne was a bit late, and apologized, saying that she had been next to an American woman who asked what happened to the kiss of peace. "We don't do the kiss of peace at the Oratory." "Well! Jesus would have done the kiss of peace!" "I could have wrung her neck," said Anne.
Ms. Bowman, you would not be alone in your thinking. As a matter of fact, almost all online chat formats say the same thing. Clearly, I am in a minority.
That being said, I think it is a fundamental part of Christ's ministry (maybe not the correct phrasing as I am in no way a scholar or well educated on Catholic doctrine) and our duty to each other. Do we not recite the Penitential Act where we ask our brothers and sisters to forgive us at the opening of mass? Then wouldn't the sign of Peace be that forgiveness? That is the way I always understood this part of the mass from when I was confirmed almost 50 years ago. I could very well be wrong. I usually am.
I don't know where you are located, nor did I attend mass when I lived out west. Westerners are a much more exuberant and open people. New Englanders are more reserved. So, in the past and the few people close to where I was sitting, who by the way were older than I, made quiet polite handshakes and it took less than 30 seconds to accomplish and then mass moved on in my mind, seamlessly. I am deeply intrigued by this and will be asking our priest shortly. Because the Bishop of the Diocese has no intention of resuming that part of mass. Which again, makes me so sad. I come to church, because I find the sanctuary beautiful, inspiring and spiritual. I find the ritual of mass and praying together fortifying. I could pray and did for many unsuccessful years alone and at home. I chose church because I chose people. To be rebuffed is spiritually disheartening. Although I completely understand the many objections. I just don't see how it matches with Christ's ministry.
Just my humble opinion. I do hope I have not offended.
From a new Catholic, I’m understanding that many don’t like it because it’s not traditional. I liked it at first and now I don’t because it does feel distracting. I understand the point you are making, though. To me, we’ve already greeted and acknowledged each other and I don’t currently feel a need to awkwardly wave at the same people again. Just me.
Appreciate your point of view. I'm not sure what your time frame would be regarding the "traditional". We did this in the late 60's up till 1980 (60 years ago) when I last went to mass. And some of the older folks looked so pleased to be able to shake hands. So many people miss touching each other. I know when I lived out west, as a transplanted New Englander, I was taken aback by the hugging and kissing. I got used it in a big way. People who know me now, have come to accept me and that I will be hugging you. Unless of course you tell me no.
So, you aren't the first to say it's distracting. I'm awaiting what our parish priest says. In my mind then, what's missing is the education around it if indeed it is part of the mass. And I believe it is. Historically or traditionally, instead of a handshake it was a kiss. How about that??? Can you just imagine that now? Oh my. That would be a shocker.
If feels silly and awkward to wave, to me. I'm literally standing 3 feet in front or behind you... but I don't wish to make people uncomfortable. I'm really, really tempted to shake my mother's hand and then proceed to look straight ahead and not look at anyone else. But that is just me being mean and with a bruised ego. So I smile and do the pope wave like everyone else. But my soul hurts a little bit each time.
Here is what a Catholic website says about it:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-meaning-of-the-sign-of-peace
I think, in my flawed and humble opinion, when the author says: "Its weakness lies in undermining the connection between the peace exchanged among the people with the peace that comes from Christ, really present on the altar." I think it strengthens the peace we all share in Christ. Or should. It says we are of the same body, His body. And that we are forgiven and that we forgive.
Instead, the immediate cessation of the sign of Peace with the "Covid pandemic" just further alienated people and made them more afraid of each other. We still have folks walking around with masks. Which are of no infection control use in any way shape or form (I'm an RN). If you are wearing a mask because you or your family is immunocompromised, you shouldn't be out in public unless absolutely necessary. Not a criticism but a piece of medical advice.
I think we need better leadership and counsel on this from our clergy and from the Catholic church. Just my simple opinion.
Thanks, I look forward to reading it.
I am 100% with you on the need for human touch!
Fair point from a fellow hugger and cheek kisser. Currently, I just prefer it before and after, not during. Then again, I’m working on practicing stillness and quiet which is impossible in the Novus Ordo.
I don’t want to debate the Mass, I’m just personally being called to more stillness and quiet. The last month, I’ve bowed my head at the beginning and been remembering my ballet training of how to stay still in a particular posture. I don’t respond except for the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. I’m trying to follow the actual line of the prayers and really internalize them. The hustle and bustle of Novus Ordo makes it hard.
I also veil which as a middle age woman earns me a fair share of dirty looks from the Boomer women, though, a few have more openly supported me.
Lovely. Lovely response.
I understand where you are coming from, I think. I'm still trying to remember the parts of mass and when and what to say. Many came back to me immediately and some had changed. I have the missal in front of me and the readings marked.
I can't debate the mass, I literally am illiterate in that regard. I was only sharing my concept of what we are doing. And am expecting to be told by my priest that my idea is sweet but not what really is going on. Or something along those lines.
Thank you for saying you veil. I finally received the one I ordered months ago. A handmade lace cowl one and I am quite afraid to wear it. There are only 4 maybe 5 women who wear it. I don't want anyone to think I am just affecting a look, or that I am somehow better in any way. It was just what my mother and grandmother did when I was very young and I feel pulled to it. In a really profoundly strong way.
You be strong Ms Laura, in your veil wearing. It's just the unknown that folks are pushing against. No one likes change. And to some it's a return to pre feminist "improvements" and feels threatening. At least I think so. And those words are as much for me as they are for you. Thank you for the great discussion today. God bless.
Trump may not hate you, but that doesn’t mean he likes you.
Trump fundamentally likes Trump, and likes anyone else only so far as they feed his ego and his pride.
" I could not watch Ms. Harris"
I tried on a "know your enemy" basis, but I didn't make it 12 seconds. That smug, phony smile...
I'm from California. Our state legislature is controlled by a coalition of Harris-clones and the weird type of gay men.
I'm mystified by Rod's declaring her "likeable," or did I hallucinate that? Now, Estee Palti, the national treasure of a Harris impressionist, is likeable, but Harris?
Fantasy: Estee Palti in character as Harris debating Harris.
She is in a vacuous way. Something on the order of,
We like her she has charm but we aren't sure she is smart enough and then she opens her mouth and confirms it.
A political airhead with charm and a smile. Also a good vocabulary, which she uses to say nothing at great length in an entertaining way.
She has a new video on Kamala's "interview". Wonderful as always.
I men Palti, just to clarify
"Likeable" doesn't mean that **I** like her. I don't! She grates! But I have a feeling that she is appealing to other kinds of people. Look, Bill Clinton was not my favorite politician, but he came across as likeable. His wife did not.
To say Rod, that Trump is single handedly destroying the pro life movement is a little ridiculous. You know that there are so many factors at play as you mentioned in your column. With it being put back to states we have less abortions than we would if it was still Roe. I don’t like the culture of death just as much as you, but I have to balance that with the idea that I totally agree it should be left to the states and not a national ban. I will always pray for life, but those that have abortions and seek to make it legal…that’s on them with God. I am not one of those single issues voters. We got what we wanted with overturning Roe and it seems like now nobody was prepared for what the states would actually want.
I say Trump is destroying it **as a political force**. He is doing this by recognizing the appalling reality of life in America today: we are a functionally pro-abortion nation. Since Reagan, no Republican who wanted the presidency could afford to be pro-choice. Now they most likely can. I hate it too, but that's political reality.
What does it mean to be pro life or pro choice in the Dobbs era?
A smarter cohort of pro life leaders would have defined pro life broadly to grow their numbers and consolidate our gains. They could have emphasized moderate Republican opposition to national abortion legalization. They instead fixate on Trump's opposition to national abortion bans which never had a chance of passing this decade due to the 60 vote Senate filibuster.
In other words, Trump has been an apocalypse (as in, an unveiling), allowing us to see what we truly are as a nation. Perhaps that is his roll, not (as MAGA followers believe) as the salvation of the body politic, but as the herald of coming judgment and destruction. I find myself pondering the books of Kings in the Old Testament, where it recounts that the people of Israel (many, never all) would begin to worship the gods of the peoples surrounding them, including those gods that demanded of them child sacrifices. God punished them with a series of evil kings, and eventually slavery in a strange land. I suspect that we might be in a similar predicament.
People always sacrifice their children to whatever god they serve.
Americans have been sacrificing their children, literally through abortion, and figuratively through their selfish, materialistic choices, to their false gods, for much longer than nationalized abortion has been around.
In Canada, where I live, abortion is a given. It’s never a political point. Never comes up at election time. I think the UK is similar.
Yes, the UK is like that.
It's horrible, but it's a liberating factor in some ways, because it means one can vote on other issues.
One difference between the UK and USA is that in the UK hostility to abortion, as a minority position, overwhelmingly Catholic, cuts across the political spectrum. There are Catholic Worker types on the left of the Labour Party who are pro-life, and SPUC's current campaign is against the two-child benefit cap, i.e. a leftist position. On the other hand, Thatcher was pro-abortion, and some of the right-wing of the Conservatives have been rabidly so, in their eugenic drive to stop the working class breeding.
JT tried to remove the charitable donation status of crisis pregnancy centres in Canada.
Despite this, I will still vote for Trump, because the alternative (not so much Harris/Walz, but the Democratic party, whose platform is written in a combination of blood and semen) is so much worse.
What this WILL do, however, is make me considerably less disappointed if Trump loses. In either case we will be getting what we deserve. Barring some miracle, we're toast. But such a miracle would require repentance, and that's something we don't have.
(I should hasten to add that my hatred for the Democratic party in no way implies an endorsement of Team R. I despise them almost equally, for different reasons. Their one positive is that they at least have an actual respect for the Constitution, however minimized it's become. The Dems would pull the plug on it tomorrow if they could.)
You’ve stated my position as well. I think there’s no good choice, but the appointment of judges means the choice is obvious. I think many conservatives are not assessing where we’re really at in this new century.
I was a teen when Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but can still remember reports about one Harry Truman, an old man who lived on the mountain and refused to evacuate in the weeks before the blast.
“I’ve been here fifty years, and I know this country,” he told reporters. “The mountain isn’t going to hurt me.”
Truman, rest his soul, made the mistake of equating geologic time with the span of his personal life lived on the side of the mountain.
I believe millions of older Americans, and many Europeans too, are making a similar mistake, this time equating long historical time, with its rises and falls, with their own lived experience since the 1970s.
“I know this country,” they say. But in fact they don’t. Or rather: Their knowledge leads them to downplay evidence of radical changes in the body politic in the same way Truman’s years on the mountain blinded him to the meaning of the tremors that shook his cabin in the weeks before the end.
Having scoffed off all the signs of impending disaster, Truman was buried under an avalanche of ash. Many of us are similarly scoffing, supposing that our constitutional republic is a permanent reality.
We’re going to wake up one day and realize that our once free America is functionally gone, overlaid by a totalitarian social credit system that assesses our children’s every statement for thought crime and awards or punishes accordingly. We should already be aware that wide swaths of our young adult citizenry no longer even comprehend why this emerging social-credit regime is deeply un-American. Many naively support it, because they’ve known nothing else and have been taught that this is what progress looks like—that free speech is somehow a “right-wing” thing.
Many support it, and they vote, and the administration they vote into office will appoint judges. In my view, judges are the last bulwark holding back what could well prove a “progressive” avalanche of ash that buries our liberty.
The next administration will either appoint judges that hew to the constitution on speech and religious liberty issues, or judges that rubber stamp the expansion of the censorship regime.
As Rod says, if already we don’t like the status quo in terms of its systemic bias against conservatives, we need to remember: It could get much worse.
Well said, Eric. God help us all.
Agreed. Had the Dobbs ruling come in 2003 or even 2013 the current backlash in Red states would not likely have happened. It now seems that the Supreme Court publishing of Dobbs was like the Western Union biker showing up at Pearl Harbor on the morning of 12/7/1941 with the message to go on alert: a truth told too late.
Re: Had the Dobbs ruling come in 2003 or even 2013 the current backlash in Red states would not likely have happened. I
I think you are very wrong about this. Polling on abortion has fluctuated a bit but overall it has changed much in my adult life. Even back in the 80s it was the case that most people would support restrictions, but they wanted a big enough loophole so they or their family members could squeeze through.
When polled in past years abortions up to birth (i.e., third trimester) were not supported by a large majority of people, so I don't think I am wrong on this. I think it is highly likely that Dobbs forced people who had said they supported third trimester bans to really examine their stated views, and it would seem that a large number did an 'about face.' Dobbs was a definite catalyst. Also, polled cohorts do shift from decade to decade: a non-trivial number of people polled in 2003 are no longer with us - that alone supports my view.
Thomas, I think you are too pessimistic. The voters approving these super-liberal abortion laws are not necessarily voting FOR late term abortions but rather AGAINST restrictions on early abortions that were rushed into law by hasty legislatures, or sometimes revived from stasis by the overruling of Roe. These referenda do not offer multiple possibilities after all. Never underestimate the ill-informed state of the low information voter. Many are probably unaware of how liberal these laws are.
+1000
Again, and to repeat:
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/trump-lesser-two-evils-is-moral-choice/
And again, choosing an evil, even under necessity (which is not the case in this election as more choices are available) is NEVER moral. Evil remains evils.
Yup, Trump's use of the code phrase "reproductive rights" last week gave the game away...though anyone paying attention was already well aware what direction the wind was blowing in his mind.
All six of my kids and their families are hard-core pro-life. My wife prayed in front of an abortion clinic every Saturday morning for years. All my four daughters were activists...two of them once arrested (later won a lawsuit against the police; long story).
Regardless, here's the text of an e-mail I shared with everyone last month, pretty much tracking the points made by Rod today:
>>I remarked recently that I've changed my views on the politics (as opposed to morality) of abortion. There was a time when it was controlling as regards my vote. No longer. The overriding priority now in my mind is to defeat the singular evil of the Dem-Media Party.
I'm painfully aware it may be too late to save this country. But we have to try. Too many uncounted millions of people sacrificed too much over the course of 250 years to create and preserve a dream called America for us to accept chucking it all overboard in favor of the Regime's Frankenstein mutation of Brave New Amerika. If there's any hope left at all, it resides in significant part in defeating the Regime's ruling party. This is the most influential factor in my thinking on abortion...Trump...everything.
The bitter reality is that we no longer live in a pro-life country...and neither legislative or judicial action have the power to make it one. That would require a wholesale conversion of heart that is not in the cards. Meanwhile, the enemies of God are demagoguing the literal Hell out of the issue to advance their corrupt agenda and tighten their grip on power. The whole thing sucks, but we have to deal with reality as it is rather than as we wish it would be.<<
Jerry, that's some hard truth-telling there. God bless you.
350 years, we should count the colonial defense of freedom too.
I know of a women's prayer group where a couple of leaders maintain that providence will be evident in a Harris win which will then prove catastrophic. We will get what we deserve.
I have a strong belief that whoever wins, it will be a judgment.
I was praying one of the psalms this morning, and it hit me hard that when Israel abandoned the way of the Lord, disaster befell it. So shall it be with America. We can't say we weren't warned.
Very wise.
Whether it be 250 or 350 years, the United States has already had a longer run that the united kingdom of Israel from the Old Testament. We like to think of ourselves as the heirs of Rome, the eternal city, but I suspect that we aren't going to last that long as a cohesive nation (to the extent that we are even a nation--I tend towards us U.S. being more akin to a (largely) inland empire). In any event, just as we faced a reckoning for the sin of racialized slavery plaguing our early republic, we are bound to face punishment for these sins of child sacrifice, sexual abomination, and idolatry of our latter days. We shall see if we can survive the cure of such punishment as a cohesive people.
Agreed.😩
When I read threads like this I feel a pull to double down on my prayer routine
This!
Recently, one of the Fathers at my church preached in his homily the same thing, no political solution or this that and the other activists actions can save us only : Repent and Prayer.🙏
I believe this is the true wise and sane option. To Hell with politics.
No one is forcing American women to have abortions. What we are seeing now is the complete rejection of motherhood, and laws cannot help that. The only person who can protect the life of a human being when it exists as a fertilized ovum inside a woman's body is the woman herself.
I am pretty sure that most women who have abortions are already mothers.
Agreed, but abortion is still a rejection of motherhood.
I doubt this. Would be interesting to know.
I’ve read this is true. My previous comment should have been more precise, but I could write an essay. Abortion is a rejection of motherhood, even by women who are already mothers. Our culture demeans mothers in subtle ways, and stay at home mothers themselves especially feel this rejection and lowering of status. Abortion further demeans it.
About 60% of women getting abortions already have at least one child. Over 40% have already had a prior abortion.
True, although the father can and should exert whatever verbal influence he can muster to protect the baby from a mother who's decided to terminate their pregnancy.
Verbal influence? See, this too is a pretty new notion. A human being in danger of being aborted has a father as well as a mother. Yes, sometimes the father is a man uninterested in being a father to the child, for reasons ranging from the most malign to the most powerless ignorance. I know some men who wanted to be fathers and weren’t allowed to be, whose verbal influence did not carry the day. This is another evil.
I know people who have prayed outside abortion clinics, and they tell me that women being literally dragged in by their men is not uncommon. Pro-choice indeed, but for whom?
The impregnators are often the biggest supporters of abortion. They want to get out of child support payments.
I also saw girls being dragged by their mothers.
I am not at all surprised, but could you elaborate, if it's not too much to ask. (It's okay if it is)
Well, I volunteered in a pro-life clinic that did counseling and pregnancy testing. It was next door to the abortion clinic in our city. A woman came in with her 15-year-old pregnant daughter. When she realized where she was, she literally snarled, "I'm not taking care of this kid," and dragged the daughter out almost by the hair. I have never forgotten the woman's evil expression, or her daughter, who seemed completely cowed. As the mother continued down the street with the poor girl, the director of the pro-life group gathered us together to pray. She closed her eyes and began praying that Satan would strike the mother dead before she could have her grandchild aborted. I became alarmed as the prayer continued. The woman, her eyes still closed, said, "I sense a spirit of dissension in the room." I raised my hand and said, "That would be me." I told her I didn't feel comfortable praying, essentially, to Satan to kill somebody. I was asked to leave the pro-life ministry after this incident. I was one of only two Catholics in the ministry. I think they were conservative Presbyterians.
Wow, I don't think I have ever heard such a warped prayer, especially by someone calling themselves a Christian. Multiple tragedies played out that day.
Indeed. I sometimes wonder about that poor girl and her mother. It was 35 years ago. However, I walked out of the clinic that day holding a little plastic human fetus that we had tried to give them. My 6-year-old son loved it after I told him that was what he looked like in my tummy and he carried it around and played with it, then dropped it under the china cabinet in the kitchen. It was lying there when my 17-year-old daughter told me a few months later that she was pregnant. She and my mother were both weeping and looking at me for an answer. I was looking at that little plastic fetus when I asked her, "Do you want to keep this baby?" And all the crying stopped. I had started volunteering for Catholic Charities at that time and they let me go when they found out my daughter was pregnant and she was keeping the baby. I never worked in pro-life again but I think I've walked the walk. My grandson is a teacher now and has two full siblings. His parents married when he was a toddler and are still married. My daughter never missed a day of college.
I've been told that as well. One protestor told me he saw a fellow parishioner doing that to her daughter. A good man, he would not say who it was.
Young men favor abortion in large numbers
Sexual intercourse is the fun part. Raising a child is not so fun.
So, what's the next, big contentious issue on the horizon now that the left has won on abortion and "gay" and "trans" rights? Free speech. We will lose on that one, too, regardless of the First Amendment. Count on it. The culture has shifted. The same folks who support abortion and the LGBT agenda are the same people who can't tolerate opposition, so they absolutely will support politicians and policies that destroy the right to free speech. Get ready. Muzzles are coming.
This is the only remaining thing that may actually convince me to vote for Trump. Something I’ve never done, BTW.
I'm with you. I've never even voted for a republican before but given the choices here I'm going to jump off that cliff.
I always thought it was strange after Roe was overturned that so many misconstrued the meaning of that change.All it meant was abortion was no longer considered a constitutional right. Logically that left it to the states to sort it out. Yet any number people on both sides talk as if abortion had been banned. Hence, to some degree its emergence as an issue in this election. From a political standpoint this amounts to an insistence that federal abortion standards be reinstated. Pro lifers have no chance of success in this area. The public supports abortion and is increasingly drifting to a position of unrestricted abortion on demand . You can’t say this will never change. But not in my lifetime.On the other hand, in the foreseeable future, chances are something along the lines of Roe on a national level will probably come back. A Harris administration will push for this. A Trump administration would probably do nothing. I think these are the facts of life.If you derive satisfaction from the thought of punishing Trump for failing to back your position, well you do. You’re not accomplishing anything but it makes you feel better about things. Look , only so much happens in politics and most of it isn’t good.
"Yet any number people on both sides talk as if abortion had been banned."
The anti-abortion side was in a small way correct about this, Dobbs ALLOWED for some state bans. As for the pro-abortion side, this was a typical example of how they have lied from the beginning: in the case of both Roe and Griswold material and factual misrepresentations were made in their briefs.
Let me stress in a very small way.
The Democrats will never allow Roe on a national level, or if they do, it will have to be in a way that it will be easy to overturn. Why? Because it is a monumental moneymaker and vote-getter for them. The right to abortion has to be constantly in peril so that the Democrats can rally their base. They could easily have passed Roe on the national level in the first 2 years of the Obama administration when the Republicans were powerless, but they would never have dreamed of doing such a thing. I know more than a few woman who vote D solely on the abortion issue.
Abortion rights as a political moneymaker and vote-getter is important for the Democrats. Losing that issue would hurt the Democrats as much as the demise of the USSR hurt the Republicans.
"They could easily have passed Roe on the national level in the first 2 years of the Obama administration when the Republicans were powerless, but they would never have dreamed of doing such a thing."
Wouldn't it require a Constitutional Amendment? After all, that's what Roe avoided.
Not necessarily but whatever they might pass might indeed lead to another round of constitutional adjudication.
Which his why they want to pack the court.
Get your point but from Biden on down they’ve committed to federal abortion rights. Since I think almost all states will wind up with liberal abortion laws , it’s probably close to being moot.But it’s gestural politics of an important kind and it’s an embodiment of what is an important ideological fixation. So I think if they take both houses of congress and win the white house- which is likely- they’ll go for it.
I thought the reference to Tolkien speaking of "the long defeat" was very good Rod. I did not know he had said that. I followed your link, and found this - realistic and yet encouraging. Thanks!
<<<"Actually I am a Christian,” Tolkien wrote of himself, “and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’— though it contains (and in legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory” (Letters 255).">>>
Fr. Stephen Freeman has written quite a bit about Tolkien's "long defeat" on his blog Glory To God for All Things. One of the best blogs out there.
Our dear poster Jon often derisively asks what is woke. Woke is Rod Dreher's last post today on the Socialist government in Spain endorsing anti-Christian and perverted "art."
I am not sure about this. In my mind, there is a difference between 'woke' and simply perverted/diseased.
Let me add this on the pro-life issue: I have been pro-life my entire adult life. However, in light of our cultural realities you describe, Rod, I am now firmly pro-choice. I fully support the right of Leftists to kill their babies. If they want to destroy the next generation of Leftists in the womb, be my guest. If a generation from now there are fewer Leftists to oppose then great! Perhaps if pro-lifers over-produce and thus overcome the Left demographically, then that's a good thing. And if not, it's still a sensible approach. As the old adage in politics goes, if you see your opponent digging a hole for himself don't stop him. Same on the life issue. If God abandons people to their depravity (see Romans 1) I'm happy to do the same. I have no obligation to stop them from destroying their lives. As for me and my house and millions of others, we will chose life for ourselves. Others can choose death and live, and die, by the consequences.
I wonder if it is true that conservatives give birth to conservatives and liberals give birth to liberals. I don't think it is true, but I would love to see empirical data on that. I definitely know a lot of conservatives who came from liberal families, and vice versa.
Children more often than not vote as their parents do, especially if they have good relationships with their parents. My wife, however, is an oddity in her family, a Republican.
The future belongs to those who show up.
I have no problem with political realism.
When those aborted babies are more likely to be among your friends and family that is harder to take. People bring sin upon themselves it is on them but it is still sad.
Conservatives need to fight harder against perversion in schools, because there are far too many conservatives who still use public schools. Conservatives go to all the trouble to raise children and liberals try to steal them away.
I have even wondered if an end to compulsory schooling will end up being the right political move for defending children from perversion. I'm educated and I believe in Christian education, but I keep coming back to that point.
I used to be a staunch supporter of public education, I had a VERY good one, however, well, there’s a reason we put our child in private school.
The arts have been captured for a long time. As Rod's colleague R.V. Young has noted:
"If there is no human nature, then there is nothing that works of art can reveal to us. Works of art can only be mere ideological products of their time and place and will be valued or disparaged insofar as they promote or hinder someone's political projects"
There's a group of Catholic artists in Chicago whose ringleader describes them as 'double misfits' because first they're artists and second they're Catholic artists trying to restore the sacred to visual arts and thus rejected by other creatives.
The second paragraph hits something important. I don’t know that the issue here is human nature ( I have to think about that). However, contemporary aesthetics clearly run in the direction of politics over all. Art is good to the degree that it reflects what is politically correct.All art is agit prop. Which goes a long way way towards explaining why a great deal of mediocre work gets praised to the sky and why you find book reviews in The NYT which start talking about race and gender even when the book isn’t concerned with those issues. (Of course all books should be!).
Who are these artists? I have a couple of artists in the family who might want to link up with them.
Yes, America is a pro-choice nation with a culture dominated by the left. But there are ways to save the unborn. Crisis pregnancy centers. Ultrasounds. Organizations that provide homes for women who have children out of wedlock. Politics are not a solution. Our democracy has an immoral majority.
One must look at the positive in our current situation regarding the barbaric practice of abortion. Fewer "doctors" and "nurses" are willing to do such grisly work. The average age of an abortion "doctor" is about 63 years of age the last time I looked. Many abortion "clinics" have closed to lack of workers. Only the neurotic would want to work in a profession where the innocent are killed. Many owners of buildings refuse to rent to abortuaries because few businesses wish to operate sharing an office building with an abortuary.
All the aborted unborn are deserving of life yet it is interesting that, by my guess, 80 % of the victims would have grown up to be Democrats. Democrats are killing their own children in exchange for the Democratic gospel of absolute sexual freedom. True, it is sad that any baby is snuffed out like a cold sore or a benign tumor but it is bittersweet that abortion eliminates millions of our political enemies.
Yes, that's why in "The Benedict Option" I wrote of "antipolitical politics" as an option for us. The concept came from the Czech anticommunist resistance. Vaclav Benda, for example, realized that one reason the Communist held such power was that the people had become totally isolated and demoralized. He conceived of doing simple things like getting neighbors together for picnics as a form of politics. Why? Because anything that reversed the fear and isolation imposed by the dictatorship was, in some sense, about building a healthy politics. This is still open to us, even if we lose in formal politics.
Good point. I attend the Latin Mass because I believe in it. But I also enjoy attending the Latin Mass because there are so many people who attend who see the world as I do and my wife does. We are not alone. We are not isolated. Good people do exist. Many of them.
1 Kings 19: 18: “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.”
When Leah Libresco wrote her book about the practical applications of the BenOp I had Catholic friends laugh at suggestions like this that she made. I found it very irksome.
I wish that Catholics like that could spend a year living in Europe -- anywhere in Europe, even in Hungary -- so they can come to grips with what a truly post-Christian culture is like.
And yet these are often the same people who moan about the staleness of American parish life! One friend claimed that Leah was simply taking normal things that parishes should be doing anyways and dubbing them "the Benedict Option." I told him that was correct in a certain sense, but the reason was that many parishes had ceased doing them. What was once common and natural now needed doing with a stronger intention, which if the BenOp could help provide it, why complain?
Good ideas. One more to add: We need much more support for families with children with serious disabilities, and for people with serious disabilities. I can't imagine having a child who needs intensive round the clock care, and being pregnant with another, and then trying to attend to the needs of another child. It isn't humanly possible to provide decently for multiple children, both economically and emotionally/feeding/cleaning/being on top of homework, etc., while waking up every two hours to provide breathing treatments to the sick child for years on end. Or dealing with a child who rages violently on a regular basis. It is really hard, and all these pro-life people talking about young women who don't want to be mothers . . . really misses the point.
1000 likes.
Dana
Yes!!! I knew a married couple with multiple kids, including two children (now thirtysomethings) with disabilities, one very moderate and another severe. They were Godly people who did right by their children, but it severely strains marriages and sometimes women (and men) put health on the back burner. If local agencies yank respite care or ration it based on intersectional criteria in a woke blue city, it can be devastating.
The truth is neighbors and church people DO NOT want seriously disabled kids (into adulthood) disturbing worship, are allergic to helping, not that they should be expected to, but attitudes are poor. Luckily there are gov't resources and good ministries, but pro-lifers should not neglect this forgotten aspect.
So true.
We need to do a lot more to support people and families, period. Especially as Christians. Even among people who still regularly go to church, there's a lot of them who seem to feel that their "Christian obligation" is fulfilled by showing up to church on Sundays, and ceases for the rest of the week.
The pregnancy with my fifth was miserable. I was sick for months, and then I got to the point where I could hardly walk because she was positioned badly. Not a single person ever asked if they could help with anything. She was born, and not only did nobody ever ask if I could use help - oh, but Covid! you say - nobody offered to bring over a meal, sent a gift card, or even called with congratulations. I don't hold it against anyone, but it hurt. In the process of this divorce, there's been one lady who has watched the youngest a couple of times for court dates, and there's another friend who has come up *from Chicago* to sit with me and work on cleaning my house and one who has written a letter on my behalf, but it just seems like there are very few who are willing to reach out. Again, one consideration is that when congregations are older, they're less able to do the "help" work, but everybody seems to be so caught up in busy-ness and ends up so lonely anyway. If anything, if the Christian church wants to make an impact, building that community within the Church is going to be essential.
That is so sad. I didn't realize that your divorce was ongoing. I hope it settles soon with the best outcome for you and your children, and ultimately, your ex. If you don't mind my asking, where are you and how old is your youngest? I wish I could help. What you need are empty-nesters who miss playing with children.
I've been through a terrifying divorce, and might have advice, or words of comfort. If Rod can give you my email address, I would love to connect with you apart from this comment section, if you would like. No pressure.
You can use direct message on sub stack and go from there. That’s how she and I connected.
I don't know how to do that. Maybe she will do it to me.
Everyone is too busy. Everything in our culture valors business.
When I broke up with my ex-friends-all progressive women, even the conservative one-I told them I no longer had time for people who are too busy.
I am speechless and appalled.
Dear Katja: I send Christian love and prayers to you. I wish I was there to do more.
Somehow God has me in a place where I help a family with five children - Chabad, many know that story that I've posted about- but I have very often thought of you as I do it. It is an odd parallel that I know you, but can't physically be there, but can do some things that I wish I could do in the Christian community and specifically for you. And you know that even though I'm not physically there, we can talk!
Thank you so much!
I hope I didn't come off with the post sounding like "Poor me, poor me", but that whole idea of community is really strong in my soul right now, and I think we all feel what the lack of it feels like these days. May God bless your work with the family there, and let's talk again soon! :)
Not al all like "poor me", no worries. It helps people to be reminded that there are needs around them. Church can be such a hard thing, after the service, when there is no community. Soon!