One of the biggest issues I have is when people make statements like “McCain- someone who wants to continue this unjust & horrifying war”. I think McCain and Obama both want the war to end but they try to make McCain out like he just wants to go around killing people all the time.

McCain and Obama both want the Iraq war to end and they both have two ideas about how to do it. McCain thinks we should be there about another five years to continue to develop the Iraqi government and military so that they can defend themselves, and Obama wants to pull troops out immediately and leave the Iraqis to themselves.

If it is OK to say McCain “wants” the war, then it should be just as OK to say that Obama wants to desert the Iraqi people all to die at the hand of extremists. We need to stop using strict appeals to the emotions and be more fair and logical in our argument.

Rather say, McCain thinks it is most important that the war to continue until the Iraqi government and military are stable, and Obama thinks it is more important that we remove our troops regardless of the consequences to the Iraqi government and people in order to minimize the amount of American casualties.

HAPPY FATHER’S DAY, Father Jonathan!!!!!!!!

Personally, I don’t think that you are as bad as these people. You don’t ever demonize anyone for disagreeing with you. They wrote that stuff because they believe that they are absolutely right and can never be wrong and when they see a smart guy like you disagreeing with their views, they can’t take it.

Their views are like this: Because you are a priest you can’t talk about any other subject other than religion, including Dairy Queen ice cream cakes. Because you support McCain, and think that abortion is wrong then you are totally evil. You don’t care about those poor soldiers who die and don’t support them as much as that gal who wrote that e-mail.

Can you imagine all of the things that they would say to me? I don’t want to vote for Obama because he lacks experience. Their response: Then you are a racist. The war in Iraq has brought some people opportunity. Their response: You only think that because you are a greedy capitalist. I think that people should say anything that they want, including Catholic priests. Their response: Only ignorant people like you think everyone should have freedom of speech. Only enlightened people like us should say whatever we want.

Dear Jill, as an American Soldier myself who has served overseas….i must admit that when i left to go to Iraq..I had a wife, family, and grasp on what i THOUGHT was important….But things did not work out the way i planned..i LOST it all at home..now i have no family…am being held responsible for bills that my ex-wife(who left me for her own cousin)ran up…am being charged child support for children that i was not allowed to keep because our system ALWAYS sides with the mother in issues of custody. I was not left enough money to buy a lawyer to get a divorce..so now i am left to shoulder the burden of her new born child with another man….BUT..having said that, If it took losing my family 10,000 X 10,000 times, and going thru the years of pain and heartache…FOR MY AMERICA, i would do it again…so dont sit there and tell me that doing nothing is the answer..may i remind you of the saying…”All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do NOTHING”. SO go ahead and shelter yourself in your temple singing com-ba-ya my LORD. Me and my fellow soldiers will be giving up everything to defend this nation we love!

Thank you,

God Bless America

Very well said Father Jonathon. From reading the emails you shared it reinforces in my mind the very real danger that is facing our country right now and that is simply an absence of an absolute truth. We are slowly removing any standard of truth from our society. Without a standard, who can say what is right for this nation and what is wrong? What is right for me in a particular situation may not be right for you in that same situation. This, i believe, is a recipe for disaster. The real battle now is the media war. The force that prevails in the struggle for the minds of American’s will slowly see there agenda become a reality. We are allowing things now in our homes, on our T.V.’s and accepting things as common that, 50 years ago, would have caused decent American’s to act! I understand and appreciate the great freedom’s that our country has and i respect everyone’s right to speech and press but i also believe that with great freedom comes great responsibility to protect the very truths that have guided us this far. Is the answer then McCain or Obama? I think not. The answer lies with the American majority that believes in absolute truth deep in their hearts and longs to be governed by it to simply act!
Keep up the great work.

One of the first thoughts that I had after reading the article was: A person is empathetic, caring and kind. People are selfish, brutal and thoughtless.
The difference in this case is that people in large groups (also known as mobs) tend to be, shall we say, a less than flattering portrayal of humanity’s better sides. I have noticed this to be the tendency of people who attempt to speak for large groups of people without authorization or authority. I do not like to hear people talk about “what we/they want” or “what we/they think” or “what we/they need” or say other similar things without the other people in the “we” or “they” having the faintest idea what it is that is being said. I laugh when people speak on behalf of people who have an opposing viewpoint, as it seems happened in both letters. Each person can only speak for themselves unless they give someone else the authorization or authority to speak on their behalf. This is a basic principle of business, government and religion alike. Not just anybody can speak for a nation, for a business, or for God. They have to be given the proper authorization and authority.

I make it a personal policy never to listen to a person who complains unless they offer a solution to the problem that they see. I ignore useless whining. Unless “Jill” has an idea of what we could do to stop the fighting in Iraq, I would advise her not to criticize anyone else’s ideas about the war, let alone criticize another person’s ideas.

As for “Jim,” I find the most telling part of his letter to be the last two words: Go Away. Instead of looking to open a discussion or start up a dialogue for exchange of ideas, he simply wishes people with the opposing viewpoint to leave him alone. It’s a sad, but rather common thing for people to do who disagree. Instead of just trying to drive out people who don’t agree, why don’t we instead try to talk about differences; and if that doesn’t work, you can always just keep your opinion to yourself, and ask the other person to do the same, and if they don’t, well then, just stay away from the other person.

I agree with the writer about the rightous, but I feel misguided sense of protecting life that the “pro-life” groups have.

These groups will stand on street corners and protest “that sinful woman” that might destroy a couple of cells, yet we have millions of children in this world that have no parents, no homes, no food and just have to fend for themselves. It seems that these groups aren’t interested in getting their hands dirty by actually doing something for living children.

On one hand the church tells us that this life is just trial for a new and better life in heaven, so why do they want to see these children suffer so much?

Hi Father Jonathan,

I am willing to accept the sincerity of Jill’s comments about war and killing. However, I feel that since she pointedly announced her viewpoint as coming from a practicing Catholic, I feel that she might benefit from studying some of our church’s official teachings and writings.

Going all the way back to St. Augustine and the just war theory, there has not been an accusation of soldiers doing their duty as “committing murder”. Of course, that presupposes that the war being fought is indeed just. We certainly have room for debate and discussion with the current goings on in Iraq.

I have personally run into the social justice logic at meetings here in North Carolina where high rents and low wages are defined as “violence against the poor”. Equating the peace and social justice issues together with the Pro Life movement does not rest well with me. That extends back to Archbishop Hunthousen’s theory that the United States should surrender to the Soviet Union because it is better than partcipating in the arms race.

Having said this, I recall the words of Pope John Paul II in “Evangelium Vitae”, which is the basis for all my pro-life work within the Catholic Church, where he states unequivocally that abortion is always a grave moral error (read mortal sin). These items are clearly defined in our Catholic Catechism.

I too cringe at the WWJD references, because I have no clue what He would do, nor do I presuppose the intelligence and grace to figure that out.

What’s with Jill and what are they teaching at that St. Francis church anyway? I attended 12 years of Catholic School and attend church regularly. I read the Cathechism and the Encylicals. I can’t, for the life of me, understand how any Catholic, in good conscience, won’t vote for Bush. This was the easiest moral decision of my entire life. Bush v Gore; Bush v Kerry. Are you kidding me? That was no-brainer. I appeal to everyone to supports this Obamination of a candidate to read the 10 Commandments, the Beatitudes, and the Cathecism. I also appeal to everyone who supports McCain to slap some sense into him with regard to embryonic stem cell research!

“Jill’s” comments that Jesus, therefore God, would not support a war are really rather ludicrous considering the MANY times in the Bible that God SENT his people to war. So that argument will not wash with any Christian who has taken the time to read the Bible. The Bible teaches that we are to live in peace in so long as it’s in our ability to do so. Sometimes we are required to take a stand, and sometimes we are to defend people who cannot defend themselves. After considerable personal research into this war, I think that saving the Iraqi people from Saddam’s rule is justifiable. How many hundreds of thousands had to die before Jill thought someone should do something? Yeah, I know, the media says it’s about oil, old vendetta’s, etc. But please remember, CONGRESS authorized this war and they were given the same intel that the President had. They all tho’t there was reason to go to war. Have we not learned anything from history about controlling tyrants BEFORE they get too powerful and create an even bigger problem? How long did Hitler terrorize the world before the US decided it was a problem? We waited too long to deal with that problem so maybe Bush should be commended for heading off an even greater threat. Someone who wanted WMD’s. The fact that we haven’t found them doesn’t negate his intent. War is horrible, there is no doubt about that but sometimes it’s necessary. I wish I could supply the news video of a Tulsa missionary describing the horrible conditions in Iraq under Saddam. If you get away from the liberal media sources, you will find the TRUE story about Iraq and how much life has IMPROVED for the Iraqi people. Where is our moral obligation to make life a little better for our fellow man? Oh, I forgot, it wasn’t as politically correct as say doing to Darfur. As for the point about keeping religion out of politics, a true believer CANNOT separate the two. Their faith should guide their actions and we are called to set an example. I could list numerous quotes from Washington, Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc, stating the fact the GOD MUST be considered in government but the government should not control the church. That’s the separation of church as state as it was originally intended. And we as Christians have a duty to God to insure that moral people, not perfect people, are in charge of our government and our welfare. So ends my rant. Have a nice day.

I would like to see those Priests, who did not expose and stop the sexual predators in the Priesthood of the Catholic church, to be tried by the court system as enablers to child sexual molestation. What is your response to this?

All I want to say is that anyone who calls themself a Christian and votes for a Democrat is not a Christian. I’m not saying that they should vote Republican, but don’t try to convince me that you can support homosexuality and abortion and still be a Christian.

Father Jonathan, thank you one again for an excellent article.

At the risk of being simplistic the two emails you cited are perfect examples of how society generally has been dumbed down and after years of its-all-about-me and living the Oprah moment it appears most people have lost not only the ability to think for themselves but consider whatever feels good and gratifying to constitute which way their moral compass swings at that point in time.

Furthermore I agree that it is not only appropriate but an obligation for campaigning and elected officials to fully discuss controversial issues, how else can anyone make an informed decision on voting day?

Last, it galls me that the mainstream media plays patty-cake with the candidates and especially Obama instead of asking hard questions to find out what they really believe and how they would deal with the issues facing not only America but the world as well.

Thanks again,

Jim

I’m pro-life too, but refuse to make this a litmus test when making a decision who to vote for.

What other moral and social issues do you also place this level of significance? It would be interesting to see where the two candidates stand on these issues as well.

Father Johnathon, Your commentary is right on the point. I’m also very proud, that you have a voice. For those of us who want to hear your views. The first e-mail (Jim), is one of the many sheep that the average politician is looking for….they don’t want to hear anyone else’s opinion, as they may have to think. If their messiah says, only my words, and a vote for me, will lead us to a more perfect socialist country, so be it. The second e-mail (Jill), is scary. She calls herself a catholic, but I don’t know? You would support a man that has only shown that he, and the majority of his friends and associates are racist, terrorist, crooks? A man who seems to look down on people of any kind of faith…I don’t know! I have one question? How many abortions have been performed since the war started…I don’t know that either, but I’ll bet its more than the number of volunteer soldiers that have died for this country. I hate the war, but for goodness sakes, let’s get it over with. The right way. Are we to run away with our tails between our legs. I hope not. John McCain wasn’t my first choice, but he’s better than the alternative. If we as a country want any kind of respect from others, then we need to complete what we started. We also need to change our system so that a man or woman, either of whom would be worth voting for, can run. It isn’t right, what we are left with to elect president. Everyone has a right to vote for who they want, but think.

Father, father, father. The Catholic church has already been the power behind the throne for centuries and that didn’t really go over that well. Separation of church and state means what it means just like any gun owner will tell you about their first amendment rights. It is meant so that no religious standards would apply to those seeking office or in those laws that we pass. Give it up, you know as well as I do that most of our founding fathers were diest’s and totally unlike the fire and brimstone attitude that has infected much of the Christian right. Afterall, didn’t we invade Afghanistan to topple a theocracy, I see no reason about establishing one here. Once you start down that slippery slope I don’t see an easy way to return. Stop revisionist history, like this country was founded by people escaping religious persecution. It wasn’t that was only a small community. It was started by rich countries and entrepreneurs forming a colony in order to make money by sending goods and products back to their home countries for purchase and trade. Then a bunch of people got angry over taxes and not having a say in their government. That’s it.

Wow… Great column this week, Father Jonathan! My problem with people wanting me to separate my political judgements from my religion is that I simply cannot. God made me who I am, and I cannot separate my love, gratitude and desire to live my life according to His will. I don’t presume to say that my wishes are God’s will, only that I wish to do His will and that (as a part of that) I allow the Spirit to guide me.

Of course, people who have closed themselves to God cannot understand that. I was once attacked for making the statement that I think homosexuality is a sin, like adultery or lying. I got ripped apart for being judgemental; people cannot understand that defining something as sin is not judgement. It’s just like saying the grass is green or the sky is blue (for the most part). Many people today want to live without any moral absolutes, and they get really upset when anyone else thinks that there are.

Actually, I enjoy hearing why someone will vote for a certain candidate…it helps me decide. I guess I’m not afraid of being influenced but I have only a few thoughts concerning your article. The comment from the emailer: “If you keep trying to influence the election process by talking in terms of right and wrong you are no better than Rev. Wright. At least he spoke the truth, something you obviously can’t handle.” The fact that there are some people in this country who believe that Rev. Wright spoke the truth in his ranting and raving is disturbing. Also the email: “But for you to openly put down Obama for his lack of pro-life stance & for you to praise Bush for his “culture of life” tour when he campaigned, then you encourage McCain to speak more of these values to get more votes is all hypocritical!” is disturbing. An interesting fact to me but obviously not to some is that a Democratic party’s identifying factor is a lack of pro-life stance; the right to choose seems to outweigh the right to life. How can someone be anti-war and then promote the legality of abortions? I see a contradiction. When asking the question: “Who is being aborted?” or “Who is not alive today because they were aborted?” then abortion takes on a different meaning. I wonder if people who want legalized abortions are even thinking. To me this seems to be the ultimate form of child abuse, killing a baby in the womb. A sad fact that is obvious to me is that all people do not desire “good.” Your comment: “Perhaps the best definition of the common good is the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” My thought is that to fulfill some people, good has nothing to do with it. Insatiable appetites drive some such as greed that is driving up the price of oil. This has nothing to do with “good” or the “common good” yet it is a driving force that impacts the world. The desire to legalize abortions has nothing to do with “good.” Someone is assuming that the baby’s life has no value and, therefore, will not be worth living. A candidate’s moral values or lack of morals make a difference as to which direction this country is going to take and also, without the influence of the clergy, the definition of “good” surely has the potential to change when moral voices are silenced. Those who oppose any reference to good continue to try to influence others in voting so I see no reason why you or any other clergy or anyone who is “desirous of good” should not use whatever influence they have to encourage voters to look for “good” when voting.

Here, Here… Thank you Fr. Jonathan,
Regarding your point #4, Scripture shows us over and over that what His followers thought that Jesus would do, he did not.

Father Jonathan,

I’d like to start with “Jill’s” comments. It always amazes me when someone clings to “What would Jesus do?” but then hurls insults at you and your employer. Well, I certainly don’t think Jesus would do that. Her views on the culture of life vs. the war seem extremely simplistic. To say that the soldiers are committing mortal sin every time they kill shows no serious thought whatsoever. Has she not in her years of Catholic schooling heard of St. Augustine’s concept of Just War? Not that I am necessarily saying that this is a just war, but war is so much more complicated than she is making it out to be. I suppose by her standards that every Allied soldier in WWII committed mortal sin while fighting for the rights of those that were being oppressed? I would turn her question around and ask, “How can any person (especially Catholic) support a candidate that wouldn’t even vote for a ban on partial birth abortions?” Would that not also be a mortal sin? As for “Jim:” Yes, there are some things in this life that are absolute. His position again demonstrates the fall to the culture of relativism that is so dangerous. Once one comes to the conclusion that there are no absolute rights and wrongs, anything becomes justifiable. Simply telling Father to “go away” displays extreme intolerance to other’s positions they have the right to express. One cannot expect a person to simply seperate himself from the values and beliefs he holds dear just to satisfy another. I agree with you Father. So many want to silence every voice but their own. It’s sad that those who want to preach tolerance and understanding are usually the first to try and silence opposing positions.

all i have to say is that when we forget that we are one nation under GOD we will be a nation gone under. As for Jim, Jesus said ” I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE, no man comes to the Father but by me.” there’s no getting around that, you have to face that and make your own decision. a man, and a nation reaps what they sow. as for Jill, Pastor Jonathan i enjoy your columns, you are a man of God, i choose not to call you ” father ” for he is in heaven, but you are a light that shines on the fox page, and i pray God’s blessing upon you. we do need to be aware of the candidates stances, and make our own decision. when she said what would Jesus do about war, remember he healed the roman centurion’s son, he didn’t rebuke him. but he did say if you live by the sword you’ll die by the sword. i believe and i feel the Word of God backs it, that if we are defending people then Operation Iraqi freedom is justified in the sight of God. i pray for our troops and their families for peace in the midst of chaos. God Bless

Dear Father Jonathan,

I deeply appreciate your vocation. I am so glad you became a priest.

Your point is very well made in that we presume to think we know what Jesus would do; we his creation presuming to know what the creator would do in any situation. We are not his God, yet we throw his name around as if it means nothing. It means everyting if we only could grasp that for more than a nano second.

I know I have to defend the fact that I am a Christian to people anymore, that I won’t have the same valules that they have. I feel looked down upon; even by my friends. I feel they tolerate me because I am their friend, but if I wasn’t they would like to rip into to me more about where I stand on the issues. When did we become like this?

Don’t Tell Me How to Vote!

What is truely sad about ‘Jim’ is he really believes that Church only happens on Sunday.

I just can’t imagine that in this day ‘Jill’, a Catholic, is so unaware of how her faith works and how the world works.

You do good work Father. Keep it up.

And I’m not a Catholic.

George

To quote you, Fr. Jonathan: “Perhaps the best definition of the common good is the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 1906:

“By common good is to be understood ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.’”

Fr Jonathan, you may view this as a trifle legalistic, but I am a scholar and author who just recently rejected a students’ M.A. thesis due to plagiarism. Though your arguments are tactful, plagiarism greatly repudiates your credibility. Please be candid with your readers and quote your sources, even if they may be directly linked with official Catholic teaching.

Father Jonathan- While I would love to see the Iraq war end peacefully for all parties, a politician’s stand on abortion tells me more about their moral fiber than does his/her stand on Iraq. All the heated debate about Iraq seems to be forgetful of the fact that the US has armed forces that people voluntarily join, knowing that they may end up in harm’s way. The same can’t be said of a pre-born human; he/she is conceived through no effort or fault of his/her own, and is defenseless against the fatal assault which occurs during an abortion. To compare soldiers who signed up for the risk of their own free will with pre-born humans is to use a fatally flawed analogy, in my opinion. I hope to see more reasoned discourse regarding the upcoming election, and less vitriolic finger pointing.
Grace and Peace- Jim Carson MD

Very well put Father. God bless you!

I just wish that the religious community would get the hell out of politics. Go practice your raping little boys and girls. I look at most religions, all religions, as CULTS. No I am not an atheist. But I will not have a bunch of morons, from the pope to priest, tell me how to THINK AND LIVE. Prove to me one thing that is true in the bible and I will change my tune. I was raised a Catholic and my father was a southern Protestant. As of yet I have to see if any of them are really a pathway to God?
I have had the opportunity in my life to meet several priest and ministers and when they get away from the religious aspect of their life I find that they are really decent people, but the first time religion comes into a conversation I say take your cult membership and talk to a wall.
And for you who think I a nut, study what a cult is and then outline any religion.

Dear Father Jonathan,
I agree with your post on many levels. I, as a Christian, (not Catholic) believe that abortion is wrong. As the commandments clearly state “Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder”. I believe that the killing of an innocent unborn child is murder.
I believe we should pray for ALL our leaders, without ceasing. We should also have a very active role in where this nation is headed. It is our God given responsibility to speak out against those things that are immoral and unjust.
I also understand, and share many other’s views that war is horrible. But as believers and students of the Holy Bible we need to understand that everything that is happening around us is part of God’s plan to redeem a world filled with sin. Many books in the Bible detail wars fought and many wars where God told His children to leave no survivors (meaning men, women, children, livestock - none!) It was all part of His plan. I believe He sent us to Iraq to liberate an opressed people. I cried tears of joy when the Iraqi people left the polling places with their finger covered in black ink! Our very country and freedom was won in a similar war. Hundreds of thousands died during the birth of our great United States! War is an unfortunate, but sometimes necessary means to remove an evil tyrant - no matter who he/she may be.
One day soon the trumpet will sound and all the death and destruction will cease. Until that time we here on the Earth must endure the “labor pangs” leading up to the last days. I was among the millions of believers around the world who prayed for this war to never begin. I believe strongly in the power of prayer and that God answers ALL prayers. But, as in the Garden of Gethsemane His answer was “My Will Be Done”. I’m sure many non-believers will not understand, but all that is occuring in the world is necessary to achieve the glorious return of our Lord. I don’t believe Senator McCain is saying he supports the war, (remember, he has spoken against it even before he decided to run for president), he simply says we have an obligation to the people of Irag to see it through and not abandon them. How worse would the world perceive us if we simply left it the way it is now.
I am not a fan of McCain, but we do not need someone like Obama who seems likely to lead our country further into the decadence and decay we have been experiencing increasingly in the past few years. A man who clearly seems to want to abandon the people of the Middle East in their greatest time of need. How Christian would that be?!
God help us all!
Blessings,
K

Fr. Jonathan,

Thank you for your columns, they are always insightfull and instructive. I am struck by the attacks
on you personally, by “Jim” and “Jill”. It is clear to me that they can not have an intellectual discussion about politics and religion. On one hand, Jim appears to be a non-religious person
who rejects your (read “church”) involvement and on the other hand, Jill, who has to name the
Catholic school she attended in order to set the tone for her argument against Senator McCain. They
do not, in my view, present a sound rationale for their positions, rather more of the same left/right
(mostly “left” in this case) sound bites. And, finally, the question of “what would +Jesus do?” Fr. Jonathan, can this question be ansered by saying “we can not know the answer in this life”?

With respect and reverence,

Jim

I believe that it is our duty to keep a moral map on the dash board. If we didn’t, laws against things like murder, theft and the like, would not be in existance. Sure that seems simplistic, but think about it, if it weren’t morally wrong to murder someone, then what would be the point. And if there weren’t moral people standing up for the sanctity of life, then life would have no value.

There are plenty of people in the world that feel that life has no value and they get to stand up for their right to believe that, so why do they get to interfere with our right to stand up and object? People scream in this country every day about the loss of military life in this war. Listen to the threats about wiping us off the map, wiping Isreal off the map. How many innocent would die? This isn’t because of our foreign policy, it’s because we have a way of life that they despise. We’re free to make our choices, they’re not making them for us. We don’t believe what they believe, so we’re marked for destruction by their hand, according to some despots’ radical belief structure that not only targets us, but ANYONE that doesn’t believe EXACTLY what they tell you to. It’s been happening throughout our history.

Not unlike being told to shut your mouth and keep church to Sunday, because you speak up about a moral objection to something that someone else obviously stands for.

My brother was a marine that served multiple tours in Iraq. He watched his friends die, he watched them get hurt. Yet if you ask him, to this day, he loves the Iraqi people. He found them to be happy to see them, was invited in for food and drink on a regular basis, welcomed into their homes. Those are the people he fought to defend. Those that can’t defend themselves out of fear for what their own people will, and have been doing, to their families. If we pull our troops out now, those are the people that will suffer for their “impudence”. When the sheild of our troops is removed, if their military and government aren’t ready to stand on their own, it’s not their officials that will be struck at first… it’s those innocent people that only want to raise their families in peace and prosperity, but have repeatedly been denied that by another sect of their own people. A sect of people that carry out terrorist actions against anyone that doesn’t do what they’re told to. We’ve been told to accept their belief structure or die.. they used the internet.. so they feel that they’ve done what they are supposed to in offering us our choice.

The cost of this war is not pretty. My brother now works for a company that trains soldiers for combat in Iraq and Afhganistan, while bearing his own scars. He trains them with love for the Iraqi people that made such an impact on his life. He got downright angry when he believed that I thought that they were fighting the Iraqi people. ( I didn’t.. it was just a miscommunication ) “We’re not fighting Iraqi’s, we’re fighting the terrorists that are imbedded there!” He actually yelled at me for it.

So to all of you people out there that think that the majority of our soldiers are blood thirsty monsters roaming house to house slaughtering their innocent, shame on you. Yes some innocent people die in war, it’s horrific, it’s gut wrenching to see people suffer, but it’s true!! And those that willfully and knowingly take innocent life deserve to have the full weight of what they did dropped on their heads wether it’s a terrorist or rogue soldiers on our side!! Once again, the actions of a few make demonizing the rest ok. If you think that we’re out there simply to take life, then you’re shortsighted at best. And you have no memory of things that happened a relatively short time ago. Do you honestly think that the terrorists would break down your door, look for our soldiers and leave if they found none? No, they’d brutally slaughter everyone there then move on and do the next for more of the same. They do it to their OWN PEOPLE.

So that’s what happens when life, at any stage of existance, has no value…

Obama is pro abortion, pro choice, however you want to state it and we have a right to state it, wether someone else likes how we phrase it or not. People have a right to their opions and morals, and we have a right to stand up for that which we believe in. In any forum, in any venue, so long as we’re not starting riots.

Without some kind of moral compass, society is lost. We invaded a country and we’re trying to help stablize it with some basic human rights while protecting the rights of the innocent to exist. We have a right to object when someone on our own soil, tries to prove that wrong. Just because a job is hard, does that mean that we wash our hands of it with something so morally huge riding on it? The lives of millions, in either case? No. We roll up our sleeves and keep going, no matter how many people try to tell us that we have to shut our mouths and keep our opinions to ourselves.

It’s a moral issue…

I once heard the saying “a man conviced against his will is of the same opinion.” Regardless of the subject matter it is not likely that any facts or well stated position will change a person’s opinion who sits at the extreme. Consequently, the focus is on the “undecided” or the “moderate”.

I cast my first vote in 1972 for Richard Nixon. My father was a “yellow dog” democract prior to 1972. He too voted for Nixon.

The moderates from both parties will decide this election though they are unhappy with both candidates. Their decision will be based upon which candidate is the least offensive to their set of moral values.

Father Johnathan, it is your job, duty and obligation to influence. Just as it is mine within my sphere of influence.

Thanks,

John

I have long bristled at the WWJD. I remember a reading that equality with god is not something to be grasped. Jeasus said to follow him, not pretend to mimic him. I remember that we should treat people as we want to be treated. So this means if I break your window, I am responsible for its replacement. If I invade your country and topple a tyrant and with him the sole institutions of government necessarily controlled by said tyrant, then I am responsible to help you get the institutions of government put back together again.

Once I remember being furious with a Priest for encouraging us to vote for the person who would best look after the poor. He used an example of a beggar on a corner in an affluent community as an example of their being not an adequate safety net. But he also spoke of his personal reaction, to stay tight within the safety of his car but be motivated to support government programs for the poor. My gutteral reaction came from a different reading of scripture in the story of Lazarus at the gate. For the wealthy “taxpayers” to sit within the comfort of their home and decry the state of the poor and the irresponsibility of the state to do something is abboragating his/her responsibility to be God’s witness. I don’t know where Jesus tells us to encourage our governments to care for the poor. I believe he told us they were our responsibility. Every man, woman and child is part of the body of Christ and needs our attention. I felt like the Priest was telling me to vote for the person most likely to take from the rich and give to the poor (i.e. not the person who would cut taxes and create jobs.) He never said one word about the value of life or how that should figure into the equation for whom to pick. (i.e placing the values along a spectrum or relative hierarchy as you described.)

I pray for a day when we can have a discussion about values without making pronouncements that disparage another’s integrity or intellect. When Jesus preached and was approached by Pharisees who questioned how a messiah could live outside the laws of purity, his responses did not demean, mock, or dismiss. He taught through parable and used other parts of the law to show how one could live a devout and holy life outside of the laws. Some were converted, some were fearful, and some were sure of the rightness of their position. Father, I thank you for showing us how to engage in a discussion of values without requiring that I surrender mine to yours or vice versa.

Jennifer, Kansas

In re:
“Primus Tomlinson
June 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Father, father, father. The Catholic church has already been the power behind the throne for centuries and that didn’t really go over that well. Separation of church and state means what it means just like any gun owner will tell you about their first amendment rights. It is meant so that no religious standards would apply to those seeking office or in those laws that we pass.”

Two really important points here that should be made to anyone self-important enough to go by the nom de plume “Primus”:
1. Really, really horribly errant constitutional mis-references:
a. Separation of church and state is not found anywhere in the constitution; it was in a letter written to a Baptist church group (in CT, I believe).
b. The “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is found in the Second Amendment.
2. The article precluding a religious test for any office or position within the federal government is binding upon the government. The government cannot require that you be a Presbyterian, a Congregationalist, a Christian or a Jew. Nor can the government require that you show any particular belief with regard to a deity. this was never meant, as Washington’s own letters amply attest, to imply that religious faith and morals had no place in public life. To argue this point, notwithstanding the non-traditional nature of some of the founders’ beliefs, is to defy recorded history.

People often commit the gross conceptual error of applying the limitations on the federal government found within the Constitution to the states and the people. This rather turns on its ear the purpose of the Tenth Amendment.

I am amazed at how few people seem to understand the purpose behind the Bill of Rights. Often different amendments are quoted as law individually without considering the impact studying two or more amendments and considering the overall purpose…freedom. In the case of separation of church and state. By itself the amendment makes a clear and bold statement that dictates no religion dictated or favored by the state. When interpreted alone this leads to great debate between what is allowed to be done by those trying to exercise their beliefs, but also participate in the political system either as an employee, such as a teacher or senator, or as a voter. This amendment is provided only to protect freedom, by ensuring that no one religion “the majority” can assert itself on another, thus imposing on freedom to worship as one sees fit. If one then considers other aspects of the Bill Of Rights, lets say freedom of speech, one quickly realizes that there is a stark difference between the government dictating religion, and individuals including government personnel, and voters including voters expressing their beliefs. The expression of ones beliefs is just as protected by the Bill Of Rights, therefor is expected as part of our society. As an example one cannot tell another they have to pray in school. The school should not lead students, because that is an institutional acknowledgment of one religion. However using this model, there is a flip side. The school may also not interfere with that group of cheerleaders that decides to encircle and pray on their own at a sporting event, for such an action also interferes with protected rights, one the freedom of speech, and two the freedom to worship as they see fit, even on government property. The point is that all of the Bill Of Rights were designed to protect freedoms, expression being one, and to many people expressing and acting on their beliefs is the highest form of expression. When considering the Bill of Rights in its entirety it becomes clear that our forefathers wisely intended for the government to remain neutral in its influence on the people, so that the people could always remain individual with their influence on the government. Pass no law that chooses a side, so I can always have the freedom to take whatever side I want and express myself accordingly, including voting.

I’d like to comment on the Right to Life platform which is more or less assumed of every conservative Republican. Well, I’m pro choice. I simply do not believe that the soul starts at conception, nor do I believe a fetus is a person, nor do I believe this has been the traditional belief. I understand that the Catholic Church takes the opposite view. So do many, if not all, fundamental Protestant churches. But my church doesn’t, and I don’t either. I can’t answer as to when a fetus becomes a baby or when a soul is manifest. These questions are way beyond my ability to comprehend. They are matters for God, and not me.

Although there may have been occassional exceptions, I don’t think miscarriages in the past received funerals or grave plots or inclusion in the family Bible. Fr. Jonathan, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think miscarriages called for last rites or emergency baptism, or whatever.

In any case, I want to make the point that not all conservative Republicans automatically support the Pro Life movement. Frankly, I think the energy that goes into pro life would be far better spent developing a support system for prospective mothers, and one that I would hope would include adoption. I do not see the benefit in a teenager beginning adulthood as a single mom. I don’t think the teenager or the baby stands to gain from that situation.

It is fashionable in today’s society to assume a family does not need to include a father. On this point, I am very traditional. A family needs two centers of support, both monetarially and personally. And I’m not talking shared custody.

In any case, one issue voting is very dangerous. There may be times when it is necessary, but I wonder if life can ever be approached from such a limited perspective. I support conservative Republicans even though I am personally pro choice. I like to think I’m not so easily manipulated that I would blindly follow anyone who promised a one-shot deal.

To Primus Tomlison — Your history is faulty. There was nothing here in North America when the colonies were first founded, so there were no goods to be returned to the home country. The tax revolt which sparked the independence movement began specifically because England had never before enforced her rights to taxation — because there had been nothing to tax! By the time there was something to tax, the American colonists no longer saw the benefits of paying. Frankly, I still feel that way.

I will vote for the candidate who has adhered to the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9. To do otherwise would be to vote for a candidate who cannot be trusted even by those closest to him.

While I might agree and disagree with both McCain and Obama on many issues, I would never vote for a deceptive, dishonest, untrustworthy and immoral adulterer.

That being said, and inasmuch as I speak only for myself, I would never be so presumptuous as to tell another person how he or she should vote or even suggest that I know best how another should vote. I leave such judgements and conclusions to the infinite wisdom of the more (self)righteous among us.

One thing that all of the people who tend to throw out “seperation of church and state” need to remember is that NO WHERE in the Constitution are these words written. Unless you have a “secular” copie of this great document, it is not to be found.

Dear Father.
My understanding of the division of church and state was to guarantee each individual the right to worship or not worship as the saw fit without having an advantage or disadvantage in land ownership and voting right from their fellow citizen. It did not mean that religious folks had any more or any less right to express their opinion on any subject in the public discourse. The definition has been twisted in the years since the mid-50’s to the position expressed today. My opinion as a citizen of the United States is that those who have twisted it had an agenda that was not in the best intrest of a full and fair excange of ideas and those who repeat this erronious definition either are advancing that agenda with ill intent or are too lazy or stupid to read the original as written and understand what it says. As a leader of the catholic faith you may not preach that voting one way or the other is what god wants and make it a prerequisite for voting or land ownership, but, as an individual citizen of our nation you have every right and obligation to make your opinion known. I served in the military as did my father, grandfather and brother so that that right and obligation cannot be abridged. Those with differing opinions should be pleased that they have a similar right and obligation guaranteed by the Constitution otherwise they could well be in a country ruled by who has the most firepower rather than a country of laws and justice.

Father,
Thanks for your column and for your vocation. It was great seeing you at Yankee Stadium during the Holy Father’s visit this Spring!’ I was with Fr. Najim’s group from Providence.

I want to respond to SWN: I am overjoyed to see Fr. Jonathan’s quote of the Catechism. As a devout and active Catholic, I want to see more priests quoting the catechism!
Keep up the great work, Father. God Bless you!

If the religious wrong - er, right - want to make sure they can influence public policy per their skewed and myopic interpretations of the Bible, fine. They want no real separation of Church and State despite the Constitution? Fine. In that case they should be treated like every other entity and they should be taxed just like every other entity. Just think how much of a bite we can put into Bush’s national debt if we just tithe the Catholic Church!

RIGHT AS ALWAYS….

“I don’t think pastors, priests, and churches should endorse any candidate or party.”

IF you believe that, then shut up.

Religion belongs in the church, not the state.

Dennis

It is really hard to take the father’s comments to heart. He is writing about moral authority while representing a church ( of which I am a former member), which hide and later obfuscated their role in protecting a large number of child molestors. Moral authority is in short demand these days. the catholic church is certainly not in a position to preach to others in this regard.

The Catholic Church and all other churches should stay the hell out of
politics! Separation of Church and State - ever hear of it? Then practice it.
Who do you think you are shoving your morals and your political beliefs
down other peoples throats! Talk to those who come to you and leave
the rest of us alone. I don’t want to be in your church and I don’t want
you to be in the politics of my country. Thank you.