Moving to Typepad

I'm moving this blog to typepad -- loyopp.typepad.com When I saw the gyrations necessary to get categories in Blogger, I threw in the towel. Importing the posts to typepad was easy, but the comments didn't follow, so while all should be there, they're lumped together by post.

Pro-Choice + Anti-Death Penalty = Double Standard?

Bedrocktruth responded to my post about Governor George Bush and the death penalty with a the question posed in the title of this post. The answer is not comment-sized, so I'm responding with a new post. First his comment:

Wonder if you'd care to comment, Loyopp, on the double standard practiced by liberals who support abortion rights and oppose the death penalty. Life at taxpayer's expense for serial killers; death for innocent babies- with no apparent equivocation or remorse on either count........

My reply: Thanks for visiting and your comment, bedrocktruth, and for demonstrating a rhetorical tool used often and effectively by the strident, right and left: tell your opponent what he thinks, then demand he defend that position. You can see both Falwell and Sharpton using this technique in the Meet the Press transcript I posted. It's childish, but effective. First, let's take the words you put in my mouth back out -- in particular "death for innocent babies- with no apparent equivocation or remorse". I hope to see a world where all women would enter into the decision to abort a pregnancy with a great deal of equivocation. I believe that's already true of most women, certainly the ones I've known. It's the moral obligation of parents, friends, and pastors, and who counsel women making this decision to encourage the woman to choose life for the child, absent overwhelming harm to the woman from bringing it to term. And not just to counsel, but also to bear as much of her burden as they possibly can. That's the "rare" part of "safe, legal and rare", and shame on anyone who is pro-choice who leaves that part out, and some do. Making abortion unsafe and illegal doesn't do anything to support the woman in crisis, so I don't support it. There's no "double standard" on abortion and the death penalty, since my objective is not to increase the number of abortions. The death penalty extinguishes a human life as well. You might not put any value on that life, but I do. The serial killers you mentioned need to be detained and isolated, to protect the rest of us, of course. What's more, the sentence of life in prison should be more severe. Such inmates should be held totally incommunicado -- banished. This was one of the severest punishments in the Ancient world, and I think they had it right. There is an unrelated reason why the death penalty is wrong, as well. The state should not be in the business of putting people to death, not just because it is wrong to put people to death, but also because many well-meaning justice systems make mistakes, and when you put someone to death, that mistake cannot, even partially, be corrected. And while few people are in a good position to judge, I've read enough about cases of neglect of defendants by public defenders in Texas and elsewhere to suspect that it can become a struggle for people in the criminal justice system to maintain good intentions toward suspects, to put it mildly. Notice I said "suspects", not "convicts". Finally, you're right that it's expensive to house someone for life, even in prison. That's a good point! We could reduce the cost of a lot of other government programs by putting the recipients of our largess to death! Where would you like to start, bedrocktruth? The mentally ill? The old? The sick? The poor? The unemployed? We could even eat them and solve world hunger...

Comma Mea Culpa

I have been informed off blog that my punctuation has slipped since beginning this venture. I would like to apologize and pledge rededication to good writing. Ignoring little rules in life puts you on a slippery slope. Unchecked, this kind of behavior engenders mortal sin...

George W. Bush: Champion of the Death Penalty

See the Style section of The Washington Post today for an article about the Texas Prison Museum, directed by Jim Willet, who as warden of the Huntsville Unit prison where Texas executes murderers, presided over 89 executions in three years -- more than any other living American. Sound like a creepy guy? Once, he executed 40 people in one year, which is a record for Texas. Who was governor in that year, 2000? George W. Bush, of course. He succeeded in executing more people in one year than any other governor of the state that accounts for one third of all executions in the United States. Bush had a choice in the matter. Willet didn't. Who's more to blame? If you're like me, you need to be reminded periodically, since the press, and more importantly, the Democratic Party, don't seem interested in bringing this up and discussing the morality of his behavior as governor. Everyone seemed happy to talk about abortion, though.

Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies: Moral Values on the Right and Left

I posted the transcript of this Sunday’s Meet the Press segment on moral values and politics previously. Here I’ll post my reactions. I’d be very interested in what others think as well. Again, the guests were: Dr. Jerry Falwell, The Faith and Values Coalition Dr. Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention Reverend Al Sharpton, National Action Network Reverend Jim Wallis, Convener, Call to Renewal, Editor, Sojourners Magazine. First, a snide remark I have to get out of the way. It was striking to see Sharpton and Falwell sitting next to each other. They each have the unctuous persona of a career politician – camera ready, physically and verbally. Masters of the jawbone shows, they start out arguing principle, more or less, but when the going gets rough, quickly take off the gloves and start throwing rhetorical sucker-punches. More alike than different. To hear them talk, they stand for very different things, yet they sit well inside each other’s space, touching each other on the arm, like senators from “across the aisle” who will end up at the same cocktail party that night. Indeed, we learned on the program that Falwell and Sharpton plan to have a steak dinner together. Cigars to follow, no doubt. I suspect what they stand for is their own visibility, above all else. Across the table, Wallis and Land were less sure of themselves on television, physically and rhetorically. They didn’t seem able to deliver their thoughts packaged for television. The "discussion" was really between Falwell and Wallis, with the others chiming in. Falwell was hell-bent on division. He pushes a bright-line distinction between the moral party and the amoral party (Democrats) and doesn’t want any fuzziness. When Wallis got his turn to talk, he called for common ground, and appeared a figure to be reckoned with, briefly. Falwell got out the flamethrower. Wild charges against Wallis included that his views would have led to a Nazi takeover of the United States, or barring that, world dominance by the Soviet union. Also, Wallis is “anti-American”. Presumably Falwell was referring to his position on the war in Iraq. Wallis committed a fatal error. He treated Falwell with respect. From Sterling Newberry’s insightful post on rhetoric,

Democrats for their part, commit a mortal sin: they give away trust to others who should not have it. Once you allow the opponent into the circle of trust, then what he says, no matter how outrageously false, is taken more seriously.

Falwell is a screwball, made more dangerous by his genius for television. No one who believes in decency should treat this guy with respect, not Wallis, not Sharpton. He is Rush Limbaugh with a clerical collar. Russert quoted him two days after 9/11 saying

I fear... that [September 11th] is only the beginning. ...If, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve ... I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle ... all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say `you helped this happen.’

Offered the opportunity to temper those words, Falwell said, “I believe when we defy the Lord, I think we pay a price for it.” Gee Tim, do you have a follow up? Nope, God forbid you call Falwell on this one. How about “can you draw the line of causation for our viewers between homosexuality and terrorism a little more clearly?” or “how do you explain the other countries of the world, all of whom have homosexuals, that haven’t seen the wrath of God rain down on their cities?” Anything! Just for God’s sake don’t give this guy a free pass! Wallis, Sharpton, anybody? How about this one: “Mr. Falwell, you’re a proponent of U.S. government money going to charities run by religious organizations like your own. Presumably, your “faith-based initiatives” will be based on your faith as you see it. So should we assume that when people com e in for a night’s rest in one of your shelters, you will tell them gays, pagans and feminists blew up the World Trade Center? Should the government be paying you to do this?” Or how about, “Mr. Falwell, if you believe when we let gays, pagans, and feminists live in our midst, we incite the wrath of God, shouldn’t we set out to banish all the members of these groups from the United States?” Meanwhile, Land had a few choice lines of his own. On the role of women, “we're not against women working outside the home unless the husband believes that it's not the right choice” Ah, yes, wife as chattel. That’s a little dated isn’t it? How can we be losing to these guys????? Sharpton did slap him down a little bit on that one:

DR. LAND: And I would vote for a woman as president. REV. SHARPTON: As long as her husband said she could go to work.

Wallis, looking like an adult at a raucous birthday party, tried to offer an alternative to the abortion & gays view of the debate:

The question is how narrowly or how broadly we define values. So we say that poverty is a religious and moral value. So is the environment. So is the war in Iraq. …. Republicans want to narrow, though, or restrict values to one or two issues--important ones, but one or two.

He also made it clear that this is about morality, not religion:

There are people in this country who have deeply held moral values who aren't affiliated in any religion. What we need is a serious moral conversation about things like Iraq, a moral discussion. What would Jesus do is a fair question for all of us. But other citizens have other compasses that they use. But let's have a moral conversation, talk about the soul of politics.

The following is his wise advice to people who actually care about reducing abortion, not just fighting about whose rights are more important:

Pro-life and pro-choice people could unite together around working on teenage pregnancy, adoption reform, supporting low-income women. When you support them economically, the abortion rate falls. The abortion rate is way too high in America … "How do we make abortion"--Democrats--"safe, legal and rare?" Well, they're keeping it legal, but let's try to make abortion truly rare in the society. That is a common ground around which I think a lot of people, pro-life and pro-choice could and should support.

Falwell’s response? “I wouldn't vote for my mother if she were pro-choice.” Another choice moment on abortion was when Land connected the dots between “strict constructionist” and “overturn Roe v. Wade”. Were you wondering during the campaign what Bush really meant when he said “strict constructionist”? Now you know what Land thought he meant. Falwell and Land were singing their Looney Tunes, and Wallis wanted his Merry Melody of common ground. It isn't going to happen. What we need in the Democratic party is to push exactly the approach Wallis is talking about. First, fight to broaden the discussion of moral values to include just war, poverty, and perhaps other issues. Second, take the Republicans on point-blank on abortion and gay rights. However, we have to adopt Sharpton's rhetorical stance with these fundamentalists -- no quarter. This is not a debating club at some northeastern prep school. It’s bare-knuckles boxing, and when the cameras come on, it’s not about common ground.

Must-Read TV: Transcript of Moral Values Debate on Meet the Press

Absolutely incredible segment on Meet the Press today. Russert assembled a microcosm of the moral values debate between Republicans and Democrats. I pasted the transcript here in case it disappears from the MSNBC website. I'll post my summary of the debate and reactions separately Guests were: Dr. Jerry Falwell, The Faith and Values Coalition Dr. Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention Reverend Al Sharpton, National Action Network Reverend Jim Wallis, Convener, Call to Renewal, Editor, Sojourners Magazine.

MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, politics and religion with the Reverend Jerry Falwell, the Reverend Richard Land, the Reverend Al Sharpton and the Reverend Jim Wallis. They are all coming up next right here on MEET THE PRESS. (Announcements) MR. RUSSERT: Religion, politics and moral values after this brief station break. (Announcements) MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Welcome all. Reverend Falwell, let me start with you. You wrote a Falwell Confidential, a newsletter memo out right before the elections, and you said this, "It is a responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew...and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President George Bush." Why was it a responsibility, a duty of Christians to vote for George Bush? DR. JERRY FALWELL: Because I'm a Democrat. I don't vote Republican. I vote Christian. And I believe that he is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, strong national defense, faith-based initiatives for the poor, et cetera. And George Bush fits the criteria for all of them. John Kerry met little or none of those criteria. MR. RUSSERT: The Sojourners newspaper took out an ad--the Sojourners magazine took a newspaper ad out, Reverend Wallis, in which this was the headline. "God Is Not a Republican or a Democrat. ...leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that Mod has taken a side in this election and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush. We believe claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re- election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion." Explain. REV. JIM WALLIS: Well, Christians voted both ways in this election. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. That should be obvious. The values question is critical. The question is how narrowly or how broadly we define values. So we say that poverty is a religious and moral value. So is the environment. So is the war in Iraq. These are moral value that require a lot of discussion. I welcome the moral-values conversation. I really do. It's the soul of our politics, the compass of our public life. But how narrowly or how broadly we define the values is the question. In this election, there were competing values, so a lot of Christians voted both ways because we wanted to vote all of our values, not just one or two. I think the Democrats are often uncomfortable talking about faith values, when it's even about their agenda. The Republicans want to narrow, though, or restrict values to one or two issues--important ones, but one or two. I think the Democrats have to recover their heart and soul; Republicans need a broader and deeper agenda about values. MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Land, The Washington Post reported this: "`I believe God wants me to be president,'" the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, quoted George Bush as saying." When did George Bush tell you that? DR. RICHARD LAND: Well, he told me that--he told a group of us that the day he was inaugurated for his second term as governor of the state in 1999. But once again, like people in The Washington Post often do, they truncated the quote. What he said was--and it was right after he came back from that service at the Methodist Church where the Methodist pastor had been preaching about God's call on your life. And he said, "I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, that's OK. I'm loved at home, and that's more important. I've seen the presidency up close and personal, and I know it's a sacrifice, not a reward. And I don't need it for personal gratification." And that posture, it seems to me, is very much like Lincoln's posture when Lincoln said, you know, "In this war that we've been in, both sides think God's on their side. Both sides can't be right. Both sides may be wrong. This may be a judgment on the whole country because of slavery. But with malice toward none, with charity for all, we're going to go forward seeking to do the right as God gives us the light to see the right." The president believed that God wanted him to be president, but he was open to the possibility that wouldn't be true. How many people of religious faith who ever ran for president didn't think God wanted them to be president? Jimmy Carter certainly did. MR. RUSSERT: But as Abraham Lincoln said, "The key, however, is make sure that we're on God's side, not claim that God is on our side." DR. LAND: That's right. That's right. That's right. And I think that's what the president was doing. The president's posture--I know the president. The president's posture is he wants to do right as he believes God gives him the light to see the right. MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Sharpton, what do you think of all this? REV. AL SHARPTON: I think that what is critical is what you just said that Lincoln said. All of us are talking about whether God is on our side. Are we really on God's side? And are we willing to allow people to make decisions where God gave people the right to make decisions? I may agree with Reverend Falwell on many issues. Where I disagree is whether we have the right to impose that agreement on other people. And I think that where a lot of the misinformation and a lot of the debate went awry--and we're not talking about whether or not we don't share values. We're talking about whether we have the right to impose what we believe on people that may disagree with us. Even God gives you a choice of heaven and hell. We don't have a right to tell people we're going to force them to live in a way that we want them to live and, therefore, they're going to heaven. That's where I disagree. DR. FALWELL: You still owe me a steak dinner. REV. SHARPTON: I will give you a steak dinner. We bet on the election. But you will get a steak dinner, but you will also get a lecture on civil liberties while we eat it. DR. FALWELL: But I've waited three weeks. DR. LAND: As head of the Ethics Commission, I'm against all of this betting over here. MR. RUSSERT: What about the separation of church and state, Reverend Wallis? Is there a problem with the Internal Revenue Service for clergymen publicly endorsing candidates and urging their election and fellow Christians to vote for one candidate over another? REV. WALLIS: Well, the separation of church and state does not mean the separation of values from our public life. I think we all agree with that. The question is: How do we bring values into our public-- King did it best. He did it by bringing the purposes of God for justice and peace into our public arena. He was welcoming. He was inviting. No one felt left out of that conversation. He reminded us of this wonderful vision of a beloved community where no one gets left out and those who are always left out have a front-row seat. I think there's a lot of common ground here. If values can be used to bring us together, faith and value should not be a wedge or a weapon that destroys and divides, but the bridge that brings us together and finds some new common ground, and I think we can do that and should do that. REV. SHARPTON: You--when you said King, he's referring to Martin Luther King. And I might add, Martin Luther King did lead a moral movement. The civil rights movement was a movement based on value. But he had the opposition of the church, in many cases, in the South. And many of us have limited this argument to just sex-based arguments: gay marriage, abortion. Can you imagine in the 21st century we're debating whether we should give women the right to choose over their own bodies? I think that the broad issues of poverty, of disease, of health care--those are moral issues, too. We're not entering into a values discussion broadly enough, and I think that is what bothers me mostly in the religious community. MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to your Web site, Reverend Falwell, Faith and Values Coalition, Moral Majority Coalition. It says your purpose is threefold platform. "1. The confirmation of pro-life, strict constructionist, U.S. Supreme Court justices and other federal judges. 2. The passage of a constitutional Federal Marriage Amendment," which in effect would ban gay marriage, "and the election of another socially-, fiscally- and politically-conservative president in 2008." Are you absolutely convinced, confident, that President Bush will appoint to the Supreme Court only someone who would overrule Roe vs. Wade on abortion. DR. FALWELL: I don't think anybody knows that but George Bush. That certainly is my prayer, my hope, that he will appoint men or women to the court who will overturn Roe v. Wade. That doesn't mean abortion stops. It means it goes back to the states, where we have a multiyear battle, we pro-lifers, to bring and end to abortion on demand. And unlike my friend Al, here, I think it's amazing that we're debating the right of a little child to be born, not just the right of a woman to take the life of her child, at this late date. And I think it's unthinkable that we're debating what a family is, a man married to a woman. They've got that right in the barnyard. We've had that for 6,000 years and to think that we're trying to redefine families. So we obviously have juxtaposed on those two and a lot of other issues. But I think that it's more than just--he said sex issues. Think it's a life issue, I think it's a family issue. I think it is a security issue. I think the president's doing the right thing in Iraq, he did the right thing in Afghanistan. He think he's doing the right thing in homeland security. I think he's doing the right thing in faith-based initiatives to minister to the poor through faith ministries, all those things. And I agree with Jim Wallis, not on everything, but I agree that it's much broader than abortion and family. But those are the front-burner items. If you fail on life and family, I don't know where you go from there. MR. RUSSERT: This is an analysis of--by Alan Cooperman on President Bush's position on abortion. "Bush had not actually said abortion is tantamount to murder. Nor, according to his aides, has he ever said that all abortions should be illegal. When asked by reporters during a 2000 presidential campaign and again late last fall whether abortion should be banned, Bush said the nation was not ready for that step, without indicating his position." If the president appoints someone to the court whose position on abortion is unclear, will there be disappointment in the evangelical Christian community? DR. LAND: I think what the president must do, and I think he will do, is appoint justices and appeals court judges who are strict constructionists. If they're strict constructionists, they will overturn Roe. Roe was a horrendous decision. It was a horrendous judicial overreach. It was an attempt to judicially dictate to the American people on basic values, and that should be in the political process and it should be decided by the people. This is government of the people, by the people and for the people, not government of the judges, by the judges and for the judges. And the president has a very strong four- year record of sticking to his guns and only nominating for the appeals courts judges who are strict constructionists... MR. RUSSERT: You would then... DR. LAND: ...like Estrada, like Pryor, like Justice Brown in California. MR. RUSSERT: And then states would have the option as to whether or not to outlaw abortion in their state. DR. LAND: Yes. Yes. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, we go back to the situation status quo, ante-- before--1973, when you had about 46 states that had very restrictive abortion laws and you had four states, three or four states that had pretty permissive abortion laws. I think that this is an issue about life. It's an issue of--I disagree with Reverend Sharpton rather strongly. I can't imagine in the 21st century all we know about the life in the womb now, when the heart begins to beat before the mother even knows she's pregnant, it's not the mother's body, it's a human life and I believe my grandchildren will look back and say, "I can't believe in the early 21st century we were killing an unborn baby every 20 seconds." MR. RUSSERT: If abortion is outlawed in the state and abortions are performed by a doctor in that state, who's prosecuted? The doctor? DR. LAND: The doctor. MR. RUSSERT: The mother? DR. LAND: I see mothers as victims. I've worked in crisis pregnancy centers. I've counseled women who'd had post-abortion traumatic stress syndrome. When an abortion takes place, there are at least two victims, the mother and the unborn child. I would prosecute the doctors. And we're ready to battle that out in every state and let the people's elected representatives make those decisions, not people in black robes. MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Sharpton, this whole debate about abortion, many Democrats--centrist Democrats who are personally opposed to abortion but don't want to outlaw it, but also say to the Democratic Party leadership, we do want parental notification. We want to know if our daughter is going have an abortion or we want an end to partial-birth or third-term abortions if you will. Why can't the Democrats reach out on those kinds of issues, which would limit abortion but not outlaw it? REV. SHARPTON: I think that they will. Let me say this first. I think that we have the debate over civil liberties that may not, in my opinion, be given the kind of airing that we should. I may agree. You know, Reverend Falwell and I talk. I have two daughters. My marriage just ended a couple of years ago, we've changed, but I'm very much involved with my daughters, and I talk to both of my daughters. If my daughters had an unwanted pregnancy, I would probably advise, under any circumstances, not to get an abortion. But I don't want the state to make that decision for them. There's a difference in values and imposed values. Second, in terms of the party reaching out, I think as we build a new party--there's a fight now for DNC chair, Wellington Webb. We're fighting with Congressman Greg Meeks and how active is Marjorie Harris and others that want to be key--that are reaching out to try and do this in a way that we speak to the American people but protect American values. I think the Democratic Party has to do that. But I don't think you can put aside that we do not have the right given personal conviction to make that law. I think that's un-Christian. Jesus didn't do it. DR. LAND: Tim, that's the very same--that's the very same argument that slave owners made in the 1860s. REV. SHARPTON: No, slave owners argued state's rights. What you're arguing is state's rights. That's what slave owners argued. DR. LAND: No, no, no. Slave owners said, I wouldn't--people who supported slavery said, "I wouldn't own a slave, but I don't have the right to tell somebody else whether they can own slaves. That's imposing my values." REV. SHARPTON: No. DR. LAND: What they forgot was slaves were people, and unborn babies are people. And in this society, no human being should have an absolute right of life and death over another human being. REV. SHARPTON: May I respond to that? Slave owners used what you're using. Let each state decide people's rights rather than have a federal government protect the rights of people. DR. LAND: I did--I did my bachelor's... REV. SHARPTON: And I think we're trying to see is the right way--I didn't interrupt you, Reverend. DR. LAND: ...thesis on this and the Supreme Court said slaves weren't people. REV. SHARPTON: Reverend, I think what we're trying to see is the right wing to try to bring this back to state's rights, and I think that state's rights is frightening to those that have been victims by it. REV. WALLIS: My brother--my brother... MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Jim Wallis, let me ask you. You said something very interesting. You said, "The secular fundamentalism of the left is as much of a problem as the religious fundamentalism on the right." Would you apply that to abortion? REV. WALLIS: Well, this is a conversation that we're having all across the country now. And it's again about symbols more than--I want solutions here. Pro-life and pro-choice people could unite together around working on teenage pregnancy, adoption reform, supporting low-income women. When you support them economically, the abortion rate falls. The abortion rate is way too high in America. DR. FALWELL: We're doing all those things, Jim. REV. WALLIS: You know, we're not--no one's pro-abortion. How do you prevent unwanted pregnancies? I'd like to find some common ground to work together to dramatically reduce the abortion rate. On so many of these issues, we get in the polarized, ideological debates and then we don't talk about to solve the problem. DR. FALWELL: You're a preacher, aren't you? REV. WALLIS: "How do we make abortion"--Democrats--"safe, legal and rare?" Well, they're keeping it legal, but let's try to make abortion truly rare in the society. That is a common ground around which I think a lot of people, pro-life and pro-choice could and should support. DR. FALWELL: Jim, let me ask you a question. Did you vote for John Kerry? REV. WALLIS: I did vote for John Kerry. DR. FALWELL: Now, he is pro-choice. How can you as an ordained minister--you are an ordained minister, right? REV. WALLIS: Jerry--Jerry... DR. FALWELL: How could you vote for some--I wouldn't vote for my mother if she were pro-choice. REV. WALLIS: Yeah. You endorsing George Bush. That's fine. But you also called--you ordained him. You said all Christians could only vote for him. That's ridiculous. There are Christians who voted for deep reasons of faith for both candidates. DR. FALWELL: Well, I don't think--I can't command anybody. I can only take the Bible seriously. You're certainly going to have to--Psalm 139:13-16--believe that life is sacred from conception on... REV. WALLIS: And Jerry, there are 3,000 verses in the Bible about the poor--about the poor. DR. FALWELL: And I'm for all of those, too. But George Bush has taken the initiative because of the Democrats REV. WALLIS: The Republican agenda--the Republican agenda was not satisfactory to many who support him. REV. SHARPTON: Well, 1.8 million people added to the poverty lines in the last four years under George Bush. But, Reverend, I think you have the right to vote for George Bush. I defend your right to do that even though I disagree with you. We're talking about you not having the right to therefore bar others from exercising their personal decisions. DR. FALWELL: Well, I'm not barring anybody. REV. SHARPTON: It's strange to me, Reverend, how the right wing wants to privatize public policy and make public private lives. I mean, people have the right to their private decisions. DR. FALWELL: No, I'm just trying--I'm trying to do what Martin Luther King did. I'm trying to... REV. SHARPTON: Jesus--Jesus met the woman at the well. She was guilty of adultery. The state said she could be stoned. He stopped the stoning. You would condemn her for that. DR. FALWELL: We have a home for unwed mothers. REV. SHARPTON: He wasn't condoning adultery. He was not condoning adultery. He was saying that the state does not have that right to not say... DR. FALWELL: You guys talk about that. We have a home for unwed mothers. We have a national adoption agency. REV. SHARPTON: That was not just a mark. That was law on that day. That was law. DR. FALWELL: You guys are great at spending somebody else's money. REV. WALLIS: If we really decided as a religious conviction that life was sacred... REV. SHARPTON: Well, I thought we decided that. REV. WALLIS: ...it would change all of our politics. It would challenge right and left. I mean, I think there are secular fundamentalists--you're right, Tim--on the left, who don't want to talk the language of values or faith or even kind of moral politics. But there's also religious fundamentalism on the right which wants to narrow and restrict all of our ethics to one or two issues. And that we can't do. The Catholic bishops get it right, this consistent ethical right. Capital punishment... DR. FALWELL: That means John Paul II has it wrong, right? REV. WALLIS: Well, the pope was against the war in Iraq. The pope was against President Bush on the war in Iraq. War and peace is a life issue, too. Social justice is a moral issue, too. DR. FALWELL: Anyone who takes the Bible seriously believes that family... REV. WALLIS: If we could define these more broadly... DR. FALWELL: ...is one man married to one woman. Anyone who takes the Bible seriously. Anyone who takes the Bible seriously believes that life is sacred from conception on. REV. SHARPTON: And anyone that takes the Bible seriously gives people the right to disagree even with their beliefs. This country was founded with freedom of religion. It is unpatriotic to impose... DR. FALWELL: Well, then that's where we want to--why were you against slavery? Why were you against slavery? REV. SHARPTON: I was against slavery because slavery imposed the will of some on others. DR. LAND: Well, if there's no demand, than it's the same thing. DR. FALWELL: To answer your question, Reverend, I do not think we have the right to impose our religious beliefs on people that disagree with you. MR. RUSSERT: Two interesting developments over the last month or so. A report came out that the state with the lowest level of divorce is Massachusetts. The states with the highest level are the so-called Bible Belt in the South. DR. FALWELL: Yes. REV. SHARPTON: That's because they watch "Desperate Housewives." MR. RUSSERT: Also "Desperate Housewives"... REV. SHARPTON: That's right. MR. RUSSERT: ...a widely viewed television series, particularly in the South. REV. SHARPTON: Because... MR. RUSSERT: Why is it that the red states... DR. FALWELL: Because the South doesn't belong to the New Testament Church anymore than the North. MR. RUSSERT: Right. DR. FALWELL: We have a responsibility to preach the Gospel. But I would take that poll a little further. Among born-again, Bible-believing Christians who take the Bible as the word of God, you'll find those stats are non... MR. RUSSERT: They don't watch "Desperate Housewives"? DR. FALWELL: I hope they don't. REV. SHARPTON: You don't know. Look, Brother Russert, Brother Russert... DR. LAND: I don't... DR. FALWELL: I have never watched it and I've... DR. LAND: We're in church on Sunday night. The point is--you know, look. He said we shouldn't impose values on others. Look, when a mother has an abortion, she is imposing her values on an unborn child. And it is always a fatal imposition because the baby dies. DR. FALWELL: Amen. Amen. REV. SHARPTON: Brother Russert, I'll tell you that people... MR. RUSSERT: On "Desperate Housewives," Newsweek says that the creator of "Desperate Housewives" is a conservative, gay Republican. REV. SHARPTON: That's what I was going to say. Do you find that... DR. FALWELL: Well, the fact that he's a gay Republican means he should join the Democratic Party. MR. RUSSERT: Conservative, gay Republican. DR. LAND: Obviously a fiscally conservative gay Republican, not a socially. Not socially. Not socially. REV. SHARPTON: So are you saying that there's no room in your party for people that... DR. FALWELL: Well, I'm just glad to... REV. SHARPTON: Well, but I think we're... REV. WALLIS: Here's the common ground. I was told to get a good night sleep before the show. I tried hard to do it. My six-year-old was sick all night long, so I was up all night. MR. RUSSERT: So you watched TV. REV. WALLIS: I'm a tee ball coach on Friday nights. But I want to tell you this. Around the country, when I talk about parenting as a countercultural activity, all parents' heads nod up and down, liberal or conservative. REV. SHARPTON: I agree. REV. WALLIS: Parenting--that's the real family issue. It's not about civil unions. It's about parenting and the pressures on parenting. And this is, again, where we can find some common ground. Strengthen families by strengthening parents and parenting. Strengthen marriage and family. Use your anti-poverty measures. They help families across the board. But they could bring us together. Again, we're having these debates and we don't get to solving problems. That's what I want to do. DR. FALWELL: Well, we operate a home for unwed mothers. We have for many years. We operate a home for alcoholics, drug addicts. We have a national adoption agency, a hospice for AIDS victims. We do all of those things as a local church in Lynchburg, Virginia. REV. SHARPTON: And that's good. DR. FALWELL: And we--you guys are talking about it. I don't know if either one of you are involved in one of them. REV. SHARPTON: But at--I think that's important. But I think, Reverend, what you've got to do is convert people, not force them. If we were spending more time preaching the conversion, we wouldn't have to worry about... DR. LAND: If we wanted to convert everyone, we wouldn't have the civil rights laws. When a critical mass of the society believes something is immoral and is imposing something on someone else... REV. SHARPTON: That's the right that some of us fought for. I don't think the right wing gave us the civil rights movement. DR. LAND: We still have segregation. REV. SHARPTON: The right wing was opposed to the civil rights movement. DR. LAND: Martin Luther King Jr. is a personal hero of mine, Al. REV. SHARPTON: Good. DR. LAND: And he imposed his moral values on Lester Maddox and George Wallace, thank God. REV. SHARPTON: No, no, what he did was fought against the Southern conservative values of those days. DR. LAND: No, no. He passed a law that made it illegal. REV. SHARPTON: Don't rewrite history, sir. DR. LAND: No. He passed a law that made it illegal. REV. SHARPTON: He fought the Southern Convention that you represent. Dr. King fought that convention. Let's not rewrite history. DR. LAND: Al, you know, you want a right wing... REV. SHARPTON: Are you going to deny that the Southern Baptist Convention was for segregation? DR. LAND: No. We've apologized for it. REV. SHARPTON: So don't say that Dr. King... DR. LAND: And we... REV. SHARPTON: Don't distort that history. DR. LAND: Dr. King passed a civil rights law... REV. SHARPTON: Had to fight your convention to do that. DR. LAND: He passed a civil rights law. REV. SHARPTON: And he had to fight your convention to do that. DR. LAND: All right. REV. SHARPTON: And I'm fighting your convention to keep people... MR. RUSSERT: All right. All right. DR. FALWELL: Give the little babies the right to vote. MR. RUSSERT: All right. We're gonna take... REV. SHARPTON: And I want those babies to have a good life, but I don't want them not to have civil liberties. MR. RUSSERT: We're going to take a break. Peace, peace, peace. We'll be right back. REV. SHARPTON: How can you say peace with these folks? (Announcements) MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. We can try to find common ground, but there are differences, and I want to see just how profound they are. The Southern Baptist Convention in 1998 passed this statement on the family: "...A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband... She...has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household..." And, Reverend Land, you went on to explain it this way: "If a husband does not want his wife to work outside the home, then she should not work outside the home." Is that your vision of America? DR. LAND: It's my vision for Christian families. I don't think that the law has anything to do with it. That was a statement about the theological belief of Southern Baptists. And, you know, George Will had a real great answer for that when somebody asked him, "Where'd they get this stuff?" And he pulled out the Bible and turned to Ephesians, chapter five: "He got--we got it from Ephesians, chapter five." We almost needed to footnote the Apostle Paul when he said that "Husbands should love their wives the way Christ loves the church," which means husbands will always put their wives' needs above their own. And they are to be the head of their home, which means that they're responsible. It's a servant leadership role. And my wife, who you met, has a PhD in marriage and family therapy and has worked outside the home since our youngest child was in kindergarten. That was our mutual choice. We're not against women working outside the home unless the husband believes that it's not the right choice. Now, remember, this is a husband who loves his wife the way Christ loves the church and is going to always put his wife's needs above his own. But I would certainly not want to make that a matter of legislation when you-- that's about marriage. It's about what goes on in a marriage and about what we believe is the ideal for the family. MR. RUSSERT: But you understand that a good Christian woman could disagree with her husband and want to work outside the home? DR. LAND: Sure. REV. SHARPTON: Does your Bible have Esther and Ruth in it? DR. LAND: Sure. Of course. REV. SHARPTON: I mean, do you have the whole Bible? DR. LAND: I do. REV. WALLIS: My wife is an ordained... DR. LAND: And I would vote for a woman as president. REV. WALLIS: ...minister, a priest. REV. SHARPTON: As long as her husband said she could go to work. DR. LAND: Especially if it were Margaret Thatcher. MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask Reverend Falwell about something and broaden the conversation. We talked about Iraq and the war on terrorism. Something that you said two days after September 11, when you were with Reverend Pat Robertson: "I fear... that [September 11th] is only the beginning. ...If, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve ... I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle ... all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say `you helped this happen.'" DR. FALWELL: And I went on to say in a sleeping church, a lethargic church likewise is responsible. I do believe, as Ben Franklin said, that God rules in the affairs of men and of nations. I believe that when God blesses a nation, as he's blessed America for a lot of reasons, things happen that don't happen other places. I believe when we defy the Lord, I think we pay a price for it. So I do believe in the sovereignty of God. In our house, for example, my wife of 47 years and our three children, eight grandchildren, we begin every day in prayer. We ask the Lord's blessings. This morning in the shower I prayed for all 15 of our family by name, by need, because I want the curtain of God's provision upon them and protection along the highways and decision-making, God's wisdom. And I do believe that corporately God deals with a nation. Second Chronicles 7:14--you've just written a new book on that, Richard--"If my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves, pray, seek my face, turn from their wicked ways," he promised three things. "I will hear from heaven. I will forgive their sin. I will heal their land." And I believe that conversely works if we don't do that that I believe that God can judge us. REV. WALLIS: But, Jerry, when you say things like what you just quoted, and you say God is pro-war, and so many things that you sometimes say... DR. FALWELL: No, no. REV. WALLIS: I... DR. FALWELL: I said there is a just war in a theological position. REV. WALLIS: You said God is pro-war. DR. FALWELL: I don't believe God loves war. REV. WALLIS: There are millions... DR. FALWELL: Everybody hates war. REV. SHARPTON: But you said it was pro-Christian. REV. WALLIS: Jerry, there are millions and millions of Christians who want the nation to know that you don't speak for them... REV. SHARPTON: That's right. REV. WALLIS: ...that Jesus, our Jesus isn't pro-rich, pro-war and only pro-American. We don't find that Jesus anywhere in the Bible. DR. FALWELL: I don't believe that either. But I was also against Adolf Hitler, and if you had been... REV. WALLIS: Well, most of us were. DR. FALWELL: If you had been the president in World War II, we'd all be speaking German now. REV. WALLIS: Well, Jerry, that's--let's move beyond this. DR. FALWELL: And that DNC ad that you pay $125,000 for a full-page ad to attack me on the war position, had you and Tony Campolo and a lot of other alleged evangelicals... REV. SHARPTON: No, no, no, no. I think... REV. WALLIS: There were over 200 evangelical theologians who said... DR. FALWELL: That was one day ahead of Election Day... REV. WALLIS: ...we were concerned about the war. DR. FALWELL: ...but anybody reads into either the DNC or a DNC surrogate... REV. SHARPTON: I think... MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Sharpton, before--let me just show an ad that Religious Leaders for Sensible Priorities took out, signed by Reverend Wallis, and it says, "It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack [on Iraq]." REV. SHARPTON: And see I think that's the point. MR. RUSSERT: Both sides claiming they know how Jesus thinks. REV. SHARPTON: I think the point is that for one to disagree with the right or to say that people have the right to disagree with us is like we're not Christian. I believe in Jesus. I'm saved. DR. FALWELL: You guys says that. REV. SHARPTON: May I finish? DR. FALWELL: I've never said that. REV. SHARPTON: May I finish? May I finish? DR. FALWELL: I'm just saying you're wrong. REV. SHARPTON: I believe in Jesus personally. I pray and I fast and I take my religion very seriously. But I also believe in a Jesus that went to the cross to uplift people and not condemn them, a Jesus that forgave people of their sins and converted them and didn't use the state to beat them down and force them to go in a different direction. And that Jesus is real. DR. FALWELL: And a Jesus who drove the money-changers out of the temple. MR. RUSSERT: What about people in this country who don't believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior? REV. SHARPTON: Absolutely. MR. RUSSERT: There are now more Muslims and Jews in the United States. Where is their place? REV. WALLIS: Well, there is no--people who are religious, need I make very clear that we don't think religious people have a monopoly on morality. There are people in this country who have deeply held moral values who aren't affiliated in any religion. What we need is a serious moral conversation about things like Iraq, a moral discussion. What would Jesus do is a fair question for all of us. But other citizens have other compasses that they use. But let's have a moral conversation, talk about the soul of politics. DR. FALWELL: Jim, I'm old enough to remember how much you fought--you and Sojourners, fought Ronald Reagan and his peace through strength initiative and had you been successful, the Soviet communism of the world would still be prevalent and existing. You fought Ronald Reagan. REV. SHARPTON: But we could argue all morning on that. DR. FALWELL: You're just anti-America. DR. LAND: Can I ask you a question? I think that this is a country that has always been a very religious country. It's going to continue to be a very religious country. But it has always said there's room for people of all faiths and no faith. And they have a perfect right to public opinion, to the public marketplace, to public ideas, to bring their ideas to bear. And what we don't want, and I think that this is where we need to start and this is where I think the values question has really done a good thing. We don't have the right anymore to let the secular fundamentalists say if your views are based upon your religious beliefs, you are to somehow set them aside and not bring them to bear on public policy. We have the right to bring our religiously informed opinions to bear on public policy. Now, I supported the war. It's interesting. That ad says how can anyone say Jesus would be for this war? That seems to be saying that they think Jesus is on their side. I think there can be a disagreement about where Christians should have been on that particular war. I believe it met just-war criteria; Jim didn't. That doesn't mean that I'm not saying he's not a Christian. MR. RUSSERT: And he's not a Christian? DR. LAND: And he's not saying I'm not a Christian. We disagree about that particular war. MR. RUSSERT: Fifteen seconds. REV. SHARPTON: I think that we must try to come together on real, broad, moral issues--Sudan, poverty, things like that. DR. FALWELL: Amen, amen. REV. SHARPTON: But I think we must--I'm happy for your amen, Reverend. DR. FALWELL: Amen. REV. SHARPTON: But I do think that we cannot impose that on others. We have to respect other people's religion. DR. FALWELL: I want you... REV. SHARPTON: And I believe that we can be in harmony... DR. FALWELL: You can join my coalition... REV. SHARPTON: ...as we disagree. DR. FALWELL: ...my Faith and Values... MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. REV. SHARPTON: Let's do it. DR. FALWELL: ...faithandvalues.org... REV. SHARPTON: Let's do it. MR. RUSSERT: We have to take a break. We'll be right back.

Religious Heritage and the ACLU

In a comment on Liberal Avenger, bedrocktruth maintains that the ACLU and their ilk wish to see "every last vestige of our religious heritage being stripped from view" I see two parts of this heritage that matter -- first, our religous heritage is the practice of worship, and we do that in plain view; second, our religious heritage is (one source of) the moral underpinnings of law, social mores, and public debate. Separation of church and state does not excise those morals from the law. It does require that those principles stand on their own merits, and not be adopted based on an appeal to religious authority. The other things -- ten commandments on the wall, etc., are all just window dressing. If you need to have the ten commandments on the wall for your principles to be visible, there's something wrong.

If Bush is Pursuing an Unjust War, Why did Catholics Vote for Him?

The Liberal Avenger posted a long comment on my Unjust War in Iraq post from yesterday. I view the essence of his response to be the question in the title of this post: when key figures in the Catholic Church are calling this war an outrage, how can Catholics vote for Bush? That merits another post. The easy answer is "abortion". However, this begs the question of how the moral values discussion among Catholics became so focused on abortion when there is such a rich set of statements by Catholic theologians on so many critical issues. The answer is that the positions of the church are propagated selectively. (The idea that there is Catholic dogma is thus only true in a very narrow sense, but that's a different post.) In September 2003, the Conference of Catholic Bishops released Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility. The statement is over 20 pages long and covers a wide range of issues, fleshing out the call to use "voices and votes to defend life, advance justice, pursue peace, and find a place at the table for all God's children." That "defend life" heads the list is no coincidence, but note that there is more than one item on the list. And even "defend life" is far, far broader than the issue of abortion. (Again, a post for another day.) From where I sit, it's clear that many authority figures in the Church eschew a balanced presentation of this call to citizenship in favor of an obsession with abortion. They do so proactively from the altar and they do so passively by letting a well organized set of shrill extremists bombard our school children with irresponsible rhetoric. The record of George Bush on the key moral issues of just war and social justice is a disgrace to our country. Yet just war and social justice were quite obviously downplayed in the 2004 election cycle. Consider the difference in treatment of the war and abortion issues. As noted in the previous post, the Conference of Catholic Bishops clearly stated that invading Iraq under the given pretenses was morally wrong. This wasn't just knee-jerk pacifism. This is the Catholic Church, not the Quakers. We believe in war. This was a carefully reasoned argument that war was not justified in this case. What did the clergy do when speaking to the faithful? They talked about the war. So far, so good. In this study, the Pew Center for the People and the Press: 60% of Catholics report their clergy had spoken about the war. What did they say? Well, none of the respondents said their priest had spoken in favor of the war. So far so good. However, out of those who heard statements from the clergy, only about 1 in 4 heard statements against the war. 3 in 4 priests who spoke about the war found a way to address the topic and not leave their audience with any impression of their views on the morality of the war. I'm pleased to say that the rector of my own parish church did speak fairly plainly to the congregation about the immorality of the conflict. I'm not so pleased that he offered his views only after the election had passed. Contrast this with the treatment of abortion. The Conference of Catholic Bishops has weighed in here as well. See for example, the statement "Abortion and the Supreme Court: Advancing the Culture of Death" On Roe v. Wade: "by denying protection to unborn children throughout pregnancy, these rulings dealt a devastating blow to the most fundamental human right -- the right to life." That's pretty clear, isn't it? Did anybody hear about it at church? You better believe it. In another Pew Center poll, taken in November 2003, 85% of Catholics report hearing about abortion from their clergy. The survey doesn't report if the opinion expressed was favorable or unfavorable, but take a wild guess. As we closed on election day, there was one bright spot. The Conference slapped down some extremists bishops who wanted to direct priests nationwide not to offer Kerry communion (the import of which, for a devout Catholic, would be immeasurable). Instead, they released a statement that it was up to the discretion of individual bishops to decide "whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand." What's more, politicians should examine their own conscience to see if they have maintained "fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life" -- something you're supposed to do before asking for communion anyway. What's more, Catholics can in good conscience vote for a pro-choice politician as long as the goal of the voter in making that choice is not to promote abortion. If, for example, your objective in voting for Kerry is to stop the unjust war in Iraq, that's perfectly legitimate. Unfortunately, that subtle statement was lost on much of the press and no doubt on many Catholics. Meanwhile, in the Archdiocese of Washington where I live, a last minute surprise the Sunday before the election. Cardinal McCarrick directed that parish bulletins contain a statement which strongly suggested that Catholic politicians like Kerry should be denied communion. The message of the advocates of this view is clear, though it isn't always clear where it's coming from: the importance of "abortion on demand" as a moral issue exceeds the combined importance of all other aspects of the Church's "call to faithful citizenship". Sadly, they often dominate discussion and drown out other messages and issues. Karl Rove and company know common cause when they see it, and they worked it to death. That, in my opinion, is why Republicans made headway with Catholics in this election.

Unjust War in Iraq

What constitutes a just cause for going to war? A history of philosophical debate on the topic can be found in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Quoting that site,

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.

Statement on Iraq, released by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on November 13, 2002, elaborates these principles. The principles stand on their merits, for non-Catholics and Catholics alike. The argument that the war in Iraq is unjust is not simply an appeal to their authority. That is, ignore the appeals to the authority of the Catechism, the Holy See, and an Archbishop, and just consider the argument based on moral values. It just so happens that in this area, Catholic theologians contribute in a clear and compelling way to political debate.

Just cause. The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just cause to cases in which "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain." (#2309) We are deeply concerned about recent proposals to expand dramatically traditional limits on just cause to include preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with weapons of mass destruction. Consistent with the proscriptions contained in international law, a distinction should be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government's existence. Legitimate authority. In our judgment, decisions concerning possible war in Iraq require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our nation, and some form of international sanction. That is why the action by Congress and the UN Security Council are important. As the Holy See has indicated, if recourse to force were deemed necessary, this should take place within the framework of the United Nations after considering the consequences for Iraqi civilians, and regional and global stability. (Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, 9/10/02). Probability of success and proportionality. The use of force must have "serious prospects for success" and "must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" (Catechism, #2309). We recognize that not taking military action could have its own negative consequences. We are concerned, however, that war against Iraq could have unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability elsewhere in the Middle East. The use of force might provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent, could impose terrible new burdens on an already long-suffering civilian population, and could lead to wider conflict and instability in the region. War against Iraq could also detract from the responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and could undermine broader efforts to stop terrorism. Norms governing the conduct of war. The justice of a cause does not lessen the moral responsibility to comply with the norms of civilian immunity and proportionality. While we recognize improved capability and serious efforts to avoid directly targeting civilians in war, the use of military force in Iraq could bring incalculable costs for a civilian population that has suffered so much from war, repression, and a debilitating embargo. In assessing whether "collateral damage" is proportionate, the lives of Iraqi men, women and children should be valued as we would the lives of members of our own family and citizens of our own country.

Note that the Church clearly disagrees with the Bush administration's argument for preemptive war, and others may find preemptive war compelling, to one degree or another. However, this is irrelevant. Nothing was preempted by going to war with Iraq. The entire invasion was based on a lie, or if you prefer, a misconception. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda wasn't operating in Iraq. The bishops concluded "Our assessment of these questions leads us to urge that our nation and the world continue to pursue actively alternatives to war in the Middle East." Since then, the Vatican weighed in on the issue as well. Cardinal Renato R. Morino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, stated that "the war was useless, and served no purpose." Catholics don't believe the Pope is infallible in this matter. Lord knows, the crusades were ample demonstration of fallibility. However, the statment is pretty damning. It's hard to see how you can be an agent of peace and justice and support this war.

The Great Society

On May 22, 1964, Lyndon Johnson, delivered a speech entitled "The Great Society", a key passage of which is quoted below. The Democratic Party needs to speak in these terms and provide a vision that encompasses our long list of programs and causes. Johnson shows us it can be done. Read the whole text or listen to the speech at American Rhetoric.

The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning. The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. It is a place where man can renew contact with nature. It is a place which honors creation for its own sake and for what is adds to the understanding of the race. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods. But most of all, the Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished work. It is a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.

The presidency can be about much more than good management, remember?

Republican Values: Feardom of the Press

From the Associated Press:

The (Baltimore) Sun has asked Gov. Robert Ehrlich to lift an order barring state officials from giving information to the newspaper's chief State House reporter and a columnist.

Yes, the Republican governor of Maryland is blacklisting reporters from The Baltimore Sun. Remind you of anyone? President Bush denying reporters his daily schedule? President Nixon's enemies list? Ehrlich is up for re-election in 2006, and we need to tar and feather this guy and throw him in Baltimore Harbour. (figuratively, of course)

Ghost in the Machine?

Sociologist Mike Hout, et. al at UC Berkeley have posted a working paper "The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections", concluding "electronic voting raised President Bush's advantage from the tiny edge he held in 2000 to a clearer margin of victory in 2004." The paper even provides a calculation that there may have been 130,000 "ghost voters" in Florida. Hastily plugged by none other than Andrew Tanenbaum, lending it credibility MSNBC could not, references to this paper popped up all over the blogosphere. (Here, here , here, here, here, here, here, here, here, there, and everywhere, after each blogger carefully read the paper, of course...) To put it politely, this is an article in need of a journal referee with some time on his hands. Yes, electronic voting was correlated with Bush's margin of victory in Florida counties. Alas, correlation is not causation. First, to make a stronger case, the authors have to argue that the use of electronic voting machines is not, coincidentally, correlated with county characteristics that are in turn correlated with an increase betwen 2000 and 2004 in the likelihood voters supported Bush. For starters sex, race, and military background of the county population. Control for the weather on election day by county would be useful as well. They will run out of degrees of freedom quickly, since they have only 67 counties. Exit polling data by county would get the sample size up high enough to do something serious. This would also allow the study to control for voter turnout efforts, since the exit polls ask about this. Second, the paper states that the data for 2004 were collected no later than November 11. The election results were certified on November 14. Given the role that provisional and absentee ballots played in 2000, it's pretty important we know what's been counted in the data used in the study. Finally, their smoking gun explanatory variable -- the effect of electronic voting was larger in Democratic counties -- cuts the wrong way. The argument is not made clearly and explicitly in the paper, unfortunately, but I take it we're to conclude that the Republicans are up to their old tricks in Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami Dade Counties. This makes no sense. If you're a Republican looking to hack into voting machines and hide "ghost voters", would you try to do it in Broward County? I don't think so. A stolen vote helps just as much if it is stolen out in the swamps, beyond the glare of international press coverage. No, the larger effect in Democratic counties suggest they smoked us on voter turnout. I'm not ruling out fraud, but I'll wait for someone who handles data a bit better to make the argument before I'm convinced -- Larry Sabato or Alan Lichtman could convince me, for example.

Newberry's Primer on Rhetoric

Sad to say, many a Democrat needs to go back to square one -- Aristotle. See the primer on rhetoric by Sterling Newberry at bopnews. First, your audience has to trust you...

Enough Snake Handler Slurs

I find the rash of blog posts referring to "snake-handling" disturbing. (search on "snake handler" in technorati) It looks to me like a celebration of a fundamental flaw in the last Democratic campaign -- Kerry's inability to relate to evangelical Christianity. This is not the issue of where we stand on gay marriage and abortion. It's the issue of better conveying the underlying moral values driving Democratic positions. The cultural differences between evangelical Christians and other Christians are substantial. These include when and where it is appropriate to talk about faith and what expressions you use to talk about it. Deeper theological differences exist, but aren't central to the political issue like language, broadly defined. First, in my experience, evangelical Christians believe that to be a true Christian, you must evangelize -- seek to convert others to the faith. This necessarily involves talking about Christianity often, in public, and preferably with people you don't know very well. You will see the expressions "witness for Christ" and "testify" appear often in the language used. Catholics, in my experience, prefer to talk explicitly about Christianity as little as possible, with close friends, in private. The objective is to live out the message of the Gospel, not repeat the Gospel to other people. Second, evangelical / born-again / other (loosely) denominations less staid than Catholics, often speak in terms of a "personal relationship with Christ", as in "unless you are born again and develop a personal relationship with Christ, you will end your life in Hell". (a version of which was doled out to me at the drop of a hat by many people in my dorm in college) Something similar is going on when you hear Baptists talk about "my Jesus", not just "Jesus", our "our Christ" as in the Bob Jones letter mentioned in a post on Liberal Avenger. When I meet someone of this persuasion, I am on edge, waiting for the conversation to turn in that direction, or worse, to see the hand emerge from the pocket with a pamphlet. It gives me the willies, and I admit it. I don't think less of them or their faith, but truth be told, I seek out other company. I can only speculate what they think of us, but I imagine silence is viewed with suspicion and a candidate who doesn't "testify" doesn't have the moral values bona fides required to be president. I suspect it is these cultural features, plus the fascination Hollywood has with what people who wave their hands, dance and faint at Sunday Mass -- alien behavior to blue-staters -- that are at the root of the snake-handling image. This is unfortunate. In my view, we Democrats should be seeking to emphasize what we have in common with evangelicals, not demonizing them. I don't give a damn where people's values come from, I care about what their values are. They can get them from a "personal relationship with Christ", seven years in Jesuit seminary, Emmanuel Kant, or Superman comics, for all I care. "Love your neighbor as yourself" resonates in what Democrats stand for, when the party is at it's best, and that command is in the Bible they read in the South, too. Watching Kerry, I couldn't see him connecting across this divide. Clinton, Carter, and Johnson did.

National Adoption Day

Tomorrow is National Adoption Day. 129,000 American children in foster care need homes.

"Newspapers Should be Fun!"

The Washington Post today reports that executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. told the newsroom yesterday that "newspapers should be fun and it should be fun to work at one." Perhaps that explains why on the day of the Fallujah assault, there was a front page story on Fletcher's Boathouse -- a Washington institution known for fun! -- and the news from Fallujah was on page 18. Also, editors should "make room for more photographs and graphics"!

The Maddening Class

As near as I could tell from watching the news with her over the years, my grandmother, may she rest in peace, had three things to say about current events. For war, traffic accidents, fires, and natural disasters, she said, "isn't it awful?". For anything involving crime, she said "you know, they're killing each other." (By "they", she meant African-Americans, of course.) Finally, the all-purpose interjection: "he's a good looking fellow, don't you think?" (God help you if you were ugly -- you weren't qualified to do anything.) She had the right to vote and she took it seriously. Yet you would have no luck getting her to talk about "issues", much like the "maddening" people profiled in Christopher Hayes' New Republic piece, though he clearly picked the most ludicrous examples. What was she voting on? Trust. Taking voting seriously meant looking for someone honest and trustworthy with a good moral rudder. Tort reform? My guess is whoever got to her first and framed the issue would get her on their side. If a Republican told her the lawyers were putting American doctors out of business, she'd be sold. If a Democrat told her the Republicans want to take away the right to compensation when someone injures you through negligence, she'd be on their side, as long as the canvasser was handsome. But that conversion would be an illusion. In the voting booth, she'd forget all that and go for the guy she trusted. Why should this be "maddening"? People in her situation are going to turn the government of the country over to the hypereducated class to run, and they know it. This is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. All they ask of politicians is that they do their jobs: convey the essence of what we face as a country without blather, show they are trustworthy, and go manage the government. Keep in mind that the government derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed -- all the governed -- not just people who think economics and politics are interesting and write blogs about it. Why do Democratic politicians think it's so damn hard to connect to these people? Wringing their hands over exit polls, apparently in agony because they think talking about values is some kind of compromise, as if somehow that makes you a snake-handler. We don't need to move "toward the center" to get values. We've already got the damn values. How about tolerance, justice, compassion, and community? We've stood for those for years. We need Democratic politicians to do their jobs -- deliver uplifting rhetoric that reminds people what we believe already. That maddening class of people who aren't issue voters will trust us and vote for us again.

You Need More Fiber

Ask industry executives, regulators, or economists about the U.S. communications network and 9 out of 10 will tell you there’s a broadand gap. U.S. per capita broadband usage is 13th in the world, and falling. Why is this? Our local networks are pathetic, even with DSL or cable modem access, and it costs way too much to use them. How happy are you about paying $35 a month to connect your 1 gigabit home network to a 1.5 megabit internet connection? So what, you say, I just send email, read blogs, and shop a bit. What would I do with more bandwidth? Put it this way – you’ll think of something, and the applications will appear. Ask a college student. The average U.S. college student uses the internet 6 hours a *day*. Why? Because they’re connected right to the backbone of the internet and get wicked connection speeds. What are they doing? I don’t know, and as an economist, I don’t care. The point is they place enough value on what they find to spend one of every three waking hours online. When those kids move into my neighborhood they are going to be so shocked they will lay an egg. Looked at the PC sales numbers in the United States lately? They stink. Listen to the quarterly conference calls of the big tech players. Where’s the action? Asia. Why? The new “killer applications” that drive adoption of more powerful computers require massive bandwidth. These are online games, picture and video sharing, high definition television. This is a public policy issue, and one that is totally ignored. The reason your connection is so pathetic is there is no fiber optic cable running to your house. It’s that simple. And don’t try to tell me Verizon’s new fiber roll-out is a sign that all that is changing. It's not going to be everywhere, and they still haven’t told you how much they’re going to charge for it. Look at the list of the thirty countries of the world with the cheapest broadband access – the United States didn’t even make the list. That should give you an idea whether the price is going to be reasonable. The big telecom companies (aka Baby Bells, and their descendents) and the big cable companies are controlling the market. Why does that matter? They’ve spent almost ten years now litigating the 1996 Telecom Act, claiming they need to charge astronomical access prices to competitive providers or they can’t make their networks profitable. The white elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring is that the physical network itself will never be profitable. The telecoms can only make money off the network if they limit access to other providers and steer customers to the overpriced *services* they provide over the network. The solution is obvious. Decouple the physical network from the services and content providers. There should be a fiber optic network that is publicly owned and operated, just like the roads you drive your car on. Everyone should be able to use it. No one will be allowed to make money off denying access because the community will own it. Verizon, Comcast, and the rest can sink or swim on the quality of their services and content. It would require every community to build a public fiber optic network connected to every home. This is a project on the scale of the interstate highway system, though the network would be far more decentralized. The payoff would be as large. The market structure is obvious. The political strategy is not. The telecom companies spend more money on lobbying and litigation than they do on research and development (what does that tell you?), and they are in the same league as the tobacco companies when it comes to this. But everyone benefits from an open, ubiquitous, cutting edge network, and the free market is just not going to do it. It is a project that cries out for an advocate who can sell it. Gore talked about the Internet, but got humiliated by the press. (the liberal press) The problem wasn’t the message, it was the messenger. Don’t believe me? Go back to my previous post about JFK and the space program, follow the link, and watch the master.

What do Voters Mean by "Moral Values"?

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press surveyed 1,209 people November 5-8. 35% said "moral values" were the most or second most important issue for them in voting. Thankfully, Andy Cohut and Company dug deeper:

You mentioned "moral values" as an important issue, what comes to mind when you think about "moral values"?

Scroll down about half way to see a table summarizing the results. 29% were talking about gay marriage and 28% were talking about abortion. 18% mentioned Religion/Christianity/God/Bible and 17% mentioned "traditional values" of some kind like "right v. wrong". Multiple responses were allowed. Be sure to click through to the questionnaire to see in more detail what people were talking about. See also the interesting post on Fight for Change on this topic

Geneva Convention Card

The official position of the United States, as delivered to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in October 2004:

Terrorists are willing to use any means to accomplish their goals. And although this enemy does not fight according to the accepted law of war, demonstrated by kidnappings and beheadings, the U.S. Government remains steadfastly committed to upholding the Geneva Conventions and the values and principles that make us strong. What does that mean? For one thing, it means that our Armed Forces will treat all detainees humanely and not subject them to physical or mental abuse, or cruel treatment.

While Bush fiddles, Iraq burns. Shocking news today about the apparent execution of a captured unarmed, injured Iraqi soldier, within a mosque, before television cameras. This after, by some accounts, the wounded Iraqi soldiers had been left to die there the day before. The policy is not getting through to the rank and file. Here's a modest proposal: Soldiers fighting in Vietnam were issued a card that said the following about prisoners:

As a member of the U.S. military forces, you will comply with the Geneva Prisoner of War Conventions of 1949 to which your country adheres, under these conventions: You Can and Will * Disarm your prisoner * Immediately search him thoroughly * Require him to be silent * Segregate him from other prisoners * Take him to the place designated by your commander You Cannot and Must Not * Mistreat your prisoner * Humiliate or degrade him * Take any of his personal effects which do not have significant military value. * Refuse him medical treatment if required and available Always Treat Your Prisoner Humanely

Every soldier in Iraq should have one. When events like this happen, have officers gather everyone in their squad together and get their card out and read it, together. That way, all the soldiers know they all know what the rules are, and the officer knows they know, and he cares. Yes, there is a difference between de jure and de facto laws of war. After all, the combatants are trying to kill one another. But this is a bright line case, just like Abu Ghraib. My heart aches for the soldier who shot that prisoner. In the days ahead, the adrenalin and desperation of battle will wear off, and he will live with what he did for the rest of his life. His commanding officers let him down. There is such a thing as murder, even in a war zone. And it happened in a mosque. God help us.

Justice: Texas Style

There was a time when some communities in this country found closure after heinous crimes by hanging a man from a tree, or worse. Sometimes the right man got hung, sometimes not. Sometimes insidious men took advantage of the mob and settled an old score. The crowd got closure and were more than willing to believe they had gotten the right man, especially if his skin was brown. As governor, President Bush presided over a justice system whose indifference to the rights of the accused is legendary. Now, as self-appointed international arbiter of justice, he plays the role of the insidious man, guiding the mob to Iraq, shouting again and again, "it's him! it's him". Saddam Hussein may hang from a tree at the end of the day, he may not, but the blood lust of the mob is satisfied by the relentless pounding of Iraq and the horrid deaths of thousands of Iraqis. We surround the hospitals with soldiers to prevent access to help and we let Iraqis die in the street. As ordinary Americans, we have to fight hard to resist the temptation -- seeing Arabs, Muslims, Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghanis, as a seamless, brown-skined sea of faces, swirling around the Ka'ba, speaking a tounge only a handful of non-Muslim Americans ever master. Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11, with Al-Qaeda? No. 69% of Americans say yes. President Bush says yes. He knows you want the answer to be yes, to get your closure. Thousands of Iraqis are dying for a lie. Who will say they are not animals? Not filled with hatred? Who will stand up for them? Atticus Finch? Would you place yourself in danger to reason with a mob? What would Jesus do?

What Makes a Good DNC Chairman?

Liberal Avenger asked, "What do you think of Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network for chair of the DNC?" To be honest, on the subject of how political parties are actually run, all I know is what I read in the papers/blogs and see on television. I have my own views on what to look for but they are, as I just admitted, relatively uninformed. This is something I'd be very interested in learning more about, though, so comments would be especially appreciated here. What does the chairman really do? Seems to me the ability to raise money is critical and there's no avoiding that reality. We need someone who can *at least* do that. By all accounts I've seen, Terry Mcauliffe has done a great job there. Second, s/he has to be a spokesperson. Probably not a terribly important one to people outside the beltway, but for insiders on Sunday mornings, s/he has to kick ass on the jawbone shows. Here, agility and sharpness are good, but not critical. After all, if these were really good speakers, they'd be running for office, so people cut them slack. They just get on there and pound the talking points in like a piledriver. What's really critical is crafting the message -- what is the party saying this cycle. How much of this is the chairman himself and how much is decided in committee, I don't know, but I have to say the Mcauliffe years have been unimpressive on this front. Finally, a very good head for tactics. The chairman has to know where the money should go. The guys working the streets this campaign had handhelds that connected to a central database to better target likely voters because somebody made a budgeting decision a long time ago. Here, somebody with a long history in campaigns who has done everything would have the advantage of good instincts for what works. My view is that we need to spend more money on recruiting candidates at all levels. We need better talent scouts in the minor leagues. Who do we have in the back benches? Barack Obama just got called up to the majors. Who else is out there? From the sound of the posts on Talking Points Memo, we need a chairman who will find a way to bring new faces forward without passing through the "consultacracy" -- an "aristocracy of Democratic consultants".

Think Big

Lift your spirits out of the election doldrums. Follow this link to watch a video of JFK's speech promoting the space program (Rice University, Houston Texas, 9/12/1962). It's worth the detour. The proper role of government in the economy is to do what the private sector will not, but will make us all better off if we do. Basic science research, for example. What are Democrats for? We're for that. Can we sell it? Yes we can. Follow the link and see.

Another Democratic Wonk Group

The Washington Post reports (New Group to Tout Democrats' Centrist Values (washingtonpost.com)) Sen. Carper (D-Del) and others are pushing another DLC-style group. Snap out of it! More "third way" policy proposals -- family leave, TANFF, cops on the street -- isn't the lesson from this election cycle. Everyone remembers the Clinton administration. They already know we can deliver centrist economic policy. The lesson is: stay and fight (Gore got that line right, bless him.) Stop putting your tail between your legs and running when talk turns to values. Democrats will win on values. Keep a copy of the Bill of Rights in your pocket. Better yet, shellac it to a board and pound your opponent on the head with it if necessary.

Stop Finessing Gay Marriage

What’s all the fuss about? Does the Republican party have the courage of it’s convictions? The answer is no. The word marriage is really used in two ways – to describe a sacrament and to describe a set of civil rights – and each meaning raises a different issue. A sacrament is an outward manifestation of faith – a sign to the community there is a true covenant between you, your spouse, and God. Or to put it another way, God blessed the union. If God didn’t bless the union, it isn’t a marriage in this sense. Now, to claim to know whether that blessing happened at another couples wedding is extraordinarily arrogant. But regardless, no harm comes to you if two men or two women fail in the attempt to receive that blessing. And the government has no place in that ceremony. Who are the people who do think the government should interfere with religious practice? Republicans. Freedom of religion is a bedrock principle of this country, and it’s sad indeed we have to defend that right. Unless gay couples are harming you by practicing their religion, you have no business interfering with the exercise of those rights. If you think it harms you because it “undermines” your marriage, that’s a sad statement about the shaky state of your marriage. In all seriousness, you need to seek marital counselling. The civil rights inherent in the document you get from the court do not infringe on the civil rights of heterosexual couples either. What harm will come to you if a man inherits the property of his partner? If he comforts him when he is hospitalized? What damage does it do for a woman to get health care through her partner? These rights make our community stronger. In fact, these are the rights that promote self-sufficiency, not dependence on government. Which party trumpets the importance of independence from government? The Republican party. Who is supporting community and self-sufficiency in this case? The Democratic party. The Republican party would like you to believe they support freedom and self-sufficiency. Their rampant demagoguing of the gay marriage issue belies that claim. Yes, the president quietly stated support for civil unions in an interview at the end of the campaign. This is a hollow gesture when the foot soldiers were stoking the fires of hatred in evangelical and Catholic churches around the country. The time has come for Democrats to talk openly about the issue and come down hard on the side of supporting gay marriage. If you support freedom of religion; if you support civil rights; you support gay marriage. If you oppose churches freely choosing whether to bless gay marriage, you oppose freedom of religion. If you oppose civil unions, you are against civil rights. This is not about "civil rights for gays". This is about civil rights for everyone. Which side are you on?

Tax Simplification: The First Red Herring of the New Term

Let the games begin! Ed Gillespie, on a CSPAN radio broadcast of an RNC post-election news conference, floated the following spin: ordinary Americans will benefit from "simplifying the tax code." They won't According to him, Joe Blow is sick and tired of all the confusing tax forms. In contrast, Richie Rich doesn't pay taxes, since he can hire accountants and lawyers who know how to exploit loopholes. Ordinary Americans can't afford this kind of help, so they get shafted. This is unadulterated Bushllit. If you're an ordinary guy, you use the 1040EZ form, and unless you're a blithering idiot, you're done in under two hours. If even that is too much effort for you, pay to have someone else do it. It will probably cost about as much as an oil change. If you have a mortgage, you probably end up on the long form, but again, nothing complicated, unless you own a timber company. While you're focused on the red herring -- tax forms -- the Bush administration will be cutting taxes for the wealthy. Don't think so? Imagine the day after the "tax simplification" when you show up at the grocery store and have a 30% national sales tax added to your grocery bill. Your spending will be taxed the same as the rich guys spending. So you'll pay the same tax on necessities as they pay on their luxuries. The more revenue is raised with a sales tax (and less with the income tax), the less brackets matter and the more regressive is the tax code. The irony is the lower middle class conservatives that vote Republican get screwed too. This is the evil genius of the Republican party, they tell their foot soldiers to go to hell, but make them think they're on their way to heaven.

True Cost of Iraq: Lost Homeland Security

On the campaign trail, President Bush trumpeted at every opportunity the bland claim that "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power," shying away from optimistic predictions made at the beginning of the war that we would be safer from terrorism at home. We're not. The comparison we should make is not to the world before 9/11, but rather to the world where resources used in the war were put to better use increasing security. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by the end of 2004, the United States will have spent about $150 billion waging war on Iraq. How much money are we talking about? $150 billion is hard to picture. Think of it in these terms: $43 billion would pay the salaries of every first responder in the United States for a year (defined as the 610,000 police patrol officers, 273,000 fire fighters, and 182,000 emergency medical technicians and paramedics tabulated in the 2003 Occupational and Employment Statistics from the Bureau of the Census). That is, we could have doubled the number of first responders for each of the three years since 9/11 (for $129 billion) instead of spending the money in Iraq. What's more, there would have been enough left to throw in a 500 thousand dollar fire engine for each of the approximately 30 thousand fire departments in the country ($15 billion). Would this have meant retreating from Iraq? No, there is still enough money left over to enforce the no-fly zone for another three years (about $5 billion). Would hiring more first responders have been the best alternative use for the money? Maybe not, but it's a useful benchmark. Perhaps other needs come to mind such as inspectors and detection equipment for our ports and communication equipment for New York City fire fighters (who could not hear the order to come out of the towers on 9/11). The point is, invading Iraq doesn't top any reasonable list of priorities for making America safe, and the lost opportunities represented by the war spending are staggering. However let's give the President credit; paying an astronomical price in dollars and lives, he reduced (from miniscule to vanishingly small) the likelihood of an attack on the United States using a weapon of mass destruction produced in Iraq. Meanwhile, agencies from the FBI to local police departments struggle to adapt to a world where terrorists use materials that are already here (not imported from Iraq), like planes filled with jet fuel and trucks filled with fertilizer. Diverting money from those efforts to attack Iraq makes us less safe and is truly inexcusable.

Who Am I? Why Am I Here?

I'm a registered Democrat, Catholic, Maryland resident, and career economist in the U.S. government. I'm almost always stewing about one of those institutions, and this blog is a place to serve that stew and see if people spit it out. Since I can't take a public position on economic policy, this blog is anonymous. However, I welcome comments at q5y7rbz02@sneakemail.com Opposing the leadership of your government, your political party, or your church does not make you disloyal. In fact, it is a vital part of citizenship. When the Democrats can't defeat a man like George Bush, or for that matter, Robert Ehrlich, something's wrong. The lesson the 2004 election cycle is we need candidates who swing hard, aim for the nose, and don't let up until the last vote is counted. I don't believe Democrats can win office on policy alone, though I do think Clinton showed us we can make policy work for us. To win, Democrats need to state their convictions clearly and force Republicans to do the same. Republicans won on "values" through innuendo. When we stand up for tolerance, justice, and community, we will win. And when the Catholic Church promotes a "culture of life" that begins at conception and ends at natural birth, but all too often, priests and bishops focus on abortion alone, something's gone horribly wrong.