Thursday, October 06, 2016

What part of "personally opposed" involves being a cheerleader for abortion?

If Tim Kaine was "personally opposed" to abortion, he might periodically describe it as evil.


//During a generally disgraceful performance at the vice-presidential debate last night, Tim Kaine delivered himself of this enormity:

"We really feel like you should live fully and with enthusiasm in the commands of your faith, but it is not the role of the public servant to mandate that for everybody else," he said.
On the surface, this seems reasonable enough, and indeed it's the standard position for Democrat Catholics who subordinate their "religious beliefs" to the increasingly Stalinist demands of leftist party orthodoxy -- whatever they may happen to be at the moment. But it's a lie, and a monstrous one at that. Kaine's answer on abortion is basically Adolf Eichmann's answer on the Holocaust: I don't let my personal beliefs interfere with state policy.//

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

"We really feel like you should live fully and with enthusiasm in the commands of your faith, but it is not the role of the public servant to mandate that for everybody else," he said.

Peter, I take it then you would support "evangelical" or Muslim public servants mandating various religious orthodoxy and legal standards of behavior on Catholics. After all, failure to do so by said public servants could easily be viewed as nothing different than supporting mass murder of Jews.

Regarding the "increasingly Stalinist demands of leftist party orthodoxy," I saw those demands just yesterday. They were out sealing the new pavement on Maroa between Barstow and Escalon.

Peter Bradley said...

You take it wrong.

But I would not be surprised that an Evangelical - why the scare quotes? - or a Muslim would express their moral opposition to something they are morally opposed even if they don't vote to impose sharia law or a theocracy.

What you and most progressives don't understand is that there is no necessary obligation for anyone to eradicate sin where the eradication would cause more harm than the sin. Read Aquinas, who made exactly that point about laws against prostitution.

On the other hand, the fact that we are not able to outlaw the sin does not make the sin a good thing that we should laud as "the most fundamental civil right." If someone does that, then they are a cheerleader for the sin.

As for road-sealing, isn't that what government should be doing before it indoctrinates us that men dressed up like women aren't men?

When all the roads are taken care of, it can then go to work on other problems.

 
Who links to me?