I DID not watch a single moment of the Democratic Convention during prime time last week. I did, however, later view some of Sandra Fluke’s speech, which you can see here. Rarely has the socialist project to denigrate womahood been presented in such glowing terms. It’s too hysterical and adolescent of a speech, the sort of thing you’d expect to hear at the Women’s Resource Center at any university or college, to take seriously. As Lawrence Auster says, “The human mind is designed for the contemplation of reality, not for the contemplation of sheer insanity.” It’s sheer insanity to view Fluke as a champion of women. She is an avid proponent of their manipulation, unhappiness and corruption. And, truly, a childless woman who lectures the nation about the need to prevent birth is suffering from an insane level of presumption.
The Democrats scored two public relations victories against the Catholic Church. In the first, Caroline Kennedy presented herself as Catholic in her pro-abortion speech. Kennedy apparently believes Catholicism is hereditary and has nothing to do with what one believes. Kennedy is an airhead; she’s a human hot air balloon.
The second was Timothy Cardinal Dolan’s benediction, in which he described policians who support abortion, same-sex ‘marriage’ and mandatory insurance coverage for contraception as “seek[ing] to serve the common good by seeking public office.”
The Archbishop of New York’s prayer did much to confuse and gave the impression that as long as we pray for the Democrats, it’s okay to vote for them.
—– Comments —–
Jane S. writes:
I have to admit, I’m confused by this post. The part about the benediction from the Cardinal. I’m confused by the link, too. Apparently he gave the benediction at both conventions. Was it the same benediction at both? I’m in a muddle. Thanks.
It was understandably confusing because I considered two different aspects of the convention. It was my convention round-up. : – )
Cardinal Dolan’s prayer was basically the same at the two conventions, with two notable differences. He asks for a blessing for those “waiting to be born” at the Democratic Convention
And he said:
“Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community.”
This was a reference apparently to same-sex marriage. But it is an oblique one.
These are reverent and admirable requests for God’s grace. However, the Cardinal was appearing before thousands of people who defiantly embrace the opposite. I don’t think they felt chastened. Quite the contrary. I think they felt blessed.
Terry Morris writes:
You wrote that the Archbishop of New York’s prayer gave the impression that if you pray for Democrats, it’s okay to vote for them.
Seems like you have your answer to the question of whether it is a mortal sin to vote for Hussein Obama. I sure am glad that’s cleared up.
The Cardinal showed his liberalism (by far the American norm) when he used the legal phrase “ordered liberty.” The Supreme Court uses this phrase when it ever-increasingly imposes the Bill of Rights on the states. The Bill of Rights is a collection of ten excellent Constitutional amendments intended to restrict the federal government, not the states. But the Court (Scalia and all the rest) embraces the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment made the guts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not say it makes the Bill of Rights applicable. If one believes that, then one must believe Congress intended a radical change to the Constitution that was to apply to the North after the Civil War. But the Northern Congress had no such intention. The North wanted due process (or more precisely, the minimal due process blacks had in the North) for blacks in the South. That is it.
Ordered liberty is a trite phrase. Of course liberty must be limited. So what else is new? The phrase is a talisman the Court uses when it does what it wants, which is often, with regard to the Bill of Rights.
Let us take a simple example of how the Court does what it wants. The supposedly conservative justice, Roberts, deemed Obamacare constitutional based on the federal government’s constitutional power to levy taxes. He admitted he tried mightily to uphold Obamacare, which he wanted to uphold supposedly for conservative reasons. Most conservatives think the courts should rarely overturn laws, particularly state laws, without a clear constitutional mandate. Yet Obama (and his Congressional minions) argued it was not a tax in order to enact it and then switched to arguing it was a tax when Obamacare got to the Court.
Roberts never mentioned the blatant contradiction that is of record despite the Court’s (including Breyer’s) reliance on legislative history when rendering its opinions. Lawyers know Roberts had a conservative agenda. Even the liberal media admitted it because the media got the result it wanted.
I expect it is too hard on the Cardinal to accuse him of being liberal based on his misuse of nice-sounding legal jargon. I watched his prayer lying in bed while on a useless business trip, and I was encouraged by his courage to stand up in front of a bunch of pro-abortionists and give a vague (to most of the electorate) admonition against abortion. The liberal channel noted most of the people were exiting at the time. So the Cardinal was lucky.