Ladies and gentlemen, thanks to secret agents and their concealed recording equipment, we have caught some very candid shots of the reactions of the Puppet-String Pullers of the Democrats. Observe...
Yep! They're in a tizzy!
Seriously, though, there are things to be considered. Firstly, it is no secret that Scott Brown's "pro-life credentials" are non-existent. While I rejoice at the election turnout, I'm more happy that Coakley lost than I'm happy that Brown won. However, in order for the first to have happened, the second had to happen; let's not lose sight of that.
Folks, if this sort of thing can happen in liberal Massachusetts, it can certainly happen in more conservative areas of the country - and the leftists know this! We need to keep up the momentum in all facets of pro-life activisim. Too often pro-lifers have won a battle, then wrongly assumed that the war was won, returning to their isolated and oblivious existences. No one can any longer allow themselves that luxury. As a matter of fact, such apathy was never a morally valid attitude to take, as "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance".
What I say now is my opinion and may be controversial, but I believe it to be true. We as Christians must understand that we have nothing in common with socialists and humanists. Their whole mental and spiritual paradigm is atheistic (just go to their own websites if there's any doubt). That means that the Catholic Church must stop trying to seek this mythical "common ground" with these folks (USCCB, are you reading this?).
We must also cease considering ourselves inextribly wed to the Republican Party. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the notion of a "third party" (by the way - I believe the Republican Party itself started as a "third party"). Evangelium Vitae teaches that we must vote for the candidate that is in the closest alignment with the Church. Now when both candidates are pro-abortion (as in yesterday's MA race) we look to other factors; clearly sitting this race out would not have been a morally acceptable option. Again, we must look at the facts and circumstances of each situation.
We've got our work cut out for us. However, we now have a little more leverage, thanks be to God.
The Search for the Historical Trump
5 hours ago
Janet, I have to disagree with your statement that sitting out the election is not a moral option. Are you saying that those who would not vote for Brown are acting immorally?
ReplyDeleteI think one can legitimately choose NOT to support a candidate who supports evil positions as Scott Brown does (pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage) and to write in your own name or turn in a blank ballot. People of good will can call that a stupid or unrealistic position, but it's morally legitimate. No one is EVER required to vote for evil even if it's the lesser evil.
On the other hand, I think one can make a case that voting for the lesser evil to try to reduce the evil is also a morally legitimate position to take.
Mary Ann, thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first question, the objective (and the word "objective" is key) answer is "yes". If one did not vote for Brown, they did one of two things. 1) They voted for Coakley; we both know that would be completely unacceptable 2) They abstained from the vote, and I realize that will require more explanation. Because I'll have to link to some articles and I don't know how to do that in this "comment" window, I'll have to continue this in the next post, the one above the "virtual march" one.