Sen. Biden given standing ovation at DC Mass

Jeff Miller puts this little escapade in the category of "things that make you scream":

"[Vice-President Elect Joe] Biden and his wife, Jill, sat in a pew reserved for him and his family toward the back of Holy Trinity Catholic Church, and listened as the Rev. Larry Madden, S.J., delivered a sermon about God as a constant anchor and the promise of hope and change for those who believe.

".... Toward the end of the 11:30 a.m. Mass, as one of the lectors urged those in attendance to welcome new members and visitors, some in the congregation laughed and then applauded, looking toward Biden. He eventually stood and acknowledged the response that included a standing ovation. (AP)"

My initial reaction was to go "Puke! Gag!" - But let's try to think about this a little more seriously...

This episode perfectly illustrates the contrast between "identity Catholicism" and "conviction Catholicism." By these two phrases I mean:

• "identity Catholicism" reduces the term Catholic to a merely technical description: in this way Joe Biden is a Catholic. He was baptized, attends Mass, puts "Catholic" on his questionnaire.
• "conviction Catholicism" identitifies that one allows their Catholic faith to shape their life, and therefore one actually tries to abide by it, in this way Joe Biden is not a Catholic: He is woefully ignorant of what his own faith teaches (as his Meet the Press interview made crystal clear), and shows little desire to put his faith into action when it comes to issues as fundamental as safeguarding human life, for a start.

So what do I see when I am told about a Catholic congregation giving Joe Biden a standing ovation? People who care more about "identity Catholicism" than about "conviction Catholicism." Yes, Joe Biden is technically "Catholic" in identity, but is he a Catholic to single out for the his conviction in the faith?

We have lots of work to do.

Oh, and Holy Trinity is within walking distance of my new apartment. Politics makes for strange neighbors.

Are pro-life dems making a "breakthrough"?

Tom McFeely has a most intersting post on NCRegister.com, my comments in bold:

Let’s face it, there weren’t very many pro-life silver linings among the electoral clouds that formed Tuesday evening over America. Agreed.

But here’s one: A record 31 Democratic Party pro-life candidates were elected to Congress.

According to Democrats for Life of America, five new Democratic pro-lifers were elected, joining 26 pro-life incumbents who were re-elected. Out of 58 total.

“This will be only the second time in 30 years that the number of pro-life Democrats increases instead of decreases,” Kristen Day, director of Democrats for Life of America, told Lifenews.com. “The first time we made gains was in 2006 due to the work of pro-life Democrats all over this country advocating on behalf of the pro-life cause.” DLA, not to be confused with "Catholic Democrats" - a front group

The first task confronting Congressional pro-lifers from both parties in the next Congress? Forging bipartisan alliances across the aisles of the Senate and the House of Representatives to prevent passage of the abortion lobby’s Freedom of Choice (FOCA) legislation. Most important, and some small encouragement.

I've said it before, "pro-life" and "democrat" can be a powerfully appealing combination to a Catholic. It's clear to me I need to learn more about Democrats for Life of America. What I've seen so far, I mostly like (i.e., "Pro-Life Is The Winning Strategy For Democrats", etc). Other things they have said, while I don't agree with entirely, are certainly far better than what we are used to hearing.

I know I would love to support pro-life candidates within the democrat party. After all, contrary to what you may hear, pro-life is not a partisan issue. The goal of true pro-life advocates is not to see republicans win, but to see human life preserved across party lines.

Sadly, it appears that the democrat party's leadership remains strongly committed to abortion rights, as is evident from their most recent party platform. What will it take to make these higher-ups realize that they need not be the "party of death", to quote the phrase of an archbishop?

Maybe Catholics electing more pro-life Democrats.

"Expect Obama to sign FOCA in the first 100 days"

I often talk about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and how revealing it is that Obama has promised to sign it into law as "the first thing" he'd do as President. Fr. Thomas Berg explains FOCA:

Sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) in the Senate (S. 1173), and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) in the House (HR 1964), FOCA is a piece of legislation designed “to prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.”

In fact, FOCA, if it became law, would go well beyond Roe, sweeping away all limits on abortion -- state and federal -- including restrictions on government funding of abortion and conscience protections for healthcare providers. We have no reason to believe Obama would hesitate to sign FOCA into law as soon as it were to passed by the 111th Congress -- a probable outcome in early 2009 if Democrats gain enough new seats in November.

... And I alert my readers that you can find an extremely useful FOCA fact sheet here and many other useful FOCA-related articles and materials here, courtesy of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life activities.

Fr. Berg also conducted an informative interview with Susan Wills of the USCCB's pro-life committee.

This November: the big picture

Jim Manzi writing for the American Scene notes that this November, it's not just the presidency up for grabs. The democrats are also set to control both houses of congress, the only question is by how much:

The exact size of the majority in the House is not as crucial as it is in the Senate, where a key point is reached right around 60 seats for Democrats, which, in theory, allows them to prevent a filibuster. Given that the marginal Democrats and marginal Republicans are not reliable party-line voters, getting very close to 60 will prevent some filibusters, hitting 60 will prevent a lot, and getting even slightly past 60 will prevent yet a lot more.

What is the likelihood of this happening?

Five Thirty Eight says:

Senate projections are little changed from our last update six days ago. We currently project the composition of the new Senate to be 56.7 Democrats, 41.3 Republicans, and 2.0 independents; this is not significantly changed from 56.6-41.4-2.0 last week. We furthermore show the Democrats as having a 32 percent chance to control a 60-seat caucus (counting independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders), up incrementally from 30 percent last week.

Also look at this Senate Map.

MN is exactly tied, while GA, MS, and KY are "barely" GOP. NC, OR and AK are "barely" DNC.

Why is it important to prevent a filibuster-proof DNC majority? From the perspective of building a culture of life in America, such a democrat majority would far increase the chances of radical legislation such as the "Freedom of Choice Act" of making into into law.

That's really bad news.

update: like it was planned by a higher power, Family Research Council has released its 2008 Congressional Voter's Guide - highly recommended, and spread the word.

What if Obama wins?

Deal Hudson says:

Many Catholics will finally realize, and admit to, the power of the political left in their Church. This will lead to a stark red state, blue state divide among Catholics in the U.S., which will be wider and deeper than what we presently see.

..This network has become very adept at cloaking its dissent, its political intentions, and its disdain for the agenda of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I won't go into details because it has been chronicled often, but there are a growing number of Catholics willing to believe it because of this election.

Steve Ertelt follows through.

I have one prediction to add:

Some vocal Catholics have been promising, with increasing-intensity, that Obama will bring about a renaissance of Catholic social teaching in action, and that it is morally imperative for Catholics to help him bring this about by voting for him on November 4th.

My prediction? Come November 5th, we'll never hear from them again.

... that is, until November 2012.

on a related note:

For an example of the selective pandering that is being given to pew Catholics, consider this press release from the group "Catholic Democrats" that dropped in my inbox yesterday:

"Catholic Democrats calls on McCain campaign to acknowledge the fundamental right to health care - [because] Catholic Bishops recognize "a fundamental human right," an approach to health care advanced throughout Obama's career."

Given the economic climate, one can reasonably argue about whether Obama's mandate or McCain's tax credit plan will provide coverage to more people.

On the other hand, Obama's record of opposition to the Church's teachings on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning (to name a few), is absolutely indisputable.

And in fact, the Church's teaching about health care presumes that this health care protects the unborn, does not seek unethical cures through embryonic stem cell research or cloning.

So run that by me again - how exactly has Obama been advancing a form of health care acceptable to Catholics throughout his career?

BeliefNet notices Fidelis' "Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay Marriage Video"

It might seem odd to say this, but it makes sense if you know Beliefnet, but anyway ... for an "outsiders" prospective on the CatholicVote.com innitiative of Fidelis, and particularly their stunning video on Catholic voting, click here.

I think the author, Dan Gilgoff, would make great strides in understanding this "phenomenon" if he realized that the motivation behind this project is not partisan in the way that so many pro-Democratic faith-based outreaches are.

Rather, these "conservative" Catholics genuinly believe they are applying the social teaching of the Church in an authentic manner. Knowing what one must render to God informs how we approach the things of Caesar.

That's belief in action, as strange as it may appear to some.

I've significantly expanded this post over at the CatholicVote blog.

Arcbishop Burke: Democrats becoming "party of death"

Archbishop "Pulls-No-Punches," well, doesn't:

The Democratic Party in the United States "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death,'" said U.S. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Vatican's highest court.

An interview with the former archbishop of St. Louis was published in the Sept. 27 edition of Avvenire, a daily Catholic newspaper sponsored by the Italian bishops' conference.

... "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, 'The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.'"

Archbishop Burke said the Democratic Party once was "the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore."

Pro-life Democrats are "rare, unfortunately," he said.

On denying communion to pro-abortion politicians:

Archbishop Burke also was asked about being one of a few U.S. bishops to publicly ban Catholic politicians who hold positions contrary to church teaching from receiving Communion.

"Mine was not an isolated position," the archbishop said. "It was shared by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, by Bishop Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte (N.C.) and by others."

"But it is true that the bishops' conference has not taken this position, leaving each bishop free to act as he believes best. For my part, I always have maintained that there must be a united position in order to demonstrate the unity of the church in facing this serious question," he said.

"Recently, I have noticed that other bishops are coming to this position," he said, especially after Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have represented church teaching on abortion in a false and tendentious manner."

Ka-boom.

update: for those who are interested, the book Archbishop Burke mentions: "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life"

For those interested in finding the bishops to whom Archbishop Burke is referring, see: "Joe Biden" in recent AmP posts.

Also, I have cross-posted this to CatholicVote.com, which is doing well.

Photo credit: "Geerlingguy"

Video: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

It may generate some heated debate, but this video has become very popular (6ook+ views) and makes the case that the current economic woes can be directly tied to democrat-mandated programs under the Carter and Clinton administrations which forced banks to issue faulty loans to people who could not repay them.

The video, while clearly partisan, does not contradict, for instance, the situation described by this 1999 New York Times article.

A root question about this economic downturn must be "what caused it"? Right now, democrat-proposed legislation to force the availability of "affordable home loans" to those who could not repay them seems high on the list of likely causes. Not the exclusive cause, mind you, but an important one.

Okay, have at it....

The"Freedom of Choice" Act: A wolf waiting in the shadows

Barack Obama promised a group of prominant abortion advocates that his "very first" act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law.

Such a law, it has been predicted, would result in many, many more abortions in America each year:

FOCA is usually reported as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” but it is much more. Since the Webster and Casey decisions in 1989 and 1992, the Supreme Court has allowed states to limit abortion somewhat by such things as requiring parental involvement and informed consent, prohibiting government funding of most abortion, and more recently outlawing most partial birth abortions.

Specifically, if FOCA is passed it will increase abortions by 125,000 more per year in the United States. Since 2004, Dr. Michael New has published studies with the Heritage Foundation showing that a large reduction in abortions can be attributed to these three kinds of laws. (LifeNews)

Such grim statistics really put the lie to the claim that the democrat platform intends to reduce the overall number of abortions in America each year. As much as their social plans may reduce the occurance of abortion incedentally, it is a known fact that their legal proposals will increase the occurance of abortion directly and dramatically.

The American bishops are aware of this fact as well, and Cardinal Regali, the chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities has written to congress:

Cardinal Justin Rigali sent the letter to Congress on Friday and warned against enactment of the proposed bill (S. 1173, H.R. 1964).

“Despite its deceptive title,” he wrote, “FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry."

He added: "FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”

Cardinal Rigali, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote that, under FOCA, “abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.”

While some have said the bill would simply codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, he added, supporters of FOCA say it “would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies” that are now in effect because they do not conflict with Roe.

These include bans on public funding of abortions as well as “modest and widely supported state laws” protecting women’s safety, informed consent and parental rights.

With his letter, Cardinal Rigali enclosed a legal analysis by the bishops’ Office of General Counsel documenting the extreme legal impact of FOCA. (LifeNews)

You can read the cardinal's letter here (PDF) and the legal analysis here (PDF). Zenit provides a summary.

"Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"

For a very even-handed treatment of the question, read Mark Stricherz in America magazine.

Ph/t: Margaret Cabaniss of Inside Catholic.

Yes, the DNC changed their abortion platform - they made it worse.

One doesn't have to go far in the current abortion debates to find people using the Democratic National Committee's "new language" on the topic of choice as a justification for claiming that the DNC is pro-life "in its totality" or something along those lines.

Well, I decided to read the DNC's platform and confirmed that, yes, they have new language ...

... and it's worse than what they had before.

Even John Kerry's "moderated 2004 platform included a plank stating that the party sought to keep abortion legal, but make it "rare", a formulation of the Pres. Bill Clinton era." (source)

The word "rare" has been eliminated from the 2008 platform, and its place, these chilling words added:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe V. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Richard Land correctly notes that "These words taken together are about as inclusive an assertion of an absolute right to abortion as the English language is capable of mustering."

He also points out "No wonder that NARAL Pro-Choice America rhapsodized that the new platform language reaffirmed “in the strongest of terms” the “Democratic Party’s solid commitment to a woman’s right to choose.”

(Radical feminists are happy, too: "I'm personally really excited to see them mention the ability to pay, since the Hyde Amendment has been such a huge barrier for low-income women and women of color. This is more progressive than I might have expected.")

Simply put: you can't be more pro-abortion than the language of the DNC official platform.

"But wait!" people will reply, "... what about the subsequent language claiming that health care and education will help reduce the need for abortions?"

Sure, that is in there, too. But that's not the argument that gets thrown around: what people actually claim is that the DNC's new platform is more "moderate" on abortion, even "more pro-life." But in fact, if words mean anything, the DNC has actually "accomplished the impossible: they have moved to the left on abortion", in the words of Naomi Riley.

Nor can I be assuaged by the DNC proposal to reduce abortions through better "health care" and "education".

For by education the DNC means concretely their vision of "sex education", which often is reduced to instruction in "safe sex" practices which promote attitudes conducive to more, not less, unwanted pregnancies, and simultaneously the distribution of condoms and other contraceptives, which are inherently offensive to Catholic sensibilities and against Catholic teaching.

Furthermore, these "education" initiatives frequently resist letting women receive the type of education that includes, for instance, ultrasounds of their growing infants (see picture above).

My question, then: how exactly has "lack of education" been a constitutive cause of abortions in America? And how possibly could their proposed "educational initiatives" significantly reduce them?

Finally, the argument that the DNC is more against abortion than ever before because they wish to reduce the economic occasions for abortion is also a red herring in my opinion. To paraphrase Richard Garnett, we must not settle "merely for trying to put in a better economic position those who hold the fate of the defenseless in their hands."

My question, then: is not the actual intention of the DNC to make all abortions simply chosen, instead of chosen in a pressured way? How will removing one source of pressure eliminate the many pressures (most of which are non-economic) that help drive women to abortion?

Thus, by removing even the concession of desiring to make abortions "rare", the DNC has once-again presumed upon the support of moderates and actively sought to court the vote of radicals who will never allow the practice of abortion (and related horrors) to be exterminated.

Now if you've read this far, I'm going to reward you with a gutsy claim: I think it's exactly this attitude evidenced by those who try to endlessly defend the DNC's liberal abortion agenda who have allowed the DNC to backtrack on their previous concessions (= comparatively-moderate positions).

Imagine the DNC is a large ocean liner. One one side, a strong tugboat is trying as hard as it can to push the DNC towards unequivocal and ossified support for abortion rights. On the other side is a tired, rusted tugboat barely resisting the opposite force, and trying to convince itself that it's winning the fight until it has almost run aground.

Sadly, the strong tugboat represents the pro-abortion forces in the democratic party, and the tired, rusted tugboat represents the pro-life forces.

C'mon little tugboat, try pushing for a change.

Commentary: Abortion and the New Democratic Platform

Michael Sean Winters of the America Magazine election blog has an interesting post today entitled "Note to Dems: Shut Up!"

I agree in substance with his first part:

First, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrated that she wasn’t paying attention during theology classes when she matriculated at Trinity College. Now, Sen. Joe Biden has managed to wade into the treacherous waters of making pronouncements on what the Church does, and does not, teach about when human life begins. The Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate, who has a mixed record on pro-life issues, went further than he needed to go on "Meet the Press" yesterday, mentioning Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica as if he were an expert, but quickly demonstrating that he is no theologian.

Note to Democratic candidates: You are not running to become theologian-in-chief.

I want to believe, but remain wary, of his next claim:

And, in the event, the platform you just adopted has something genuinely new and important to say about abortion, and theological speculation is just going to step on that platform.

The Democrats, for the first time, called for policies that will reduce the number of abortions by preventing crisis pregnancies in the first place and by providing assistance to women facing crisis pregnancies so that they can carry their child to term. The GOP removed similar language from their platform, keeping their traditional but so far unsuccessful call for overturning Roe v. Wade.

Winters' sets out perhaps the best argument the DNC has going for them right now when it comes to attacting pro-life voters (otherwise known as "practicing Catholics"). But let's follow the strands.

Steve Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, agrees and disagrees with Winters:

The Obama campaign had been arguing that the candidate was charting a third-way approach to abortion: supporting abortion rights but promoting policies that would reduce the number of abortions.

Pro-life liberals were therefore deeply disappointed to hear that after the Palin announcement, the Democrats started running a radio ad [MP3 file] about abortion that made no mention of abortion reduction, instead just stating the Democrats' support for abortion rights. "Unless the Obama campaign will stop emphasizing abortion rights and strongly address the major common cause issues with a spirited vision and practical details, the Republicans can continue to scoop up a ton of votes," said Joel Hunter, a moderate evangelical who gave a benediction at the Democratic convention.

Waldman goes on to claim that Biden and Obama are both re-adjusting their language:

This Sunday, the Democratic ticket seemed to emphasize a new approach. On Meet the Press, Joe Biden went farther than the platform or Obama had gone before: "what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children."

A Democratic candidate pledging to "reduce considerably the amount of abortions" -- that's the phrase that pro-life liberals have been yearning for.

On This Week with George Stephanopolous, Obama returned to talking about abortion reduction (and also clarified his above-my-paygrade gaffe [watch video]). He said his paygrade line was "too flip" and that "as a Christian I have a lot of humility about understanding about when does the soul enter. All I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."

Now I wish these words could be taken at their face value (would that the democrat party did become truly pro-life!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Biden receives a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee, and Obama was "Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007." Have they had a change of heart since they earned these ratings?

In 2007, Obama promised NARAL that his first act as President would be to "sign the Freedom of Choice Act." On the 35th Anniversary of Roe V. Wade, Barack Obama on his campaign website still says:

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose...With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election."

"Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

And where does Joe Biden stand on this issue? He co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act in the 102nd and 103rd congresses. "FOCA would overturn hundreds of state laws on the books that limit abortion."

Here's what I'm seeing: when Obama or Biden (or Pelosi, for that matter) are addressing a general audience, they talk about wishing to bring down the number of abortions, provide alternatives, etc. They also "helpfully" suggest expanding access to contraceptives, but we'll leave that aside for now.

When, however, Obama or Biden have a pro-choice audience, they are unabashed in their support for abortion-on-demand. (Can you imagine, for instance, Barack Obama or Joe Biden telling Planned Parenthood - which receives huge amounts of federal funding - that they should begin encouraging their patients to carry their children to term?)

Nor is this double-talk confined to the democrat higher ups (though even their practice of it should give us pause), the specter of Roe v. Wade being repealed is regularly used, up and down the party line, to intimidate people - and women especially - into voting for a democratic candidate. I showcased a classic example of these scare tactics a week or so ago at the DNC convention itself.

Back to my main point: in order to truly make a case before the entire American people that the DNC has changed its views on abortion, their Presidential candidate must be willing to repudiate the support of radical pro-abortion lobbies and interests. If he cannot do that, then this change in the DNC platform remains a classical case of politicians and political party wanting to have it both ways.

Sadly, it's all the same for the present and future victims of abortion.

Hadley Arkes on "Kmiec Agonistes"

Hadley Arkes scratches his head about Douglas Kmiec's support of Barack Obama, and makes many excellent points along the way. Kmiec, it should be remembered, once had a sterling pro-life reputation.

I'm not going to pull an excerpt out from the text because I think the whole article deserves to be read.

(And by the bye, can someone answer me why an astute list of contributors couldn't come up with anything more inventive than "The Catholic Thing" for their title? It isn't even strictly accurate... Okay, I've done.)

Abp. Chaput continues to steal spotlight from DNC

The Washington Times reports:

In retrospect, maybe the Democrats should have included Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput in their convention activities after all.

The party was accused of deliberately snubbing the outspoken archbishop by failing to invite him to lead prayers or participate on its religion panels. Archbishop Chaput is the leader of Denver´s estimated 385,000 Catholics, the area´s largest religious denomination.

But Archbishop Chaput may have gotten the last laugh. Democrats are doing a slow burn over the archbishop´s headline-grabbing criticism of party bigwigs and his decision to schedule major events this week during the convention´s prime-time speeches.

Gosh, the DNC organizers must be so annoyed.

Here's what Abp. Chaput has been up to ...

• The DNC schedules Clinton and Biden to speak on Wednesday night?

On the same night: "Archbishop Chaput drew hundreds to a signing of his newest book, “Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life,” at a bookstore about 15 miles from the Pepsi Center."

• How about three nights ago, the debut night of the DNC rally?

"Archbishop Chaput led a pro-life rally and prayer march outside a Planned Parenthood office in north Denver that started at 7:30 MST, about the same time as Michelle Obama, wife of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, was speaking to the convention."

Now that's guts, and brains.

"Democrats open faith-filled convention with prayer"

Cafeteria-style religion at the DNC:

At the first official event Sunday of the Democratic National Convention, a choir belted out a gospel song and was followed by a rabbi reciting a Torah reading about forgiveness and the future.

Helen Prejean, the Catholic nun who wrote "Dead Man Walking," assailed the death penalty and the use of torture.

Young Muslim women in headscarves sat near older African-American women in their finest Sunday hats.

Four years ago, such a scene would have been unthinkable at a Democratic National Convention. In 2004, there was one interfaith lunch at the Democratic gala in Boston.
But that same year, "values voters" helped re-elect President Bush, giving Democrats of faith the opening they needed to make party leaders listen to them.

AP on the "Catholic vote":

Laser helped broker compromise language in the Democrats' abortion platform that acknowledges the need to help women who want to keep their pregnancies. Hunter and liberal evangelical leader Jim Wallis were involved, as were new groups such as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Despite all the effort, there is little evidence religious votes are shifting. A Pew poll released last week showed the political preferences of religious voters, including highly sought Catholics and white evangelicals, have scarcely budged since 2004.

Catholics are up for grabs, but white evangelicals have become so solidly Republican, Obama has little chance of carving too deeply into the Republican lead, said Allen Hertzke, a University of Oklahoma political scientist.

Consider with the obligatory mound of salt. Maybe even a pillar.

The Biden Rundown

Obama has announced his running mate:

"Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama introduced Sen. Joe Biden to the nation as his running mate Saturday, telling supporters that he is "a leader who is ready to step in and be president." (CNN)

I'll admit to getting the text message this morning. I was interested. Now I can unsubscribe.

In another report, the radioactive phrase about Biden appears:

"[Biden is] a Roman Catholic..."

Biden, according to the public record, is also:

• pro-abortion (36-75% rating by NARAL, 0% by National Right to Life Committee)
• supports the nomination of pro-Roe v. Wade supreme court justices
• pro-allowing minors to cross state lines for abortions, and against telling their parents
• pro-embryonic stem cell research
• pro-contraceptives (but supports some abstinence education)
• against making harming an unborn fetus a criminal penalty
• against-partial birth abortion (unlike Obama)

Except for being less extreme than Obama regarding partial birth abortion, Biden holds basically the same positions, but as a Catholic. He also accepts "on faith" that life begins at conception, while still remaining pro-abortion.

Now, let's quickly sweep through the reactions to Biden's selection, from good-to-bad.

The best analysis I've read thus far is from Canon Lawyer Edward Peters (relation):

Barack Obama’s selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate is sure to provoke questions about Biden’s eligibility for holy Communion under canon law. Hoping to get out ahead of things, I’m suggesting that we start by asking the right questions, well.

One need not be a Catholic in good standing to be President or Vice President of the United States, but one must be a Catholic in good standing to receive holy Communion from the Catholic Church.

[Read on.]

For a Catholic perspective, that's your one-stop read.

I can't say I'm pleased with the Catholic News Service's introduction of Biden and discussion about his Catholic faith. On the one hand, they do admit in the first paragraph that Biden supports abortion, but immediatly add that Biden "has been an ally for the church’s public policy interests." Such a claim, however, cannot be logically true when you've already noted Biden is pro-abortion. Unless somehow protecting unborn human life is not part of the church's public policy interests. I'll leave you to read the rest of their treatment, but I have other reservations as well.

Chris Korzen of "Catholics" United has issued a press release supporting Biden's selection. I have serious questions about Korzen's sincerity when he says that his organization "refuse[s] to water down our [Catholic] faith in service of partisan politics." That's simply unbelievable coming from someone with such a partisan background. I'll talk more about this in a future post. (update: I talk about it here.)

CNN's "expert" analysis, meanwhile, plays things safe, claiming that "Biden gives Obama old-school cred", and also:

So how does Biden help Obama politically? Biden is Roman Catholic. There are nearly 70 million Roman Catholics in the United States, about 20 percent of the electorate, and they can tip the balance in a close contest.

Now what a naive, narrow observation to make.

Moving farther to left (prettymuch to the brink, in matter of fact), the feminists:

Biden has a not-so-hot record on choice. He says he supports Roe v. Wade, but is not really interested in expanding access to low-income women.

It continually frightens me to see what some people aren't satisfied with regarding abortion access.

So there's the lay of the land, as I see it now.

What are your thoughts? Open thread time...

update, day 2 reactions:

• Whispers: Hail, Columbia... Hello, Controversy
• InsideCatholic: Why Biden Will Not Help Obama Attract Catholic Voters
• Deacon Keith Fournier: Obama Chooses Senator Biden for VP and the Battle for Life is Engaged
• CNA: Despite losing among Catholics, Obama chooses pro-abortion vice president
• AP: Obama Faces New Criticism on Abortion

Snub: Democrats don't invite local bishop Chaput to pray/speak at Denver convention

Just how much are we supposed to believe the sincerity of Democratic Catholic outreach when they continue to display such ideological selectivity?

Democrats have invited more than two dozen religious leaders to pray or speak at their upcoming conventioin with a notable exception: Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, a policy wonk and the leader of Colorado's largest religious denomination.

Several Catholics, including former Colorado state Sen. Polly Baca, "Dead Man Walking" author Sister Helen Prejean, social justice lobbyist Sister Catherine Pinkerton and Pepperdine University professor Douglas W. Kmiec, are on the program.

Organizers are also flying in Greek Orthodox Archbishop Demetrios from New York to give the opening prayer Wednesday.

But Archbishop Chaput's only contact with the convention has been a meeting with Leah Daughtry, chief executive officer of the convention and a Pentecostal pastor, and an invitation to attend the event as an observer. (Washington Times)

CNA covers the story here. Roman Catholic Blog also provides links to Archbishop Chaput's recent (and lengthy) interview on the Hugh Hewitt show (ph/t: Jeff Miller).

As for this (intentional) oversight made by the Democrats, ought we to conclude that it is connected with the Archbishop's recently-published book on Catholics & Politics (which I'm currently reading)?

Talk about a golden opportunity for real change ... missed.

More social engineering from Clinton + DNC woes

Today's installment:

Every citizen could get a 401(k) retirement account and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered Tuesday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement. - AP.

Oh, and the last social engineering proposal? Turns out it was just an "idea" ....

At the same time, Clinton said she has given up another idea for a savings incentive—giving every baby born in the United States a $5,000 account to one day pay for college or a first home.

She made that suggestion last month before the Congressional Black Caucus, saying it was just an idea and not a policy proposal. The idea was criticized by Republicans, and she told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published Tuesday that it's off the table.

I guess it served its purpose in the polls.

Final chilling words:

"We have to fight and finally bury the idea of privatizing Social Security," she said.

Meanwhile, chaos in the Democratic Michigan Primary.

These are deep waters for me, but I'm trying to get my head around this item:

Michigan and Florida have run afoul of the Democratic National Committee by moving their nomination contests to earlier dates that conflict with the party's calendar.

The DNC has threatened to withhold delegates from those states at the party convention next summer that will nominate the Democratic candidate in the November 2008 election.

So, these two important swing states are getting the boot from the DNC?