See you on the other side...

of the Easter Triduum.

Conference & Converts

I went to a conference sponsored by Ave Maria University's Grad Program and AMU's Aquinas Center for Theological Renewal. This year's theme was "Aquinas the Augustinian," and... wow. Some high-powered intellects were there, some known, some not so much.

I got to meet Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, Dr. Tracey Rowland, Dr. David Yeago, and Dr. Bruce Marshall, as well as the directors of the Auqinas Center, Drs. Matthew Levering and Michael Dauphinais. And I also got the pleasure of meeting a fellow blogger, Athanasius.

Shortly before I left for the conference, I found out that philosopher J. Budziszewski converted to Catholicism last year. Then, at the conference I found out that Lutheran theologian Reinhard Hutter (of Duke University) converted at the end of last year, and that (Episcopalian?) theologian R.R. Reno (of Creighton University) also converted recently. Interesting.

Wandering in the Wilderness

In his latest column, Andrew Sullivan praises Hillary Clinton's speech on abortion last week. He begins,

Hillary Rodham Clinton is absolutely right. I've waited quite a few years to be able to write that sentence, but, hey, if you live long enough... I'm referring to her superb speech earlier this week on the politics and morality of abortion. There were two premises to Senator Clinton's argument and they are quite simple: a) the right to legal abortion should remain and b) abortion is always and everywhere a moral tragedy. It seems to me that if we are to reduce abortions to an absolute minimum (and who, exactly, opposes that objective?), then Clinton's formula is the best, practical approach.

My questions are simple: Mr. Sullivan (and Senator Clinton), exactly why is abortion a moral tragedy, and exactly why should abortion be rare? The answer to both is ultimately the same: because abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. But if this is the case, how is the first of Senator Clinton's premises as outlined by Mr. Sullivan in any way defensible? Simple: it isn't.

Mr. Sullivan proceeds to extol the senator's recommendation of contraception as a means to achieve the goal of abortion as "safe, legal, and rare," along the way villifying the Catholic Church's teaching on the matter: "By focussing on contraception, she appeals to all those who oppose abortion but who do not follow the Catholic hierarchy's rigid restrictions on the surest way to prevent them."

The unfortunate fact is, Mr. Sullivan doesn't understand sex. He doesn't understand its purpose or its nature. And his lack of understanding pervades virtually every moral issue which in any way touches upon sexuality.

Someone send him Christopher West's stuff! (This article would be a good place to begin.)

Iraqi Election Roundup

Christopher Blosser has an extensive post which rounds up blog commentary on the Iraqi elections... definitely worth checking out.

Go take a look and sample some of the links.

Happy thoughts

So there was a historical vote in Iraq today.

Not surprisingly, some people are upset about it. No, I'm not talking about al-Zarqawi, I'm talking about the Lunatic Lefties, like this guy at Democratic Underground (probably the hangout for the Lunatic fringe of the left (I've highlighted some of the jucier phrases & comments):

All the media keeps talking about is how happy the Iraqis are, how high turnout was, and how "freedom" has spread to Iraq. I had to turn off CNN because they kept focusing on the so-called "voters" and barely mentioned the resistance movements at all. Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?

I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bullshit. They have to know that the Americans don't want them to have power, because they know that Bush is in this for the oil, and now that he finally has it he's not going to let it go. [In a year, when Iraq has a constitution and a permanent government, we'll still hear this mantra.] This election is a charade. The fact is that the Iraqis have suffered during the past two years more than any people on earth at the hands of the American gestapo. Maybe they're afraid and felt they had to vote. [Okay, buddy, that makes a lot of sense] That's the only way I can explain it to myself.

OR--I just thought of this--maybe they're smiling because they're using the Americans own game to defeat them. They're voting in candidates who they know will widen the resistance, take the fight to the streets, and finally drive the occupying forces out of their country. Perhaps they're smiling because--right under the American's noses--they're planting the seeds of a bigger and more effective resistance movement. Wouldn't that be fitting? Use *'s own tools against them?

We can only pray that this is the case. Becuase if it's not--and if the Iraq vote is seen as a success that spread "freedom"--the world is screwed. Bush's inaugural speech left little doubt that he has other countries on his list to spread "freedom" to. They will be his next targets, and the world will burn because of it.

Let's hope the resistance got voted in, or if not, they only increase the fight and take down those who betrayed their country today by voting in this fraud election.

He followed it up with this:

"And as John Nichols in The Nation and Robert Fisk write, this "election" is not going to have the results Bush and his warmongering cronies want it to have."

We can only pray that's true. For the sake of peace, this sham can't be seen as a success, and it can't give * any more ideas.

This people are, well, off their rocker... crazy... loony. But I don't think we'll hear any disavowals from the sane liberals (yes, that's most of them, my conservative friends) because these crazies are constitute a good chunk of the liberal base, and you can't upset them too much.

Hat tip: K-Lo, again.

Time doesn't have a clue

The cover story of the new issue of Time magazine -- on newsstands tomorrow -- is "Evangelicals in America." The story gives a brief synopsis of "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America." It's an interesting story. There's just one problem (or two, depending on how you count)...

Anyone who knows anything about American Evangelicalism knows that it is a Protestant phenomenon.

But two of Time's 25 "most influential evangelicals in America" are Senator Rick Santorum and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus.

They're Catholic.

How does one of the top newsmagazines in the US make such an egregious error in their cover story?!?!

Hat tip: K-Lo.

You need to define your terms

So this whole SpongeBob/Dobson thing has been a raging topic at liberal blogs of late. As one would expect, terms like "intolerance", "bigotry", and "hate" are found in abundance. (E.g. this and this.) Unfortunately, all too often there is no initial definition of these terms offered as a starting point for the discussion or rant. Now, if the goal is simply to preach to the choir... to rouse the troops for battle... to stoke the flames of one's like-minded fellows, then such definitions are not necessary.

However, if one really wants to offer a serious intellectual argument, then the definition of terms is an absolute must. It's easy to brand people with whom one disagrees as hateful and/or bigoted... it's another thing to explain exactly why and how those "others" are haters and bigots.

In this case, it seems that to posit that "homosexual lifestyles are harmful to the individuals involved as well as the society in which they live" (Assertion) is sufficient to be labeled hateful or bigoted. Now, as I've stated before, there are definitely people out there who hate gays; the thing is, there are very few of them, while there are plenty of people who make the above Assertion and don't hate gays.

So what about the terms? According to Merriam-Webster, hate (as a verb) means

1 : to feel extreme enmity toward <hates his country's enemies>
2 : to have a strong aversion to : find very distasteful <hated to have to meet strangers> <hate hypocrisy>

The fact is, there is no intrinsic link between the Assertion above and these definitions... it is completely possible to view a particular behavior as destructive without hating those who engage in such behavior. In prior conversations, I've found that some liberals simply do not believe that it's possible to "hate the sin and love the sinner"... they so identify the essence of the person with their behavior (in this case, their sexual behavior) that they deny you can separate the two, let alone treat them differently.

What about a bigot? M-W says this:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Again, it is possible to hold the Assertion above as a bigot, but it is not necessarily so. Like it or not, there are plenty of thoughtful people who have articulated, reasoned explanations for the Assertion. To simply label all who hold the Assertion as bigots is to be uniformed.

If liberals want to preach to the choir, that's fine... I do it plenty myself. But if they want to make separate efforts to actually convince, they'll need to define their terms.

I don't have a title for this

A Catholic Church continues its tradition of burying the remains of young, deceased children.

Planned Parenthood is outraged. The local clinic director responds to this year's burial,

They have taken it upon themselves to make a macabre ritual out of this, inflicting pain on everyone," said clinic director Dr. Warren Hern. "I have women calling me who are very upset over this. These fanatics simply cannot leave other people alone with their most intimate sorrow.

Yes, the children were aborted, but so what?

Tell me, what the hell is wrong with burying these children? The remains would have been thrown in the garbage, for goodness sake! And that is somehow less "macabre" than a burial service?

Numbed, twisted, distorted consciences seem in abundance at Planned Parenthood.

By the way, did you know that since 1973, abortion has killed 46 million people in our country alone, and that each year that many people are killed by abortion around the world? To get an idea of how many people we're talking about, go here.

But don't expect to see any outrage from these Christians, unless its directed at the Catholic Church involved.

Update: Bill Cork offers his thoughts on this (Bill is the creator of the linked graphic, as well). And see this post of Bill's on a pro-life march yesterday.

Data

Oh, continuing the topic of the last post, if you doubt that the system needs reform, read this and this.

A constant leftist mantra is the need to look out for our children. But when it comes to making tough choices that might cost them a favored constituency (AARP) to do what's right for the kids, they pass the buck.

Social Security Reform

My take: if the President said that the system was perfect, we'd be hearing how there is an imminent crisis and Bush is irresponsible in his failure to address it.

In other words, many on the left hate Bush, and reflexively oppose whatever he proposes. If he says it, they're against it.

Why do I say that? Because during his second term, President Clinton referred to the looming Social Security crisis on multiple occasions, but we heard jack from the left then about how he was off his rocker.

What's really going on

Yeah, I've been on a bit of a blogbreak, and it will probably continue for a bit. But I'm interrupting Veritas' mid-winter's hybernation to post some excerpts from a piece at Blackfive by one Lt. Col. Tim Ryan, in Iraq, on the media's distortion of how the war is going:

I just read yet another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international public support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. From where I sit in my command post at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets in the city. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. Right now, as elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year. The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80% from late October -- before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan.

Hat tip to Hindrocket at Powerline, who opines,

On the whole, I think Col. Ryan is too kind to the American press. I think that the press's undermining of our war effort is, in many instances, deliberate. It appears to me that many, if not most, American reporters, editors and news executives want to make it impossible for America ever to fight a war. To further this goal, I think they use their reporting to undermine our effort in Iraq. The idea is that if we are defeated in Iraq, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for us to fight another war anywhere for a generation. Is this assessment too harsh? I don't think so.

Talk to you soon.

More Details

Okay, here are a few more details regarding my successful completion of the doctorate...

My dissertation is entitled, "The Sinfulness of the Justified in Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue in the United States of America". I sought to examine the Lutheran & Catholic scholarship on the issue of justification in general and concupiscence in particular to see if and how we might resolve our differences on the question of the simul justus et peccator (at the same time just and sinner); that is, can the sinful tendencies (concupiscence) which remain after baptism be described as sin (as Lutherans do) or not (the Catholic position)?

In order to complete my task, I examined virtually every piece of scholarship produced by American Lutherans and Catholics on these issues, and synthesized them according to argument. I then analyzed and critiqued each category of argument in order to find which was most likely to resolve the differences, and I then developed and elaborated the argument "most likely to succeed".

In the end, I argued that throughout the Catholic tradition, mortal sin is the only proper sense of sin, but that the term "sin" is applied in other instances in analogous sense (venial and original). I argued that an analogous sense of sin may also be applied to concupiscence, and hence that there was sufficient "room" in our dogmatic tradition to call concupiscence in the justified "sin". I also argued that we not only can do so, but should do so, for ecumenical reasons but also because it would help to heal that rift between dogmatic theology and spirituality which folks like Hans Urs von Balthasar have decried for so long.

So, that's the argument of my dissertation. It was approved for defense by my moderator (Rev. Fred Bliss, SM) and the censor/second-reader (Rev. Charles Morerod, OP). At the defense, I had 20 minutes to explain my dissertation & its arguments, and then addressed questions from my moderator (20 min.), from the censor (20 min.), and from others (that ended up being about 15 min.).

The panel (moderator, censor, and vice-dean) then left the room to consult, and after a few minutes, returned to inform me and the (naturally captive) audience that I was awarded the doctorate in sacred theology (the infamous acronym of STD, the canonical equivalent of a PhD).

I found out two days later that I received 19/20 on the dissertation, and 30/30 on the defense, scores which naturally pleased me. However (if that's the right word), the dissertation score is multiplied by just over 3, giving me (on a scale of 1-100) a score of 96.3. Because 97.5 is necessary to received summa cum laude, I received magna cum laude instead. But hey... a week before the defense, I was telling people that I didn't care if I got any honors... I just wanted to get through the defense! Of course, I would have loved to receive summa, but I'm very happy to receive the scores I did.

So there you have it -- how I achieved the title of Dr. Chris Burgwald. It took me three years in Rome and seven years overall, but I got that STD!

Finito!

I'm (obviously) pleased to inform the readers of this blog that onTuesday night (Rome time) I successfully defended my doctoral dissertation and in so doing earned Doctorate in Sacred Theology.

More later, but needless to say, your prayers were much appreciated.

Prayers welcome

Well, it's nearly upon me: my doctoral defense will take place next Tuesday, December 7th at 5:00 PM at the Angelicum in Rome (that's 10:00 AM Central time, and I'll let the rest of you figure it out from there for your own time zone).

Preparation for the defense accounts for the sparse posting and commenting of late (I plan to reply to some of the comments in the last post), as I'm sure you can imagine. I hope to blog more frequently after the New Year, but I will let you know how things go in Rome.

So, any prayers you can offer for safe travel for us and a successful defense are -- needless to say -- most welcome.

Talk to you all soon.

Freshmen

The folks at The Village Gate want to help America "move past its adolescence" (meaning, of course, those "adolescents" who reelected the President, i.e. narrow-minded judgmental bigots like myself).

I propose that we help help the left move past its college freshmenness. You know how college freshman can be... they take a philosophy 101 or liberal arts core class, and suddenly they know what's best, how to solve the world's problems, and how their elders are backward thinkers.

This behavioral status has been manifested of late in the diatribes by various left-leaning folk against the Red State Morons (as they would have it).

Justice, Rights, and the Culture War

In the aftermath of the election, I've been reading a number of liberal blogs -- Christian and secular -- to see how things are going. I've mentioned some of what I've seen previously, in other posts. Here I want to begin a discussion about another complaint I see being made: oppression.

If you read blogs (political ones in particular), you will have seen that the "moral values" issue was the major topic of discussion for most of the past week, in light of the fact that some 22% of voters pegged that as their number one issue in voting, and some 80% of them went for Bush. Quite a few bloggers (here, predominantly on the left) connected that with the same-sex marriage issue. The argument goes like this: Bush (or rather, Rove) made sure that constitutional amendments on marriage were on the ballots in a number of states (eleven, to be precise), betting that this culture war issue would result in a huge turnout of evangelical Christians, who would also vote for Bush; and he was right.

Now, although this argument was very popular late last week, many bloggers and pundits didn't accept it, including yours truly... to me, "moral values" refers first to the life issues, than to other things. A number of commentators made similar arguments, and over the last four or five days, the previous argument has waned in popularity.

Nonetheless, a number of liberals still think that Bush won this election thanks -- essentially -- to all the homophobes in the red states who have empowered the President to continue to deny them basic civil rights, i.e. the right to marry their same-sex partners. Bush et al -- the assertions go -- are oppressing gays & lesbians; they are denying them their civil right to marry; they are unjustly discriminating against them.

Here's the thing: it's easy to assert that one's rights are being denied. But in the face of opposition -- and especially when your position constitutes a radical departure from the past -- you also need to demonstrate that you actually possess the right that's allegedly being denied.

Let me put it another way. I think those who cry "discrimination!" when the government refuses to marry them have an insufficient understanding of justice. Justice is (classically) defined as giving someone what they are due. But the very point of the same-sex marriage controversy lies in the last four words: "what they are due". Is it due to someone that they may marry someone of the same sex? If so, what is the rational argument in defense of that claim? Thus far, I have never seen these questions addressed. I see plenty of people (gay & straight) saying that it's unjust to disallow gay marriages, but I've yet to see a rational demonstration of the right to marry someone of the same sex.

I'm sure that proponents of same sex marriage are mystified and dumbfounded by this line of argument. After all, why can't gays & lesbians marry? Their right to marry is, well, self-evident, and the only reason people like me can't see that is because we either hate, fear, or don't understand gays & lesbians.

I'm sorry, but that won't cut it.

There is a rational basis for every right we possess, and hence there is a rational argument which can be made to set forth any particular right, in every case.

Again, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of justice at work here. To help illustrate this, I'd like to quote from the document, "Family, Marriage and 'De facto' Unions" issued in 2000 by the Pontifical Council for the Family:

(10) Equality before the law must respect the principle of justice which means treating equals equally, and what is different differently: i.e., to give each one his due in justice.This principle of justice would be violated if de facto unions were given a juridical treatment similar or equivalent to the family based on marriage. If the family based on marriage and de facto unions are neither similar nor equivalent in their duties, functions and services in society, then they cannot be similar or equivalent in their juridical status.

The pretext used for exerting pressure to recognize de facto unions (i.e., their “non-discrimination”) implies a real discrimination against the family based on marriage because it would be considered on a level similar to any other form of cohabitation, regardless of whether there is a commitment to reciprocal fidelity and the begetting and up-bringing of children or not. The orientation of some political communities today of discriminating against marriage by attributing an institutional status to de facto unions that is similar, or even equivalent to marriage and the family, is a serious sign of the contemporary breakdown in the social moral conscience, of “weak thought” with regard to the common good, when it is not a real and proper ideological imposition exerted by influential pressure groups.

Now, the Council is referring here to de facto unions in general and not to same-sex unions in particular, but the point is the same: justice involves treating equals equally, and unequals unequally, and same-sex unions and marriages between man and woman simply are not equals. Why? Because the former are not ordered to the procreation and education of children, while the latter are, even if the couple doesn't have any children.

If same sex unions are going to be equated with marriages between a man and a woman, someone must at least attempt to argue that there is a right to marry someone of the same sex. I haven't seen that yet.

Now, before I get flamed, I want to make something perfectly clear: I don't hate or fear gays and lesbians. Yes, I do know homosexuals. This has nothing to do with denying anybody their rights, but is all about recognizing the natural order of marriage and the family. If you want to disagree with me, fine. But don't do so by merely accusing me of bigotry and discrimination; instead, make your case. Show me how marriage is open to same sex unions. And when you do so, know that my first question will be this: if it's unjust to deny marriage to gays and lesbians, why isn't it unjust to deny marriage to more than two people? So make sure that your argument takes that into account.

Again, this isn't about hatred or fear. It's about recognizing how we are created and what the natural order of the family is meant to be. In other words, it's how we are all meant to find fulfillment and true, lasting happiness.

More on the justice thing to come.

Is this guy on to something?

Andrew, the Backseat Philosopher, is a Democrat. Today he penned a post entitled, "To My Fellow Democrats". The post opens as follows:

We Democrats are supposedly the party of the therapists, the teachers, and the 'relationship experts.' If anybody would be proud of the title, 'active listener', it would be a Democrat. We're the soft ones who understand where the other side is coming from and negotiate.




Many Democrats think that our patience and understanding are our weakness. "We don't know how to fight like the Republicans," we all told ourselves after Florida 2000. "We have to be more like them: tougher, meaner." "We have to energize our base more."




Actually, no. Our error is that we Democrats are far less understanding than we think we are. Our version of understanding the other side is to look at them from a psychological point of view while being completely unwilling to take their arguments seriously. "Well, he can't help himself, he's a right-wing religious zealot, so of course he's going to think like that." "Republicans who never served in war are hypocrites to send young men to die. " "Republicans are homophobes, probably because they can't deal with their secret desires." Anything but actually listening and responding to the arguments being made.




And when I say 'responding,' I don't just mean 'coming up with the best counterargument and pushing it.' Sometimes responding to an argument means finding the merit in it and possibly changing one's position. That is part of growth, right?

I think he's on to something, but I'll let me Democratic family and friends let me know.

I honestly believe that what is needed in politics today is an attempt to crawl inside the other side's head and try to understand where they're coming from; to attempt to construct the best possible argument for an opposing viewpoint, not merely to debunk it, but to understand where the other guy is coming from.

Now, you always won't be successful in the attempt. It was precisely my inability to understand John Kerry on abortion & embryonic stem cell research that led me to conclusions which provoked angry responses. I simply saw no rational basis for his position, and it angered me.

But I really believe that we need to do more to try to understand one another. What that requires, though, is a real grappling with issues, and it's honestly something I've had a hard time doing lately with many of those who disagree with me. That's one reason that led me to stop commenting at The Village Gate/The Right Christians... I simply felt that my ideas were never engaged by those who disagreed with them. Rather than reason and interact with my ideas, they attacked me. And I've seen the same thing happen in reverse.

Nonetheless, I still think that we (me included) need to do more to make this attempt.

I hope this is just post-election hysteria

I've seen way too many liberals responding to the election as if George Bush is about to install a theocracy (for example, see these comments, and many of the posts here).

What this tells me is that people who believe this simply have no idea who people like me are. Somehow, conservative Christian is equated with Pat Robertson. Now, Pat and I might share some common views, but he definitely does not reflect my theology nor how my theology impacts my politics. I have absolutely zero interest in a theocracy, and I know that the vast majority of people who think like me are in the same boat.

The "moral values" people who gave Bush the election aren't interested in theocracy... they're just interested in human rights (in the case of abortion) and maintaining the traditional family structure (in the case of same-sex marriage). Neither of these require the imposition of a religious viewpoint, meaning that they can be understood through reason alone. That they aren't is sometimes the fault of those making the argument, and sometimes the fault of those hearing it. Either way, we don't need to replace the Constitution with the Bible or the Catechism to make the pro-life and pro-family case. For whatever reason (and the fault is sometimes our own), that's not typically understood by those who disagree with those views.

There is no theocracy coming. Hopefully, just a better recognition of human dignity and the nature of the human family.

Victory.

It's with a sense of relief, gratitude, and -- most of all -- excitement that I write this post. 24 hours ago, my mood was much different, as I was still absorbing the first round of exit poll data (get rid of 'em, I say!).

But today, I am pleased to see a Bush re-election (over 50% of the popular vote, not done by a Presidential candidate since 1988!), a Daschle loss (his first ever!), the passage of marriage amendments in all eleven states were they were on the ballot, and data showing that "moral values" were the issue that won this election for the President.

There's a lot for me to comment on, some in looking back, some in looking forward, and I plan to do so over the next few days. Possible topics include: my level of anger toward Kerry as the election approached; my nearly-exclusive focus on life issues (abortion & embryonic stem cell research); the goofy behavior of the networks in (not) calling states last night (did you know that Kerry's margin of victory was smaller in PA than was Bush's in OH?); the (signficant) work which remains to improve the Republican party and its platform; on the (im?)possibility of bridging the gap between conservatives and liberals through reasoned discourse; and more on the importance of one's understanding of faith and morality viz. politics, and how that understanding itself bears on political matters.

Stay tuned.

And, watch as this blog returns to issues of a more theological nature.

Charlotte Allen explains "Why Catholics Should Vote for Bush"

The article begins thus:

As a Catholic, I'm voting for President George W. Bush on Nov. 2. The reason is simple: Although Bush isn't a Catholic, and not all of his positions are always consistent with Catholic teaching, it is he, not his nominally Catholic opponent, John F. Kerry, who promises to foster and defend the Catholic ethic of life.

At the core of that ethic--and I'll say it bluntly--lies abortion, the life issue that most sharply divides Bush and Kerry. Bush supports at least some restrictions on abortion; Kerry supports almost none. Related to it are the Catholic Church's positions against euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.

Opposition to these three practices is not an idiosyncratic Catholic "tenet" (as Kerry put in a speech this past weekend)--a specifically Catholic doctrine like the immaculate conception of Mary that Catholics might affirm in private but should refrain from imposing on their fellow citizens. Rather, the sacredness of each individual human life is a moral proposition: every human entity, no matter how small, unformed, weak, disabled, or decrepit, deserves to be treated with dignity as a member of the human family. We were all once "dots," as Sen. Thomas Harkin calls human embryos, and we are all destined to die in helplessness.

Amen, Charlotte.

Read it all.