Tuesday, June 24, 2008
I response to Amy’s question raised by Greg’s posting, the NARAL website provides a menu [HERE] where you find their explanation of how they rate public officials and the ranking each has “earned” by the NARAL organization. In a nutshell, the more you reflect NARAL views, the higher the rating; the less you reflect NARAL views, the lower the rating. Let us not forget that NARAL is an aggressive partisan in the abortion debate and battles surrounding “choice.”
RJA sj
Greg, in response to your post can you (or anyone else) point me in the direction of the criteria for the NARAL approval ratings (other than as discussed in the WSJ editorial)? I am wondering exactly what the Casey 65% approval rating means - eg, is one of their plus signs general access to health insurance for women? In fairness to the complexity of the debate, and in fairness to the integrity of the folks involved, it seems that a NARAL percentage doesn't really give us the information that we need. And more to the point for our discussion here, I wonder if we want to shift gears - why should the NARAL scale become a point of reference for our reflection on how we evaluate folks? Why don't we make up our own categories, starting, perhaps, with the criteria discussed in the US Bishop's 2007 statement, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship?"
In response to Rob's post on when is discrimination wrong, I wonder if the hardest question here is the one of perspective, and whose perspective should control. It seems like there would be not infrequent occasions when the actor's intention was not to demean, but where the particular discriminatory action is received as demeaning - or vice versa. (I haven't read Deborah Hellman's work, she may touch on this in her book - I'm happy to be illuminated). Seems like the core-CST question would be what vehicles might help bridge the perspective problem - solidarity? participation?
In an effort to woo back Catholic voters who have been disaffected by the Democratic Party’s pro-choice position on abortion and general disrespect for persons with traditional values and faith, Senator Obama’s presidential campaign has highlighted its appointment of a National Catholic Advisory Board. In various ways, the very existence of the National Catholic Advisory Board is regularly offered up by the Obama campaign as a shield to ward against criticism of Obama’s aggressively pro-choice record (calling for appointment of pro-Roe v. Wade justices, public funding of abortion, etc.).
Indeed, in an editorial in Commonweal, linked recently to Mirror of Justice, in response to a former Democratic Party official who characterized Obama as “the presidential candidate of a party committed to the preservation and extension of abortion rights,” Gerald Beyer argued that it “is interesting to ponder why so many distinguished Catholic public servants, activists, and theologians have endorsed Barack Obama, a Democrat, for the presidency.”
Accordingly, it seems only fair to accept Commonweal’s offer to “ponder” the matter further by exploring the membership of Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Board and asking whether it does portend a change of attitude by Senator Obama and the Democratic Party about the continuing war against the unborn in this country.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, William McGurn does just that and finds that the elected officials on this advisory board hardly reflect “change that we can believe in” on the question of human rights for unborn children. Herewith the opening paragraphs (you can read the entire editorial here):
You are the Democratic candidate for president. You want to reach out to Catholics. So what do you do when the majority of the elected officials on your National Catholic Advisory Council have the seal of approval from NARAL Pro-Choice America?That's the position Barack Obama now finds himself in. A few months ago, his Catholic advisory council was announced with great enthusiasm, and Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) was listed as a national co-chair. His appearance at the top of the council sent a clear message: This campaign is determined to recover some of the lost Democratic sheep who have gravitated to the GOP over abortion.
This council does indeed include some Catholics whose pro-life credentials are impeccable, including Minnesota Congressman James Oberstar. But let us also stipulate the obvious: Of the 21 senators, congressmen and governors listed on the council's National Leadership Committee, 17 have a 90%-100% NARAL approval rating. Even Mr. Casey now enjoys a 65% NARAL approval rating.
A few weeks ago, noting the suggestion of prominent Obama supporter Ariana Huffington that the campaign should play the pro-choice card to appeal to Hillary Clinton voters, I ended that post by inquiring: “Will Catholics for Obama publicly repudiate any effort to win over Hillary Clinton supporters by campaigning as the abortion rights candidate?” Given that Obama’s National Catholic Advisory Board is weighted heavily with NARAL friendly politicians, I think we now know the answer to that question.
Greg Sisk
MoJers might be interested in a new book by Deborah Hellman from Harvard UP titled When Is Discrimination Wrong? Over at Balkinization, she's laying out her thesis in a series of posts. Here's an excerpt:
Thus the question that must guide our inquiry is when does differentiation fail to treat the people affected as people of equal worth? The answer, in my view, is this: discrimination is wrong when it is demeaning and not wrong when it is not demeaning. This clean and simple formulation clearly raises many questions and likely engenders much disagreement. . . .
But why think demeaning is the key to what makes discrimination wrong? To demean someone is to treat that person as a person of lesser worth. Demeaning has both an expressive dimension and a power dimension. To demean is both to express that the other is less worthy and to do so in a way that has the ability to put the other down. Demeaning discrimination is thus differentiation that fails to treat those affected as moral equals. Demeaning is the key to what makes discrimination wrong because it responds to the moral concern that animates worries about differentiation in the first place.
It looks like the House has decided to let the D.C. voucher program survive another year; however, "Congressional Democrats seem ready to eliminate the $14.8 million program entirely in 2009. 'This year’s bill is essentially a placeholder in this debate,' said Rep. José E. Serrano, a New York Democrat who chairs the appropriations subcommittee on financial services. 'I expect that during the next year the District leaders will come forward with a firm plan for either rolling back the program, or providing some alternative options.'"
More:
Hopes are high that the attrition of schools from the D.C. parochial system has ended — but that will require Congressional action in the very near future. “I’d be very surprised if Democrats in Congress turn their backs on the inner-city poor in D.C.,” Father Nuzzi observes, “given the impact the program has made.”
But it’s a very real possibility. While the D.C. voucher program has earned the support of local leaders like Mayor Adrian Fenty and former mayors Anthony Williams and Marion Barry (now a member of the city council), Congressional Democrats remain opposed to the program. If they vote to eliminate vouchers next year, more inner-city Catholic schools may have to close their doors, regardless of archdiocesan efforts to keep them open.
Says the Fordham Foundation’s Petrilli: “Losing vouchers would be a hit for Catholic schools. And it would be bad news for everyone.”
This presents a great opportunity, it seems to me, for a "change" Democrat, who is friendly to faith and reform, to break ranks with tired anti-choice ideologies. Anyone?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Some interesting, and timely, thoughts, from the Vox Nova blog, on St. Thomas More and the judicial role. Check it out.
Congratuations to my colleague, Prof. Robert Rodes, whose essay, "On Marriage and Metaphysics", has been named the "Best Scholarly Essay" by the Catholic Press Association. More here. And, here is a link to the paper.
At the First Things blog, Ryan Anderson and Christopher Tollefsen have posted reflections about a natural-law approach to enhancement-biology questions. It will definitely be of interest to MOJ readers. A taste:
What might a natural-law appraisal of biotechnological enhancement look like? Much of modern ethics, especially when applied to biotechnology, springs from emaciated views of human nature. In response, a sound natural-law approach would need to begin with a twofold account of the nature of the human person.
The first part would be descriptive: Human persons must be shown to be human animals—bodily organisms of the species Homo sapiens. And the second part would be normative: Human persons must be shown to be fulfilled by certain ends and harmed by others. Both animality and rationality shape and define the constitutive aspects of our well-being, and critical reflection can identify the various goods that truly perfect us. . . .
Thoughts?
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
