A Good Question

A reader writes:

Re your post below on politicizing the sacraments—I am a pastor in a mainline Protestant church.  Our of my work with abused and neglected children, I am rather reluctantly pro-choice.  One of the things I have always admired about the Roman Catholic Church is their pro-life position is morally consistent, in a way that the religious right (or my own, for that matter) is not.  They are against abortion, but also against the death penalty and against war except when it can be justified as a just war.  And, of course, the church is against the cruelty of torture.  So what I want to know is why there has never been any talk of denying sacraments to politicians who endorse the death penalty, or are pro-war and pro-torture?

The argument is that life-taking of the innocent is the deepest moral evil. But pro-choice politicians don’t actually engage in abortion and if they do not vote for public funding, the culpability is indirect. But being a member of a government that tortures amounts to direct complicity in an absolute moral evil; similarly waging pre-emptive war that violates just war doctrine. I’d say that from a Catholic viewpoint, many men in the Bush administration would be far less fit for communion than John Kerry ever was. But that just reinforces to me the need for the Church to treat individual human beings pastorally, not politically. We cannot and should not judge from an abstract distance. Theocons, eager to use the church for their own social agenda, don’t agree.

Shady Pasts, Good Soldiers

Phillip Carter highlights a new study:

The study looks at the performance of soldiers who entered the Army with waivers for prior criminal convictions, no high school diploma or other reasons. In a nutshell, these soldiers get into slightly more trouble, but assuming they make it through basic training and avoid major trouble, they’re more likely to be better soldiers.

Given our current standards, that’s a relief, no?

Quote For The Day II

"I really don’t want an African-American as President … I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That’s my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did … There’s a lot of white people that just wouldn’t vote for a colored person. Especially older people," – a Clinton supporter in Eastern Kentucky, to George Packer of the New Yorker.

One remarkable aspect of this race that I certainly didn’t expect but that the Clintons must be relishing: they may be becoming the vehicle for white racial resentment! When you recall how many of these voters felt about the Clintons in the 1990s, you really need a double take. But if the Clintons bring down the first serious black candidate for the presidency, they could ride a wave of redneck gratitude toward a re-branding in American politics. The Clintons would have no qualms about this – and obviously don’t. What the Clintons have to be in order to keep power, they will manage to be. And the Wright scandal gives all such sentiment a form of high-minded permission.

You watch this and want to look away. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, everything right in America can be wrecked by everything wrong in America.