2004-08-18 - 12:49 p.m.

Alright, I promised another diatribe, so here it is.

Be prepared for a whole lot so four-letter words! :)

Also, be prepared for this to be really long!

Bush Tells Catholic Group He Will Tackle Its Issues

DALLAS, Aug. 3 -- President Bush told an effervescent crowd of 2,500 Catholics at the annual convention of the Knights of Columbus on Tuesday that they have a friend in the White House who will work with them to restrict abortion, provide vouchers for parochial schools and champion a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

-----------

Well, this is hardly surprising, is it? Although, I really object to the use of effervescent in any context other than the discussion of alka-seltzer. And I'm sure the Knights of Columbus would find that word a little too effete for their liking as well. But, I digress.

However, for the sake of argument, let's just outline their goals, shall we?

1. Restrict (access to) abortion
2. Parochial school vouchers
3. Federal Marriage Amendment.

Sounds like crazy religious talk to me, but then what can you expect at an annual KofC convention (or, KoC, my preferred acronym, only because it sounds kind of dirty--and, incidentally, more accurately describes their members).

Moving on...

--------

"Four more years!" delegates to the convention roared as Bush entered the hall and embraced their leader, Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson. As a nonprofit charitable organization, the Knights are forbidden by tax laws from making political endorsements. But Anderson gave Bush a warm welcome, thanking him for "supporting the right to life of unborn children" and restoring moral integrity to the office of the president."

--------

I love this line: "As a nonprofit charitable organization, the Knights are forbidden by tax laws from making political endorsements." But that won't stop us from yelling "four more years!" Because, you know, we didn't say *who* should get four more years!

Anyway, the KoC welcomes Bush and thanks him for "supporting the right to life of unborn children." Later, I will discuss where there is an authentic Catholic pro-choice position, but first I want to address the claim that Bush has been supporting the right to life of children (unborn or otherwise).

One of Bush's first actions as president was to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, otherwise known as the global gag rule on abortion. This states that any organization that receives any USAID funds may not perform, discuss, suggest, refer or agitate for abortion rights, *even if abortions are legal in the country where they operate.* It also prevents these organizations from earmarking US funds for non-abortion related activity, while using *their own funds* for abortions.

Also, Bush refused to release $34 million dollars to the UNFPA, despite the recommendations of the Senate and his own State Department fact finding commission. Bush asserted that UNFPA supports coercive abortions and sterilizations in China; however:

"An assessment team sent to China in 2002 by the U.S. State Department found no evidence that the Fund supported or participated in the management of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization�on the contrary, it reported that UNFPA had registered its strong opposition to such practices. That team recommended that funds allocated by Congress be released to UNFPA. Three other independent teams, from the United Nations, the British Parliament and a multi-faith panel of religious leaders, reached the same conclusion."

So, what they are saying is that Bush lied. And he knew that he lied, because Colin Powell, the UN, the British Parliament and a multi-faith panel of religious leaders told him he lied. But, hindsight being 20-20, this shouldn't come as much of a shock to us, should it? But, certainly, it puts a dent into that "restoring moral integrity to the office of the president" line the KoC likes to use, eh?

And what is the result of this? Fewer abortions? Living, breating, healthy and happy babies the world over? Um...no. Actually, because of the lack of funding, there were over 2 million unwanted pregnancies and 800,000 abortions (mostly illegal and unsafe). 4,700 maternal deaths and upwards of 77,000 preventable infant and child deaths worldwide. 3 million more people where infected with AIDS. This is how one respects the right to life of unborn children? By killing them before the age of two? Letting them die of dysentery and cholera?Allowing their mothers to die during or immediately following birth?

And what about "restoring moral integrity to the office of the president"? What, because he didn't get a blow-job from an intern? Because, honestly, that is about the only moral thing he's done while in office. Is it moral to lie about a State Department fact finding commission, and use the "evidence" that you just made up to condemn tens of thousands of women and children to death? Is it moral to lie about intelligence reports, and use the "evidence" you just made up to condemn hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians to death? The Catholic Church doesn't think so.

Interesting thing I just read about the Vatican:

"The Roman Catholic Church took a firm stance against the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. This war, and indeed most modern wars, do not satisfy the just war requirements set by St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians. The method of total war, sometimes called terrorism (i.e. any non accidental attacks on non combatants, or civilian infrastructure), used in most modern wars since the Civil War and which were used in Iraq, are not permitted. The Secretary of State of the Vatican indicated that only the United Nations Security Council had the power to approve an attack in self-defense, and only in case of a previous aggression. His opinion was this was not the case and that an unilateral aggression would be a crime against peace and a violation of the Geneva Convention."

So, the Vatican says that the war against Iraq is immoral, do they? Violates the Geneva Convention, they say. And I'm sure they would say the same thing about Abu Ghraib if their priests weren't too busy buggering little kids themselves to notice when someone else is doing it. According to Rolling Stone (unfortunately the *only* publication that is still focusing on Abu Ghraib):

"In one sworn statement, Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, detainee number 151108, said he witnessed a translator referred to only as Abu Hamid raping a teenage boy. I saw Abu Hamid, who was wearing the military uniform, putting his dick in the little kid's ass," Hilas testified. "The kid was hurting very bad." A female soldier took pictures of the rape, Hilas said.

During the Muslim holy period of Ramadan, Hilas saw Spc. Charles Graner Jr. and an unnamed "helper" tie a detainee to a bed around midnight. They . . . inserted the phosphoric light in his ass, and he was yelling for God's help," the prisoner testified. Again, the same female soldier photographed the torture."

So, if the Vatican opposes the war, and our soldiers are forcibly sodomizing children, where is the moral outrage? Where are the Catholics? Well, they are kissing Bush's ass because he's going to give some money to parochial schools, of course!

--------

Against that backdrop, the Knights of Columbus group was a key audience for Bush. With 1.4 million members in the United States, the Knights are not only the world's biggest lay Catholic men's society but also a bastion of Catholic traditionalism.

--------

Just needed to point something out here. Do you see the magic phrase?

Think about it.

What do I hate more than people telling me what rights women should have?

Fucking MEN telling me what rights women should have.

The KoC are a fucking festival of misogyny, and in my humble opinion, should have their KoCs lopped off with a butchers knife. Now, I know this puts me in the company of that much derided and reviled goup known as Radical Feminists, but until men spontaneously generate their own wombs, they can just shut the fuck up when it comes to abortion.

And speaking of Radical Feminists, I saw this definition of the term yesterday, and it made me smile:

Radical feminist: Anyone, female or male, who believes that 50% of the population should have 50% of the power and/or anyone who believes that women should enjoy the same autonomy as men. The word "radical" is usually used to discredit anyone argues that women's legal rights are meaningless if there is no enforcement or that a man has no property rights over a woman's body, even if he has had sex with her. "Radical feminist" is useful because many women still have warm feelings towards ordinary feminists, who got them some workplace protections and respect at home. By virtue of their beliefs in equality, most men and women are "radical feminists".

So, Bush addresses a convention of Catholic MEN and immediately sets forth a policy to oppress and enslave women. Yep, business as usual here in the good ol' god-fearin' church goin' moral U S of A.

--------

Robert McLoughlin, a delegate from Prospect Heights, Ill., said, "If Kerry were here, we'd want to hear what he had to say." He added that he believes Catholics "have gotten past" supporting a candidate solely because he is a fellow Catholic.

--------

He added, "Now we just support a candidate solely because he is a fellow asshole."

--------

"The Knights are soldiers in the armies of compassion. You're foot soldiers. You've heard the call," Bush said. "You have a friend in this administration. You have somebody who wants to work with you to change America for the better."

--------

Foot soldiers in the armies of compassion?!? WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN??? How can you have an army of compassion? Aren't armies the things we use to kill people? And how compassionate are we, really, when we are condemning men, women and children to die because some fucking book (that, by the way, hasn't a *single* specific condemnation of abortion) tells us to?

--------

Surrounded on the podium by rows of Knights in colorful headdresses and matching capes...

---------

Okay, is it just me, or did you read that and immediately picture Bush at a Klan rally?

But back to the major issue: Is it truly a Catholic opinion that life begins at conception, and that abortion is immoral? In order to answer that, I turn to my favorite Catholics (actually, the only ones I can stomach), Catholics for a Free Choice:

There is an authentic prochoice Catholic position

• Church law affirms both the right and the responsibility of a Catholic to follow his or her own conscience on moral matters, even when it conflicts with church teaching.
• Church teaching on sexual and reproductive issues is not infallible. Moreover, the church has no teaching on when the fetus becomes a person
• Abortion can be a moral choice. Women can be trusted to make decisions that support the well-being of their children, families and society, and that enhance their own integrity and health.
• A Catholic who believes abortion is immoral in all or most circumstances can still support its legality,
• The Catholic social justice tradition calls us to stand with the poor and other disadvantaged groups. Poor women are entitled to non-discriminatory public funding for childbearing and for their reproductive health needs, including abortion and family planning.
• Catholics have a responsibility to respect the views of other faith groups, which hold a number of different beliefs on the morality and legality of abortion.
• True moral decisions can only be made in an atmosphere free from coercion.

previous - next