November 6, 2006

Vic Wulsin’s, and Her Party’s, Religious Pose Should Fool No One

Filed under: OH-02 US House,Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:36 pm

Even a blind person should be able to see through this:

Democrats Find Religion: Attract Churchgoing Voters

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON – Democratic politicians have found religion and that may help explain why they are suddenly more popular among churchgoing Americans.

As they push to win control of the U.S. Congress in Tuesday’s elections from Republicans, who have long enjoyed support among conservative religious voters, more and more Democrats have shed a reluctance to talk about their faith.

“What we’re doing is paying real dividends in the faith community,” said Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, who heads the House of Representatives Democratic Faith Working Group, an outreach effort by lawmakers to ministers from the left and right.

“We’re framing issues in religious terms and getting our members to be comfortable with it,” said Clyburn, the son of a fundamentalist minister.

His and other similar groups were formed after the 2004 elections when the religious right was a major force behind President George W. Bush re-election and the Republicans keeping control of Congress.

Bush was perceived as a man of faith after he called Jesus Christ his favorite philosopher during the 2000 White House campaign. Republicans have been seen by some as representing “family values,” mainly because of their opposition to abortion and gay marriage and support for school prayer.

Until recently, Democrats have been reluctant to mention religion, but that has begun to change with some now even quoting scripture.

In Georgetown, Ohio, recently, Democratic congressional challenger Victoria Wulsin slid easily into biblical talk at a National Catholic Rural Life Conference.

“Paul’s letter to Timothy sets the stage for doing what’s right,” said Wulsin, the granddaughter of preachers.

First, Wulsin.

Shame on the National Catholic Rural Life Conference (NCRLC) for having her and thereby giving her intellectual cover.

NCRLC is a very confused group. You’ll see pages like this one, which claims that:

For Catholics, the defense of human life and dignity is not a narrow cause, but a way of life. A recent Vatican statement reminds us that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit voting for a political program or law that contradicts fundamental principles of our faith. It also reminds us that we should not isolate a particular element of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust our responsibility towards the common good.

The “single isolated aspect” NCRLC doesn’t like, of course, is the Church’s intractable opposition to abortion. NCRLC’s misinterpretation of the Church’s crystal clear position is that a candidate can be acceptable if they’re OK with abortion as long as they have correct views on matters of social justice.

They are, objectively in the terms of the Catholic faith, wrong. These two statements succinctly describe what is right, and correct:

Since its beginnings, Christianity has viewed abortion as an abhorrent crime against God and man.

….. Our first duty concerning conscience is to form it according to the moral law, and especially for a Catholic, no doubt can exist regarding the objective evil of abortion.

Practicing and faithful Catholics cannot support a pro-abort candidate without committing a grave sin. You may not like me saying that. Fine — Nobody has to remain a Catholic. Such people should find a religion, perhaps the Episcopalian strain Vic Wulsin claims adherence to, that will accommodate killing pre-born children. The Catholic Church never will.

Vic Wulsin supports abortion rights, perhaps even up to and includng partial-birth aborton. How do I know? By the company she keeps:

  • NOW’s Politcal Action Committee would not have endorsed Wulsin (as they have) without her support of virtually unrestricted abortion rights.
  • NARAL Pro-Choice America would not have endorsed Wulsin (as they have) without her support of virtually unrestricted abortion rights.
  • Finally, Emily’s List would not have endorsed Wulsin (as they have), nor would it, along with its affiliates, be funding the lion’s share of Wulsin’s final week push, without her support of virtually unrestricted abortion rights.

You may not know that these organizations have endorsed Wulsin, because the candidate apparently is too ashamed of her supporters to tell us about them on her otherwise very busy endorsements page. This is the fundamentally dishonest tactic of a candidate who, if she were ever elected, cannot ever be relied on to level with her constituents.

As long as Wulsin remains radically proabort, her religious pose is a sham.

Next, the Democratic Party.

The reactionary formation of reigious advocacy groups that “so happen” to hold positions consistent with those of the Democratic Party is the total opposite of how the Religious Right came to be. The Religious Right had positions it believed in (and still believes in), and sought out politicians who either agreed with them or could be persuaded. The leftist religious groups were formed when the Democrats sought out people sympathetic to them.

It shows. When the Religious Right is unhappy with someone they thought was on their side, they don’t hesitate to say so. When is the last time you ever heard a liberal clergyman criticize a Democrat in public? They can’t, and won’t, because they’re just another wholly-owned subsidiary of the party. They will remain viable, and visible, only as long as the Democratic party feels the need for human clerical shields to cover up their fundamental hostilty towards people of faith. They have no real clout except for presenting nice appearances, and I would not be surprised if Democrats and their 527 Media allies stop paying attention them on November 8 at about noon.


No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.