Comments for President Obama: Ex-Liberal at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 7 out of 7 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Thu, 23 May 2013 16:07:50 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/president-obama-ex-liberal.html#comment-8520 The president is wrong. If God has decleared something, there are not two ways about it and nothing further needs to be said. What people might "believe" or not "believe" is utterly irrelevant. People can "believe" what ever they want, as long as they do exactly what God has told them to do. Gods rules does not "need" to be rephrased to the pagans. Just tell them "Because God said so". And if they don`t like it, they can complain to Him. God is not a Democrat. Nor is He a Republican. God is a Theocrat. Simple as that. - GABRIEL Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:38:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/president-obama-ex-liberal.html#comment-8519 @Michael Bauman, You wrote: "unless saying and doing what's to one's own situational advantage be considered a principle." Having now listened to the current President for over 3 years, it is quite clear that what you suggest might be considered a principle, namely, almost always "saying and doing what's to one's own situational advantage," is almost certainly one of the man's foundational principles, and perhaps his only firmly held principle. He always attempts, and frequently succeeds, in telling any particular audience what he believes it most wants to hear, and has done since he first appeared on the national scene. But that is what demagogues do, isn't it? Pax et bonum, - Martial Artist Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:18:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/president-obama-ex-liberal.html#comment-8518 Has anyone gone back and taken a look at the names of Obama's committee during the campaign that were to advise him on "Catholic issues"? I believe that every one of those "advisors on Catholic issues" were all publicly dissenting Catholics (beginning with Mr. Kmiec), hell-bent on destroying the Church. Did you think that they were advising him on how to support Catholic moral principles? Highly unlikely. More likely, they were advising him on how best to support their agenda and passing on the names of other publicly dissenting Catholics who could serve in his administration and who would support him in his attempts to do just what he is doing now. Why is anyone surprised? Are we ever going to wake up and smell the coffee? Why wasn't the make-up of that committee and its implications condemned from all the pulpits and chanceries in the country? It's not rocket science to see that this man wants to destroy the Church--or that part of it that refused to enlist in his program of destruction. We really must be taxing the patience of the Holy Spirit. - Louise Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:16:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/president-obama-ex-liberal.html#comment-8517 Andrew, I don't think it matters whether the organization receives public funding or not. I didn't read the whole thing and I'm not a lawyer, but I couldn't find any references to the receipt of public funding. Yes, it would apply to organizations that do receive public funding, but it appears likely that it would also apply to those which do not. There is even this: "Most commenters [it does not say who], including some religious organizations, recommended that HRSA [an Obama-funded bureaucracy] Guidelines include contraceptive services for all women and that this requirement be binding on all group health plans and health insurance issuers with no religious exemption." As the article noted, some rather limited exemptions were allowed. But it appears that this was done only as a small compromise by Obama. Given the above, it also seems clear that the law applies to everyone, including for-profit business and private organizations who don't receive public funding, who wants to provide health insurance. Moreover, this is part of a larger pattern. Furthermore, I don't think it's wise to accept government requirements simply because they are providing public funding. Such money is, after all, public, and in a democracy it is perfectly legitimate to argue that it should not be used to fund immorality. - Patrick Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:44:12 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/president-obama-ex-liberal.html#comment-8516 As a UK Citizen I don't know enough about US politics to comment on some of the issues raised here. My understanding is that the separation of church and state in the US means the government could not intervene in the practices of a faith organisation (e.g. a Catholic Hospital), but I'm assuming the Catholic Hospital does not receive any funds from the government? In the UK there are public catholic schools that, governed by the dioceses, but paid for mainly by the government. The Church has control over the schools, but the government retains the right to expect that certain items are taught. For example, I teach sex education in a Catholic school. I am obliged by the government to ensure students are aware of various forms of contraception (both natural and artificial), as they pay my wages, but my contract of employment is with the Church, so I am also obliged to (and happy to) teach that the Catholic Church believes sex is sacred and should be reserved for marriage. It is a difficult tension to manage. If the government are helping to fund the Catholic Hospitals, whether in part, or in full, then obviously the issue is cloudier, than if the agency is entirely independent. Could you clear up the issue of funding of these catholic agencies? - Andrew McMillan Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:20:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/president-obama-ex-liberal.html#comment-8515 Dr. Beckwith, Thank you for the interesting post. A couple of observations. I question calling Rawlsianism "classical liberalism" because its natural rights approach to moral enquiry seems tainted by positivism. In relation to Mr. Obama, this can be seen in his dealings with the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, notably set forth in in the June/July 2010 issue of First Things in an article by Richard Cohen and Yuval Levin, both former staffers on the Commission. These authors note the shift of the Commission's activities under Mr. Obama away from its original purpose “to undertake fundamental inquiry into the human and moral significance of developments in biomedical and behavioral science and technology” to focusing on "utilitarian concerns and matters of procedure." Thus, Mr. Obama seems more of a Positivist than a Classical Liberal. Second, there is a real question as to whether Mr. Obama disingenuously manipulates language to give the appearance of being more moderate than he actually is when speaking at venues where his true views would be less than welcome. Finally, Mr. Obama's recent behavior strikes me as not so much a man abandoning formerly held Liberal positions as a man who has always been a radical Progressive finally displaying his true colors. - Jan Dennis Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:09:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/president-obama-ex-liberal.html#comment-8511 Frank, First, good article: As always, it's well reasoned and well articulated. Second, and less important, you are far kinder to Obama than I am. I don't think the man has abandoned his principles because I'm not sure he has, or had, principles of this sort to abandon -- unless saying and doing what's to one's own situational advantage be considered a principle. In other words, his speech at Notre Dame seems to me cravenly opportunistic, not principled: "What comments go over best in a discussion with Catholics?" rather than "What do I believe in my heart of hearts on the point?" I say so because his debates with Alan Keyes on the issue when running for the Senate from Illinois reveal yet a different set of "principles" than the ones articulated at Notre Dame, which are different yet from how he voted on the issue when he was in the Illinois Senate, which are different yet from how he governs at the moment. Unlike Keyes, who gives you the same view on this point in every situation, Obama has no core, and what we see is not a change of principles but the inevitable vacillation that comes from having no firm principles while finding oneself in ever-changing circumstances. - Michael Bauman Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:48:16 +0100