Tag: politics

Holding My Nose and Voting for Mitt

I hate politics. I mean, I know a lot of people say that–especially around elections–but I really do. Maybe it’s that I feel so discouraged by the options. Maybe it’s that a faithful Catholic doesn’t really fit in either party. Maybe it’s that it’s so complicated and there’s so much grey area–as an apologist, I guess I just like questions that have reasonable, infallible answers.

The Church doesn’t allow priests to hold public office. If only….

I don’t generally talk politics. I’ll discuss issues, but all I’ll usually say about parties is that a faithful Catholic can’t be a platform Democrat or a platform Republican. I don’t even usually tell people who I voted for!

Needless to say, I really don’t want to write this post. But the Lord has put it on my heart, so here we have it.

First, let me say this: I’m not a Republican. If we’re talking basic party principles, I’m a Democrat. I believe in big government and federal programs to help the underprivileged.1 I honestly believe that Democratic ideals are more in line with Catholicism.

Ideals. The particular values that seem to define the party today–well, not so much. Obviously, there are plenty of social issues that I’m much more conservative on. But high taxes? Sure. Higher taxes on the rich? Absolutely. Gun control? You bet!2 Besides, as my mother always says, the Democratic party defines itself by the ideal that the state ought to intervene to protect the vulnerable: the poor, the criminal, you name it. The Democratic party, by all rights, ought to be the pro-life party.

And you know what? Even though the abortion issue is such a huge one, I’ve never been a single issue voter. I weigh it heavily, sure, but a (hypothetical) candidate who supports abortion but would enact programs that provide healthcare for pregnant women, offer tuition assistance for single moms, and furnish low income families with childcare? Well, that candidate could actually reduce the number of abortions significantly. It’s just not always black and white. Not to mention the fact that the abortion issue is less relevant to some offices. A governor of a state like Texas, for example, might not have much to do with abortion laws but has quite a lot to do with stays of execution. So why would I pick the anti-abortion candidate as a matter of course? It’s more complicated than that.

Instead, I tend to split my ticket and I generally agonize over the candidates’ websites. I was absolutely torn during the Bush-Kerry season and the last election wasn’t exactly easy.

This one? A piece of cake.

Now, I’m no fan of Mitt Romney. Sure, he can deliver a joke. And he kind of looks like a Ken doll, which is nice, I guess. But I’ll admit that he’s phony. And I’m sure he’s a liar, like all politicians, and that he’s changed his position based on what is politically expedient. I don’t like what he said about the famed “47%” and I don’t agree with most of his fiscal policies, from what I can tell.

But this election season, I haven’t had to bother agonizing over every little thing. Because to my mind (and to the mind of the Catholic bishops), Obama crossed the line.

When the HHS Mandate was passed, I told a friend, “Now I’ll just have to see if the Republican candidate is so bad that I have to write somebody in. Obama just lost my vote.”3

When he came out with that sham compromise, I realized that I had to vote against him, whoever the opposition was (within reason, of course). A move like that–forcing the nation’s biggest and the world’s oldest Church to violate a teaching she’s held for 2,000 years and then smiling and telling us that if we close our eyes it’s like it’s not happening? Absolutely not. Obama’s complete disregard for religious liberty with the HHS mandate is appalling. If he’ll pull something like that in an election year, I can’t even imagine what he’d do in his final term. So my mind was made up in January: anybody but Obama.

I say this not as a Catholic but as an American. This nation was founded on the principle that the freedom to act according to one’s conscience and the freedom to live according to one’s religion are essential freedoms. My (mostly Protestant) ancestors came to this country for that very reason. That the President of the United States is now forcing religious institutions to act against their convictions is an outrage. The Founding Fathers would be disgusted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America)

The President’s camp has been spinning the first amendment, using the language “freedom of worship” as opposed to “freedom of religion” or “religious liberty.” The implication is that the Constitution guarantees only that I may pray as I choose, not that I may live my faith. I’m permitted to be crazy and worship a cracker, it seems, as long as I only do it in church. Outside of church, I must do what I’m told.

But the traditional understanding has been that the free exercise of religion includes the freedom to live one’s faith, assuming that it does no harm to another. We don’t compel Jewish delis to sell bacon or Baptist reception halls to serve liquor. We don’t force Jehovah’s Witnesses to get blood transfusions or require Evangelical businesses to stay open on Sundays. Traditionally, individuals and organizations have been free to choose on such matters. I suppose that in this instance, I’m pro-choice.

As an American, I believe that people may be compelled to do what they don’t want to do but never what they feel they must not do. I don’t want to drive the speed limit or file taxes or get a new car when my clunker’s emissions are too bad, but I don’t find those things morally abhorrent. I do them with minimal whining and move on with my life. But I refuse to be morally complicit in evil,4 whatever the cost. In this case, the cost seems to be Romney. If I’m not voting for him, I’m essentially voting for Obama. And while Romney has some serious issues, I don’t think he’s advocating anything intrinsically evil.

Basically, I’m either voting for Romney or I’m accepting the violation of my religious liberty. It’s either him or the betrayal of my conscience. The choice seems clear to me.

Yup, this is my actual ballot. For some reason, I feel as though it should be illegal to post this online. It isn’t, is it? UPDATE: I called the Kansas Secretary of State’s office and they said not to worry about it. The law’s unclear in Kansas as it was written before social media but they assured me that they will not be prosecuting anybody.

I’m often accused of being a single-issue voter (by people who have no idea how I vote, what’s more), but this isn’t a single issue. Sure, it’s contraception and abortifacient drugs. But it’s also Obama betraying his supporters, lying to the public, trampling on consciences, and castrating the first amendment. To my mind, those are serious issues, and I don’t see that any of his policies are good enough to overshadow the evil of limiting our religious liberty and giving Catholic social services this ultimatum: do evil or close your doors.

I’ve seen a number of comments on Facebook recently to the extent that a Christian can’t rightly support a candidate who would cut social welfare programs, since Jesus told us to serve the poor. Now I agree that the state should have some role in this, but it’s Obama, with all his social programs, who’s really going to hurt the poor. If he’s re-elected and HHS is upheld by the Supreme Court, every Catholic school, hospital, homeless shelter, soup kitchen, adoption agency, and nursing home is going to have to shut down or go bankrupt.5 That’s 7,500 schools educating 2.3 million children, 230 universities educating 1 million students and employing 65,000 professors,6 and more than 600 hospitals caring for 1 in 6 patients in America.7 Exactly how would shutting them down help anybody at all? How would closing Catholic soup kitchens feed the hungry? How would bankrupting nuns help the immigrants they serve?

I can’t vote for a man who would require people to violate their consciences and drive them to financial ruin if they don’t. I can’t vote for a man with no respect for the First Amendment or the Catholic Church. I can’t vote for a man whose Catholic running mate8 made a blatantly false statement claiming that there is a conscience exemption. There is no exemption for Catholic institutions that aren’t parishes, convents, or monasteries. Do evil, shut down, or go bankrupt from the fines.9

So the issues I’m concerned about here are the right to life, women’s rights, chastity, service to the poor and marginalized, civil rights, personal integrity, political integrity, the integrity of the Constitution, and the freedom to believe and live as one’s conscience dictates. Seems pretty broad to me.

But what if I were a single-issue voter? Is there no single issue that’s important enough to eclipse all the others? What if I told you I was against Hitler because of his views on eugenics?10 Sure, I appreciate how he’s trying to rebuild the war-ravaged German state and rallying a disheartened nation, but I’m just not comfortable with his crimes against humanity. It’s okay to oppose Hitler for that one reason, right? Why couldn’t I vote against Obama simply because he’s the rallying point of a radically pro-abortion Democratic party? Why can’t I vote against a man simply because he supports genocide?11

This has nothing to do with restricting women’s access to birth control–we gave up that fight with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. We’re not claiming, as the rhetoric insists, that our religious freedom is being destroyed because we are “unable to force others to not use birth control.” Nobody is trying to restrict access to birth control. All we’re saying is that those whose religious convictions forbid them to encourage, fund, approve of, or participate in an action should not be forced to do so.

These aren’t federal insurance policies we’re talking here–these are governmental requirements on private policies. Those who are connected to these private institutions are there, at some level, by choice. This isn’t an attempt to limit the public’s ability to contracept, it’s a refusal to cooperate in such actions as regards the employees of Catholic institutions.

If you take a job at a Catholic institution, you have to deal with the fact that your employer won’t pay for your contraception. It’s part of the job. It’s illogical to appeal to the federal government to insist that you be allowed to serve bacon at a vegan restaurant; if you want to serve BLTs, get a different job. Those who work at McDonald’s have to accept the uniform; if you want to wear cutoffs and flip-flops, get a different job. Catholic organizations will not pay for your birth control; if you want your birth control funded by your employer, get a different job.

I realize that in this economy “get a different job” can sound heartless. But if your access to free contraception is so important to you that you’re willing to compel a 2,000-year-old institution to betray its convictions, it should be important enough to you that you’re willing to be unemployed or underemployed. I can see believing that your need for contraception to be legal trumps my personal beliefs, but to say that I should betray my God so you can get cheap meds for free? That’s unconscionable.

And you know what? Treating-my-body-like-it’s-broken, pregnancy-is-a-disease, wouldn’t-punish-them-with-a-pregnancy aside, even assuming that I were in favor of all these “women’s reproductive rights,” I still wouldn’t believe that Obama respected women. He claims to be working for women, but this “First Time” commercial is how he tries to get our votes? Honestly, I feel degraded. Why am I defined as a woman based on my sexual availability to men? Why, when trying to convince me intellectually, are you treating me like all I care about is boys and sex and people’s opinions? WHY IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THIS????12

See, Cardinal Dolan is laughing because they both make these claims but they’re not true–laughably so. Get it? If you’re not following Catholic Memes on Facebook, do that now. I’ll wait.

I’ll have to hold my nose to vote for Romney, believe me. But a career politician who waffles on matters of prudential judgment is a whole different matter from a man who runs on a platform of intrinsic evils.13

I can’t tell you how to vote, and plenty of Catholics who are far more politically savvy than I have given you much to think over. But when every single bishop heading an American diocese has taken a stand against this president’s policies,14 I think it’s safe to say that this religious freedom issue is no small matter. Whether you’re Catholic or not, I’m begging you to consider seriously whether you want to live in an America where the president chooses to disregard the Constitution and is hailed as a champion of the downtrodden for doing it. It’s a slippery slope, my friends, whether you think this instance is wrong or not. I don’t want to be Chicken Little, but I think we’ve gotten to this point:

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote against freedom. Romney-Ryan 2012.

  1. Seriously, please don’t argue this with me. I hate politics and this isn’t the point. And yes, I believe in subsidiarity. I just don’t apply the principle the way some might. [↩]
  2. I’m not kidding. I don’t want to hear any of your arguments on these issues. I’ll never be a Democrat, barring some major platform renovations, so it doesn’t matter anyway. [↩]
  3. If you don’t know what the HHS mandate is, you really need to click that link. [↩]
  4. No, I’m not condemning you. The Church asserts that contraception is evil, not that those who contracept are evil. [↩]
  5. Not to mention the evidence that all his talking about reducing financial inequality ain’t going there…. [↩]
  6. Stats courtesy of the inestimably reputable wikipedia.com, but numbers are similar elsewhere. [↩]
  7. Check out those stats. [↩]
  8. No, I didn’t put Catholic in quotation marks. He hasn’t been excommunicated and it’s not my job to make those accusations. [↩]
  9. The Archdiocese of Washington estimates that it “could incur devastating penalties as high as nearly $145 million per year, simply for practicing our faith.” [↩]
  10. No, I’m not calling Obama Hitler. It’s an analogy. [↩]
  11. Even ignoring the racist implications of American abortion statistics, genocide is the systematic extermination of a particular group. 50 million inconvenient babies in 40 years. [↩]
  12. Anthony Esolen has an interesting take on what else this ad represents. Julie Borowski just thinks it’s ridiculous. [↩]
  13. I used this line on Facebook. The response I got was that you have to decide for yourself what is intrinsically evil. No! You don’t! THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT!! [↩]
  14. And plenty of non-Catholics. [↩]

Voting with Your Checkbook

First, a few caveats:

  1. I know very little about government.
  2. I know even less about economics.
  3. It’s entirely possible that somebody else has had this idea and it’s been shot out of the water and I’m completely unaware that this has happened.
  4. I don’t really have any idea why I’m posting this except that it’s come up a few times recently so I figured why not?

That being said, let me make a suggestion:

Ugh. Wildflowers are literally the worst.

I’m always hearing people say, “I don’t want my taxes to fund war,” or “I don’t want my taxes to fund abortion,” or “I don’t want my taxes to fund wildflowers planted on the side of the road,” or whatever it is that you’re taking a stand against.  I’ve heard this frequently with the HHS debate: “Why bother fighting the mandate?  Your taxes already pay for contraceptive services.”

And while there is a distinct moral difference, I think it introduces a good question: is there a way that we can avoid funding immoral programs while still paying taxes?

What if it were possible for us to choose directly what our taxes fund (or don’t fund) as opposed to just electing people to office who make certain promises about policies that they’ll enact?  Let’s be honest, there are very, very few politicians that a Christian can support on every single issue.  I don’t actually know of any–not at the national level, anyway.  And even if I could find a politician who would always vote my way, the system isn’t really set up to allow one honest politician to accomplish much.

But what if instead of just voting we were able to choose to opt out of funding certain things with our taxes?  I’m not saying that anybody would get to choose to pay less in taxes.  I’m saying that when I sit down to pay my taxes, there’s a section on my federal income tax forms where I can choose to opt out of my tax money going to certain things, such as the development of nuclear weapons, embryonic stem cell research, abortion services, or anything related to the Patriot Act.  Whatever I opt out of, I still pay the full amount that I owe, I just have a little more control over my money.

Republicans don’t have a corner on pro-life issues.

These issues would be added to the income tax “opt-out” section based on a referendum.  So you get however many thousand signatures on your petition saying, “I think you ought to be able to opt out of funding schools.  [Everybody hates schools, right?]  I really, as a Libertarian,1 believe that government funding of schools is indoctrinating America’s children in the capitalist-democratic propaganda and that it does a disservice to America’s children and that is immoral for my tax dollars to go towards schools and also weed should be legal.”

Can’t you just smell the oppression?

So you go out and you find 10,000 of your closest Libertarian friends, they all sign this petition, and it’s introduced onto the ballot in the next general election.  Then the voters are able to vote for this to be an option for people to opt out of on their taxes.  And maybe there’s a threshold, say 50% of voters have to think it’s a reasonable thing for people to want to opt out of paying for schools.  They’re not saying that they don’t want to pay for schools, just that they believe that funding schools isn’t necessarily part of the social contract that we all enter into by being citizens.  If you reach that 50% threshold, then the next time tax forms come out, it will be added to the list.  Along with abortion funding and nuclear research, you’re able to opt out of your taxes going to fund schools.

Then you go to this form in your giant stack of tax paperwork, a form that the majority of Americans won’t even notice, and you as a Libertarian choose to opt out of funding schools.  So of the $3000 that you’re paying, maybe $90 was going to go to fund schools.  If you opt out of paying for schools, that $90 is then reallocated in the percentage that your taxes are normally distributed:

Why, no, I’m not a cynic. Why do you ask?

The 3% of your $3,000 that no longer goes to schools then gets split up along these lines (with the $2.70 that was supposed to go to schools being thrown into the non-controversial area of greatest need?).  You’ve paid the same amount of money, but because you find government funding of schools morally abhorrent, your money doesn’t go towards schools.

Let’s imagine (and, God help us, it doesn’t require much imagination) that the government decides to provide abortions free for all government employees.  We encourage our representatives to vote against this, but it passes anyway.  Now it seems to me that eventually, if enough people are opposed to this and enough people opt out of funding abortion services, there would no longer be enough money for the government to provide them.  The policy would have to be changed.

It’s very difficult to get policy changed by marching on Washington, writing to your senator, or voting for people who you think are going to do what they say they are going to do in their campaign promises.  So let’s put our money where our mouth is.  Let’s say, “Our money will not go to this” and see what happens to the policies.

We’re not going to see a time in our country where you just don’t pay taxes or where you get to choose exactly what the government is spending its money on, but if you are able to say “My money will not be used to fund these things,” if that becomes an option for us, then it seems to me that our “representative democracy” will become much more representative of the people’s actual desires.

In a country as ill-educated and self-serving as ours, maybe that’s not a great thing, but I think it’s an experiment worth trying.

 

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, but please be gentle–I’m not an economist, I’m not a political theorist.  Maybe I’m just an idiot, but I’d like to introduce the idea and let those better informed hash it out and run with it.  Is the whole thing ridiculous?  Would we need congressional restrictions on what could be opted out of (defense and education being off-limits, for example)?  Can you get more specific on number of signatures and percentage of the vote needed?  Should the opt-out issues have to be voted on annually–or maybe every four years?  Where should that awkward fraction left over go?  Is it impossible to have the kind of transparency it would take to break your tax dollars down into percents?  Would we have to deal in general categories (healthcare) as opposed to specific services (abortion)?  What else am I missing?

  1. not all Libertarians believe this [↩]

HHS and the Thrill of Persecution

If you’re connected to the Catholic world at all, you’ve probably picked up on the outrage surrounding the HHS mandate.

In case you’re not, let me summarize (in overly-simplified language–try this if you want more details):

Department of Health and Human Services: All employers have to provide insurance that covers contraception and sterilization.
Catholic Church: Except us, right?
HHS: No, you, too.
CC: Freedom of religion?
HHS: Okay, fine, if you employ and serve only members of your religion, you’re exempt.
CC: So you’re saying that to follow our consciences, our hospitals have to turn away all non-Catholics?  Our schools can’t educate non-Catholics?  Not going to happen.  We’ll just shut everything down.
Obama: Sorry, folks!  How about a compromise?  You don’t have to cover the contraception.  You just have to pay for insurance that does.
CC: Seriously?  We’re still paying for it if we’re paying for other people to pay for it.
Most of the US: What’s the big deal?  They’re not saying you have to use contraception, just that you have to provide it to others.
CC: Cool, well, you don’t have to kill those toddlers, you just have to pay for the bullets.

Even if that were true, we’re not trying to restrict access to birth control. Just refusing to pay for it.

US: Why is the Catholic Church so anti-woman?  Why are you taking away our rights?  Are we going back to the Dark Ages?
CC: Whoa, we’re not even saying contraception should be illegal, just that we’re not going to buy it for you.
US: You have to!  It’s a basic human right not to get pregnant!
CC: We didn’t want to do this, but…sued!

Hope that catches you up.

The U.S. Bishops have been united on this issue–something that may not have happened in the history of our nation.  And they’re calling all Catholics–and all other Americans, religious or not–to take a stand against this violation of the First Amendment.  Today begins what the Bishops have called a Fortnight for Freedom.  They’re asking for prayer, fasting, education, and action from today, the vigil of the feast of Sts. John Fisher and Thomas More (martyred by their government for refusing to violate their religious convictions), through Independence Day.

They’re so sweet–how could you upset them?

This is huge.  This isn’t about contraception–as far as I know, we stopped fighting that in the secular arena after Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965.  This is about being compelled–as an institution and as individuals–to violate our consciences.  This is about the government making a law prohibiting the free exercise of our religious conviction against contraception.  It’s a direct violation of the first amendment,1 which means this isn’t just a Catholic issue.  Protestants, Jews, even Atheists should be concerned when the Bill of Rights is being ignored.  And they are.

.
I don’t think the Obama administration was expecting anything like this.  Theologically, the Catholic Church is a bastion of strength in an ever-changing world; politically, American Catholics (and our bishops) have been compromising for generations.  I think everyone expected some grumbling and then a mass submission to the mandate.  After all, 98% of Catholics use contraception anyway.2

But this time we seem to have been pushed too far.  God has strengthened our shepherds and they are refusing to compromise on this.  A mandate that required employers to allow women to opt in and pay for their own contraception we might have compromised on.  But we’re not going to define contraception as “preventive medicine” because we’re not going to define pregnancy as a disease.  And we’re not going to allow a nation built on the free exercise of religion to prevent us from exercising ours–indeed, to force us to violate it.

We’re not imposing our views on anyone here.  If you want contraception, there are any number of ways to get it cheap or even free.  If you want your employer to pay for it, find a different job.  The Church’s refusal to submit here doesn’t make it impossible for other people to sin.  It just means we’re not funding it.

“What will happen?” my students asked once they realized the gravity of this situation.

Cardinal Dolan: Fines and imprisonment? Bring it, Mr. President.

“Oh, we’ll take the government to court.  And I think we’ll win.  But if we don’t, we still won’t do it.  We’ll pay the fines until there’s no money left.  And then our bishops will go to prison en masse.  It’s happened before.”

There was a glow in their eyes when I said that–they weren’t scared, they were excited.  I can preach the Passion till I’m blue in the face, but it’s not real to them.  The idea of people they know going willingly to prison rather than betray God?  That got their blood pumping.

Is anybody else kind of excited about this?  I mean, we’re talking institutionalized persecution here.  And if nothing else, persecution separates the wheat from the chaff.  No more of this cultural Catholicism or cafeteria Catholicism.  When we have to suffer for Christ, we may lose a lot of Christians but we’ll gain a lot of saints.  After all, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.  Now I can’t imagine anyone’s going to die over this.  President Obama doesn’t look much like Diocletian or Elizabeth I.  No, it’ll just be fines and censures and maybe imprisonment for the really important folk.  On this issue, anyway.  But for the first time in living memory, American Catholics are really going to have to decide: Christ or the world.

So it’s fitting that the Fortnight begins on the Vigil of the English Martyrs.  St. Thomas More‘s refusal to sign the Act of Succession didn’t disinherit the unborn Princess Elizabeth.  It didn’t hurt anybody but him.  He suffered for it.  We might suffer, too.  But I’d rather be headless in the company of the Saints than gutless at the right hand of Henry VIII or President Obama.  And so we fight.

In the words of our bishops, “We cannot–we will not–comply with this unjust law.”  Please join me in fasting, praying, and working for freedom.

 

Find out what your diocese is doing here.

*I don’t necessarily agree with everything said in the pages I link to above, just think they’re worth considering.*

  1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [↩]
  2. Which, by the way, is a made up statistic that involved polling only sexually active women of childbearing age who wanted to avoid pregnancy. Besides (to quote someone, I’ve forgotten who), “100% of Catholics sin, but the Church isn’t changing her position on that, either.” [↩]