Fabrizio: Offensive Conservatives

[Terri]

By Lisa Fabrizio
November 20, 2008

Scanning through the headlines, trying to find one that does not contain the phrase 'president-elect'--does anyone remember George W. Bush being called anything but 'Governor' until his inauguration?--I happened across a piece from the BBC humorously titled, "Uncertain times for US Religious Right." (web site) In it, the left muses on its favorite dream; that humbled by defeat in the last two elections, "Christian conservatives may find themselves working alongside Democrats" on certain social issues.

BBC's Matthew Wells hopefully focuses on the "tension between the narrow social agenda of Christian conservatives and the broader, more pragmatic 'low tax' wing of the party." Well, I hate to disappoint our British brethren, but the 'religious right' has never been more certain that its cause is just; given that the "narrow social agenda" we defend originates far higher up the food chain than Washington, DC. And the events of November 4th will only make true conservatives even more determined to fight for it.

More

[FlaJim]

As opposed to alleged conservatives like David Brooks who advocates moving to the left and John McCain who wants to 'reach across the aisle' (compromise), we must not surrender any more ground.

We need to reclaim lost ground by espousing strong conservative principles, a concept foreign to the above two examples. That requires standard bearers who will hold the line and refuse to accept business as usual.

A lame defense is not a good offense.

[MISSL]

Well said FlaJim: Agree 100%
Now lets convince the NRC

[thomas]

...if Catholic hospitals are ever required to perform abortions, the bishops will close every one of them; no one would be hurt more than the poor."
I know this is just bit piece in the overall article but Mr. Donohue is fooling himself if he really believes this. Catholic Bishops abandoned their moral authority years ago. How loud their silence screams, when itcame to addressing issues or damanding answers during the recent presidential election and most still fail to demand denial of the sacraments to fallen Catholics, those who profese their Catholic faith while publically supporting and professing anti-Catholic dogma, i.e. abortion.
The Old Chief

[denisethemenace]

Old Chief, I had the same reaction to Mr. Donohue's assertion. The American Bishops certainly will NOT shut down the Catholic hospitals! They will continue to do what they've been doing: going along to get along.

The only disagreement I had with what you wrote was in your characterization of pro-choice "Catholics" as "Fallen". No, they haven't fallen at all. They are the "wolves in sheep's clothing" we were warned about: HERETICS!

[Rubicon]

I too suspect Mr. Donohue was editorializing somewhat when he asserted Bishops would close Catholic hospitals.
I do admit that since these past elections, many Bishops have openly warned Catholic legislators that they risk being denied communion if they continue to sponsor, promote, &/or support a pro-abortion agenda in their voting or legislation proposals.
Many Diocesan financial bottom lines may be seriously adversely affected if Catholic hospital systems were closed. Then again, perhaps a number of them are already in financial straights just as are many secular hospital systems.
In the end, if the Catholic Bishops &/or the Church itself, wishes to express their views on abortion as aggressively as closing hospitals, Catholic Bishops may also find themselves subject to a serious smear campaign by the radical left that treats abortion as though its a sacred commandment.
I was confused when Roe v. Wade magically made abortion legal, yet no law was passed by the legislature. I remain confused that so many are willing to accept the precedence of Roe as equivalent to law, when all it is, is a court ruling on a privacy issue. In short, judicial fiat.
So long as Americans accept such actions & allow courts to act as unelected legislatures, we risk a despotic judicial power movement.
But then again, perhaps that is exactly what the radical left wants since every time they lose at the polls on social issues, leftists always resort to activist judges to overturn the will of the voters.
One day, someone on the left may realize that if they can secure passage of a legislative measure making abortion on demand the law, the issue would become a non sequitor thereafter.
While conservatives & any other opposed to abortion would try to overturn such a law & would try to elect legislators who were also opposed to abortion, so the law could be overturned by another law, the general public would probably lose significant interest in the issue. Once voters have spoken in a fair vote & especially on such a controversial issue, most voters will probably say, "let it alone, we're tired of it!" Apathy is so much easier & a vote offers an excuse to do nothing to those who really could care less in the first place.
It angers me we accept the creation of or establishment of law, by courts. One day conservatives may find an issue the left truly cares about & the conservatives might just get a few activist conservative judges to create a precedence & establish a law even liberal leftists are appalled by! Then, and only then, will liberal leftists really understand that if we allow our system to be circumvented by activists & special interest groups for the sake of expediency & causes, all we have done is undermined our Constitution & all other founding documents. Such means an end to freedom as we know it as the original checks and balances our founders intended are eviscerated by cause seeking radicals interested only in the furtherance of their causes & their political beliefs!
God help us, so many are not & frighteningly, there are also large numbers who are actively acting to subvert our freedoms.

[MamaCat]

I too suspect Mr. Donohue was editorializing somewhat when he asserted Bishops would close Catholic hospitals.

I understand the Catholic church removed itself from the adoption business in Massachusetts. Why would this be any different?