Kerry's Chilling Rhetoric on Religion Continues -- With a Strong Dose of Hypocrisy

[Layman]

Kerry's Chilling Rhetoric Continues -- Adding a Substantial Dose of Hypocrisy

In an earlier post I referrred to my blog about Kerry's discussion of religion and abortion in th second debate:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...religious.html

I discussed Kerry's refusal to allow his belief that human life begins at conception to inform his public policy because to do so would be to impose an "article of faith" on others. I focused not so much on his personal hypocrisy, but on his apparent endorsement of the idea that a person's religion cannot affect their views on public policy. I find that idea chilling. The issue came up again in the third debate and Kerry's answers leaves me with little choice but to comment on his hypocrisy. Apparently Kerry does believe that religious faith should direct public policy--but only if the policy is a liberal one.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry, a new question for you.

The New York Times reports that some Catholic archbishops are telling their church members that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you because you support a woman's right to choose an abortion and unlimited stem-cell research.

What is your reaction to that?

KERRY: I respect their views. I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many.

I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.

I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor. And that's why I support that.

...

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead."

And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

But I know this, that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told all of us that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own. And that's what we have to — [/b]I think that's the test of public service.

I have bolded the statements I think relate to whether Kerry believes his faith should guide his politics. It is painfully obvious that Kerry's statements are in direct opposition to each other. When it comes to abortion, he cannot impose his faith on others. But when it comes to the environment, poverty, and other perceived liberal causes, he can impose his faith on others. Skeptical that he could be so overtly hypocritical? I remind you of his own words: "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth" and "I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith." He goes on to list causes he has voted for on based on his religious faith: poverty, environmentalism, equality, and justice. He even concludes by saying that as President he would do "God's work"! (Pause for a moment and imagine if President Bush declared he would do "God's work" in a nationally televised presidential debate).

Apparently, Kerry feels compelled to impose his religious beliefs on others when it comes to perceived liberal causes, but he will not impose his religious beliefs on others when it comes to a perceived conservative cause. If Kerry's Catholic faith tells him that we must be good stewards of the environment he is quite willing to impose that belief through legislation. But if Kerry's Catholic faith tells him that the unborn are human beings and are being unjustly killed by abortion, Kerry claims that it would be inappropriate to impose his faith on others.

Quite hypocritical.

I blogged on this in more depth here:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...continues.html

I also noticed that Kerry was wearing his faith on his sleeve tonight--referring to his own faith six times more than Bush did to his!

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...much-more.html

[The Laughing Man]

Kerry flips and flops within a matter of minutes on all sorts of topics: Iraq, religion, jobs (and blaming Bush for "losing" them), etc. Why his supporters can't see this is beyond me. Why they continue to support him after it's exposed like this is, too.

BTW, I love the name of the website: "Christian CADRE." Very cool.

[Piebald]

So you are Layman of the CADRE... Hi, I'm Mad of the Christian CADRE.. it is very good to see you here, Layman.

[Layman]

So you are Layman of the CADRE... Hi, I'm Mad of the Christian CADRE.. it is very good to see you here, Layman.

Yo!

My apologetics is usually focused on history and the New Testament. But something about this isssue and Kerry really gets the lawyer in me active.

[Layman]

BTW, I love the name of the website: "Christian CADRE." Very cool.

Thanks, but I have to admit that the name was thought up long before I joined!

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

You know, I've commented on this several times, and I have a feeling that I'm beating a dead horse, because you all just aren't getting it. Why is that? Is it just that you don't want to get it? Is that what's going on? Are you all just so hardup to find something wrong with his position that proper context because anathema to you? Please, if that's the case, just tell me and I'll quit trying to talk sense to you all.

Again (and again, and again, and again, and again ...) Kerry isn't saying that you can't let your religious beliefs inform your vote or your decisions. He's not saying that you can't legislated something if you position on the matter derives from a religious belief. He's saying that he cannot legislate something if his position on the matter stems only from a religious belief and is not backed by more firm and objective reasoning, such as sound science or law. And the definition of life is something that still remains very much an article of faith, since neither science nor law have agreed upon any objective definition of when life begins. He simply feels that if religion is the only source for his position on the matter, then that isn't enough to justify forcing that belief on someone else. I know that I wouldn't be very tolerant of someone legislating something upon me if the only rationale they can provide for it is this is what my religion believes. If you want me to buckle down and agree to abide by that legislation, then you'd better come up with a good reason.

[Layman]

He's saying that he cannot legislate something if his position on the matter stems only from a religious belief and is not backed by more firm and objective reasoning, such as sound science or law.

See, I don't see where he says that. This is an ad hoc post debate attempt to justify a plainly inconsistent opinion. There is just as much objective reason to be be pro-life as their are to be an environmentalists or to fight poverty.

Kerry says the test of public service is doing God's work. That's pretty hard to square with your rationalizations of Kerry's position.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

See, I don't see where he says that.

That's because you're looking from the wrong vantage point. Why do I know that's what he's saying? Because he's Pro-Choice, that's why. And I'm Pro-Choice, therefore I know what the Pro-Choice position is (Pro-Lifers almost never correctly characterize the Pro-Choice position). Most Pro-Choicers find abortion to be as abhorent as Pro-Lifers. The difference is that we don't believe that we have the right to force that view upon the women actually facing the question if there is nothing more solid than a religious belief to offer them as an argument against it. Kerry is speaking the Pro-Choice position, and any Pro-Choicer around can tell you exactly what I told you. If you can't understand that, it's because you are looking through Pro-Life lenses and failing to comprehend the viewpoint of the other position.

There is just as much objective reason to be be pro-life as their are to be an environmentalists or to fight poverty.

Then feel free to provide it. So far nobody has ever succeeded.

Kerry says the test of public service is doing God's work. That's pretty hard to square with your rationalizations of Kerry's position.

That's not what he actually said. He said the test of public service is making God's work your work. It is therefore up to the individual to decide what "God's work" means to them, not up to the public servant to force others to share their belief on what is "God's work." Because, truthfully, you don't really know what "God's work" really is, because you don't know what God's plan really is. You may think you know, but it's all faith, because "cuz the Bible so" just doesn't cut it outside the bailiwick of your own faith.

[The Laughing Man]

Well, there you have it. The only "correct" vantage point from which to judge Kerry's words is from Eire's position. If you don't share the same position, you can't understand Kerry's words. If you're pro-"choice," you understand all positions, but if you are pro-life, you can never understand them all. :hilar:

That's why I like you, Eire. You make me laugh at your own expense.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

If you're pro-"choice," you understand all positions, but if you are pro-life, you can never understand them all.

No, if you're pro-choice, you understand the pro-choice position, not all positions. I personally understand the pro-life position because I once held it. And I would say it's fair to say that there are more pro-choicers who understand the pro-life position than there are pro-lifers who understand the pro-choice position. That's because the pro-choicers don't spend nearly as much time and effort trying to redefine the pro-life position to the public as the pro-life movement does trying to redefine the pro-choice position. Quite clearly the pro-lifers on this particular thread have little, if any understanding of the Pro-Choice position. Kerry speaks from the Pro-Choice position. Ergo, if you don't understand the Pro-Choice position (as clearly many of you do not), then you just as obviously don't understand what he is actually saying.

[Twilly Spree]

I enjoyed Kerry's answer from the last debate, I totally agreed (well no suprise there)

[Mountain Man]

Kerry flips and flops within a matter of minutes on all sorts of topics: Iraq, religion, jobs (and blaming Bush for "losing" them), etc. Why his supporters can't see this is beyond me. Why they continue to support him after it's exposed like this is, too.

Simple: he's not Bush.

[Layman]

Then feel free to provide it. So far nobody has ever succeeded.

So if an issue is disputed then you can't legislate your religion? But if its undisputed you can legislatute your religion?

Affirmitive action is disputed, but Kerry will legislate that based on his religiously informed viewpoints on "equality." People have different opinions on the matter, just as they do on abortion. There is no mathmatical formula that tells us "objectively" that it is okay to discriminate against one member of a reace to help a member of another race.

This is actually quite a silly line of defense guys.

There are plenty of atheist/agnostics who are pro-life. That right there seems to sink your position that the ONLY way to be pro-life is to be religious.