The Dignity and Worth of Every Person

Tuesday, May 11, AD 2010

The Lying Worthless Poltical Hack, a\k\a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, tells Priests and Bishops to speak out on immigration from the pulpit based upon a biblical concern for “the dignity and worth of every person”.

The respect that the Lying Worthless Political Hack has “for the dignity and worth” of the smallest and most helpless among us was well demonstrated by this quote from Naral Pro-Choice America in 2007 after Pelosi became speaker of the House:

“Americans who value freedom and privacy have many reasons to celebrate as Nancy Pelosi takes the Speaker’s gavel to make this historic move forward for our country.  For her nearly 20 years in office, Speaker Pelosi has been an effective advocate for women’s health and has championed her pro-choice values by consistently voting to protect a woman’s right to choose.  In November, voters across this country endorsed Speaker Pelosi’s call for a change and new direction by electing 23 new pro-choice members to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Today, we celebrate as Speaker Pelosi takes the reins; under her leadership Americans can expect a new focus on commonsense solutions, not the divisive attacks that marred the previous Congresses.”

Continue reading...

8 Responses to The Dignity and Worth of Every Person

  • Problem is that many U.S. bishops don’t need Nip Tuck Nancy to egg them on in using their good offices as a feather to tickle their ideological fancies on this issue. I mean you have both Cdl. Roger Mahony and Abp. Timothy Dolan engaging in New York Slimes-style smear tactics to disparage the good people of Arizona who are exercising their God-given right to protect themselves from the ravages of open borders malfeaseance.

  • Is it dignified to die of exposure in the desert?

    Do we celebrate the worth of those who are suffocated in unventilated containers snuck across the border by ‘coyotes’?

    Or the women trafficked … or raped … crossing the border?

    Or the drug violence? Or gang crime? Kidnapping? Murder. Mayhem. Is that all dignified?

    Anyone who supports the current border situation, or would cause a stampede by offering ‘amnesty’ … has a share of all this blood on their hands. Not very dignified to my way of thinking.

  • Or it could be because of the bishop’s longstanding support of immigrants, mainly because the US Catholic Church was built on the backs of poor, outcast immigrants.

    Despite the Speaker’s horrid theology on abortion, she’s right that more clergy should speak out on a just immigration policy. How can we say we respect all life when we spit on the poor and needy who come to us looking for a living (in a legal way)?

  • “How can we say we respect all life when we spit on the poor and needy who come to us looking for a living (in a legal way)?”

    Deporting illegal aliens is not spitting on them. No one of course is proposing that legal immigrants do not have every right to be here, so I do not understand the (in a legal way) that ended your sentence.

    In any case this post isn’t about the debate over immigration, but rather at the deafness the Lying Worthless Political Hack has to an essential teaching of her Church and her willingness to attempt to enlist the Church, with language the irony of which I am certain eludes her, when it becomes politically expedient for her to do so.

  • Mr Smith:

    Immigration is not the issue. It’s about illegal aliens storming across our borders and the attendent dangerous criminal activity. For the bishops to accuse those who take a differing view from that of the open borders crowd od being anti-immigration when they know it is nothing of the sort is reprehensible, to say nothing of being unbecoming the office of bishop.

    USCCB “pastoral” letters on these type issues are more ideological than pastoral and are not worth the paper they are written on esecially that “Faithful Citizenship” one.

  • Again we get to the claim that immigrants have a right to immigrate – which they do according to Catholic Social teaching. But Catholic Social teaching also notes that states have a right to regulate immigration. I suspect the Church understood that when it developed this teaching that there would be some poor immigrants who were cut off. Catholic Social teaching is not about achieving utopia in the here and now. It is about applying moral principles in a fallen world.

  • If the Demonrats were not assured of getting the votes of the illegals, do you think they would be fighting so hard for getting them in to the county AND giving them “defacto” votes (via ACORN, et al)?

  • Pingback: The Values of the Word « The American Catholic

13 Responses to Dawn Johnsen

  • I hestitate to use the expression becuase I think Harry Potter wasn’t all that great but these people really are deatheaters.

  • How about deathspawners?

  • How does this fit into Doug Kmiec’s opinion that Obama is pro-life?

  • Obama is pro-life in that he is pro-choice and non-pro-abortion. In this he seeks to affirm priciples stated in Catholic social teaching. The statements from CST definitively teach that increases in taxation, social programs and family health/sexual education necessarily increase the prosperity of all and thus necessarily reduce abortion.

    Being pro-choice Obama is also definitely in accord with recognzing the freedom of the person and subsidiarity in society. This is also consistent with CST which definitively teaches that laws against abortion do not reduce abortion and violate the dignity of the person in the right to freedom of conscience.

    Make sense?

  • Thanks, Phillip. All clear now. 😉

  • “Make sense?”

    Uh, nope.

  • bill,
    I think that is Phillip’s precise point.

  • And did you hear he will have an honorary doctor of laws degree from Notre Dame? So of course he’s pro-life. 😉

  • “Obama is pro-life in that he is pro-choice and non-pro-abortion. In this he seeks to affirm priciples stated in Catholic social teaching. … Being pro-choice Obama is also definitely in accord with recognzing the freedom of the person and subsidiarity in society.”

    I’d say Phillip’s been taking notes from Gerald Campbell. 😉

  • I wonder if Obama isn’t making all these appointments of hard-core pro-aborts to his administration as a way to placate his hard-core pro-abort supporters (like Planned Parenthood and NARAL) for his failure to push the Freedom of Choice Act and for breaking his promise to make signing FOCA the “first thing” he would do as President?

  • Partially I think you are right Elaine. However it has been noted that his appointees in second tier positions in his administration, as in the case of Ms. Johnsen, are much more to the left than his cabinet level nominees. That is not an uncommon strategy for most administrations: present a moderate face to the public, and have the “true believers” below set and implement policy.

  • Pingback: Obama Renominates Anti-Catholic Lawyer « Under Her Mantle
  • Pingback: Pro-life Victory: Dawn Johnsen Withdraws « The American Catholic

Obama: Reason To Be Afraid.

Sunday, October 12, AD 2008

The [“Born Alive controversy”] does show him to be a down-the-line pro-choice legislator. In fact, the charge that Obama is the most pro-choice candidate in years may well be true (though the other Democrats were pretty pro-choice too). When I read through the legislative history, I came to believe that Obama’s general impulse was: when it doubt, side with NARAL. If you’re ardently pro-life, you are absolutely justified in being scared of Obama for that reason alone, without having cast him as a serial killer.

Beliefnet’s Stephen Waldman
by way of Marc Stricherz: “Obama’s Moral Fortitude is Questionable “
by way of Matthew Fish: “disingenuous”

Good posts, worth reading.

Continue reading...