Kerry Contradiction
Did anyone notice the following two statements by Kerry on religion during the debate. They came only a few seconds apart, but completely contradict each other.
First he chanted the traditional liberal mantra about not imposing his faith on others.
But then he came back a few sentences later with this.
Now hold on. He won't impose any "article of faith" on others, but he fights against poverty and for equality, justice and the environment out of the fundamental teaching and belief of his faith. But doesn't that mean he is seeking to impose those things on Americans who disagree with his approach to and definition of equality (such as on homosexual marriage or affirmative action), justice (ditto), and the right of man to have dominion over the earth in order to subdue it? Doesn't that mean he is seeking to impose his religion-based belief on those he wants to tax at higher levels in order to fund programs for the poor?
The two positions are contradictory -- and can be reconciled only if you accept that he doesn't really have a religious objection to abortion, and therefore has no problem with imposing his beliefs upon the rest of us.
I also liked the brief moment of Kerry candor and honesty when he referred to abortion as "some other right that's given under our courts today". After all, it isn't in the Constitution.
But my favorite moment of the night came when President Bush started to attack Kerry's use of "two leading national news networks" as experts on the intricacies of his Medicare proposal --
First he chanted the traditional liberal mantra about not imposing his faith on others.
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.
But then he came back a few sentences later with this.
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.
Now hold on. He won't impose any "article of faith" on others, but he fights against poverty and for equality, justice and the environment out of the fundamental teaching and belief of his faith. But doesn't that mean he is seeking to impose those things on Americans who disagree with his approach to and definition of equality (such as on homosexual marriage or affirmative action), justice (ditto), and the right of man to have dominion over the earth in order to subdue it? Doesn't that mean he is seeking to impose his religion-based belief on those he wants to tax at higher levels in order to fund programs for the poor?
The two positions are contradictory -- and can be reconciled only if you accept that he doesn't really have a religious objection to abortion, and therefore has no problem with imposing his beliefs upon the rest of us.
I also liked the brief moment of Kerry candor and honesty when he referred to abortion as "some other right that's given under our courts today". After all, it isn't in the Constitution.
But my favorite moment of the night came when President Bush started to attack Kerry's use of "two leading national news networks" as experts on the intricacies of his Medicare proposal --
In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations about — oh, never mind.
posted by Greg at
10/13/2004 10:45:00 PM
