The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Kaine,Catholicism and grammatical tricks

    By Flavius on Sat, 07/23/2016 - 8:44am |

    I was started down this path by the juxtaposition of two OGD links included  in  Michael's Freak Out Thread :

     Al Franken's MSNBC interview and a  Hillary ad . Franken described Kaine as a "progressive Catholic" ; the ad purported to show the children listening to Trump's tasteless insults to women who'd  outraged him by expecting  him to answer questions.

    Franken's categorizing Kaine as a Progressive Catholic reminded me of a time when I was one. Catholics who combined the Berrigans politics  with The Church's charity towards the poor were then known as Commonweal Catholics , after that magazine.Or John XXII Catholics after that Pope Or  Mario Cuomo Catholics.

    ( Off the topic but I remain amused by the memory of Cuomo in his last run  refusing to debate his opponent who responded by carrying  a card board Cuomo image  with which he  pretended to argue. When asked about this, Cuomo  said he'd heard the dummy often won.)

    At one time part of the Catholic dating game  was to find out whether she read Commonweal. If not, better move on.

     Like Kaine, for example  "Commonweal Catholics"  accepted the Church's ruling on

    abortion for themselves . But also accepted that Roe V Wade was the law of the land . They' d spent a life time of  "Rendering unto Ceasar " etc. So it was normal ,when - prior to 9/ll -  the newly installed  W was trying to opine on   stem cell research he sought  advice from Dan Callahan a former Commonweal editor. 

    We could do far worse than having that view represented among HIllary's advisors.And having their votes.

    Conversely the Hillary ad to which OGD linked ,  reminded me of an unsavory transition -or lack of one - in Trump's acceptance speech . After alluding to the police assassinations  as part of promising to save us from  violence Trump switched seamlessly to his standard immigration rant in such a way that in my opinion he led the audience to the completely incorrect assumption that somehow immigrants were involved. Guilt by proximity.

    It would have been disgusting even if  made as a direct statement. But when done as an implied  but unstated accusation it was yet another cheap shot far worse than his  vendetta against female anchors.

    Dishonest in every way.

     

     

    Comments

    Being strongly pro-choice Kaine's abortion stance worried me a bit. But he has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood which is a strong recommendation of his voting record. Apparently he's very capable of separating his personal views from his voting record.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/23/2016 - 3:19pm

    I'd go further and say that he considers himself obliged to do so. Not simply a personal view.He and other

    Progressive Catholics feel it is a religious duty for them to act in opposition to their anti abortion beliefs. So much so that it is second nature. 

    Clearly there is a separate larger group who feel exactly the opposite and receive 100% of the media attention \ 


    by Flavius on Sat, 07/23/2016 - 4:11pm

    I've spent most of my time looking at the evangelicals as they are a force liberals need to fight and to fight we need to understand the opposition. I know much less about the progressive Christians. While I have trouble understanding "belief" in the sense that the religious use it, it's clear that there are Christians that share many of  my values and are allies in the struggle to make a better world. From prominent figures like Reverend Martin Luther King and Father David Berrigan to little know parishioners. I think of them as the "sheep and goats" Christians. Those who prioritize the message of Matthew 25 over the more judgmental, hateful, and brutal messages that can be found in the old testament.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/23/2016 - 4:42pm

    Yes.

    Among the other Mario Cuomo/Commonweal Catholics who personally oppose abortion but actively support the right to choose is (drumroll, please) ... Joe Biden.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Sat, 07/23/2016 - 6:06pm

    Why is personally opposing abortion from folks seeking the highest offices in government tolerated by Democrats?

    Say it with me. There is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy. Anytime, for any reason. On demand. And if you're gonna parrot the Clintons from 25 years ago with their reckless triangulation of "safe, legal and rare," which is part and parcel of this craven position, you better be ready to swiftly and strongly qualify what is meant by "rare. "

    Don't get me wrong, I'm glad these folks vote the way they do, but it's troubling how their ambiguity contributes to the stigmatization of what should be a routine medical procedure available to all women


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 5:02pm

    I'd like to see the democrats embrace a pro-choice platform but there is diversity within that support for choice. I agree with the position that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Imo most of the restrictions republicans are passing should be illegal i.e. unconstitutional and have nothing to do with making abortion safe. I don't agree with your position that abortion should be legal anytime. One time it should not be legal is five minutes after a women's water breaks. As pro-choice democrats we need to define exactly what we mean by legal. You too should be absolutely clear what you mean by "anytime." I doubt you'll get much support for the conventional definition of the word from even pro-choice democrats. I think Roe v Wade was an acceptable compromise if it had been sensibly and rigorously enforced.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 5:48pm

    Why rare? Seriously. 

     

    And there is a phrase for ending a pregnancy "five minutes after a women's [sic] water breaks." We call that giving birth. 


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 7:02pm

    Obfuscation kyle. I don't get why people like to play games rather than have an honest dialog. I find these silly little games and debate tactics boring, a waste of time. All I'm interested in is a frank and open debate on our ideas. If you believe what you post you should defend it rather than try to avoid the debate.

    Average time from water breaking to giving birth is 12 to 20 hours. Your "solution" requires a waiting period of 12 to 20 hours. Some births take several days. Are you suggesting a several day waiting period before a women can legally get an abortion? That same solution exists for a women in her first trimester. She can end her pregnancy by giving birth in six or seven months.  Does anytime mean one day before a women's water breaks. Or should she be required to wait that one day before ending a pregnancy by giving birth. One week? One month? Two months? Exactly what do you mean by any time for any reason? 


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 7:32pm

    Jesus. There is no such thing as one day before a woman's water breaks that I'm aware of without knowing the future. Still, it's none of our business. But please, describe for me the abortion procedure for the scenario you've dreamed up. I say it's moved beyond any discussion about abortion into childbirth. Infanticide is the philosophical conversation we'd be having at that point.

    I'm perfectly aware of how complicated this debate gets the further a woman's pregnancy advances. Again, none of our business. Between a woman and her Healthcare providers. Full stop. 

    Again, why rare? Let's keep it at safe and legal. Say it with me. There is nothing wrong with having an abortion. If you think otherwise you've been duped.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 8:25pm

    It doesn't appear that you know how complicated this issue is the closer one gets to birth. Any time for any reason is pretty simple. It's indefensible and you know it. That's why you're working so hard to avoid the conversation. I support Roe v Wade in which third trimester abortions are illegal excepting life or health of the mother. Abortions are quite rare in the third trimester, as they should be. Any time for any reason would make abortions in the third trimester legal. But it will never happen. The vast majority of pro-choice democrats will never allow unrestricted access to third trimester abortions.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 9:51pm

    I'm not a woman but there's more to ending a pregnancy for many women than whether we wave the right pills at it. Maybe in 100 years we'll have a different feeling and philosophy, but for now it's an emotional and ethical issue still to tiptoe around. And it's deeply personal and sometimes deeply religious. That doesn't mean caving to non-scientific belief, but it does mean appreciating it and finding ways to accommodate.

    Recently scientists discovered flowers emit a small electric field that furrows the hair on a bumblebee in the right direction, helping attract it to nectar. They discovered a new planet way off to the side that counterbalances our original 9-now-8 planet solar system. They just started to be able to measure gravity waves. We're still infants in this universe. A bit of humility is useful. I think Democrats in general are proposing helpful attitudes and reasonable limits here, the GOP is waging a war.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 8:03pm

    "Rare" means unnecessary because people should, in 2016 be able to control their fertility.  There are plenty of ways to do that, starting at sex education, birth control availability and affordability, and yes, abortion when all else fails. Is there a reason why you would prefer that abortion not be rare as opposed to it not be needed?

    I remember when I was a Nurse Practitioner at a College Health Service and a graduate student was complaining of "strange feelings in her stomach."  Long story short, she (and I were) quite surprised to find that she was more than 6 months pregnant.  Her first reaction was that she would have an abortion.  I spent the whole afternoon talking to her and my colleagues took all my patients.  My instinct was that she really needed to think this over.  (I was, during that time trying to adopt a baby, and I hope I never let it enter in to my help with her.)

    I made her an appointment with an OBGYN, and I have no idea how it ended.  But to say that you are eliminated from the possible electorate because you have an opinion that you can hold aside because it is the right thing to do, really is disingenuous 

    Edited for some reason or the other


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 8:14pm

    Why is personally opposing abortion from folks seeking the highest offices in government tolerated by Democrats?

    Gee, I don't know.  Maybe it's because they prefer honesty.  I remember Clarence Thomas, when he was getting his completely fake "vetting" as a justice, declare that he never had a discussion or even thought about abortion in his life.

    Now what we have is a comatose Life-Time Appointed Supreme Court Justice who votes the same way he always believed, but was too dishonest to admit because he lacked the courage of his convictions in  case he might not get this sinecure.

    Like it or not, there are those who can't "Say it with you" because they simply don't believe it in their hearts, based on their religious doctrine or for other reasons.  As long as they have the intelligence and objectivity to vote based on what their job requires them to do --> follow the Constitution, and also to realize that not everyone shares their religious beliefs, I can respect that.  In fact I respect it much more than people who simply say what they perceive they are expected to say.


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 6:15pm

     "Gee, I honestly have no interest sharing a  water fountain with the gays. It's a personal, deeply held spiritual belief. Of course I don't think legislation should be shaped according to that belief, but hey, just want to be honest."

    Nah. Keep your fairy tales to yourself. AKA, STFU. That kind of honesty is harmful. It's stigmatizing.

    As for Thomas,  take it up with Joe. His honesty is so charming.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 7:12pm

    Another false equivalence.  The MSM could take a lesson from you.  

    I guess you could do a spread-sheet of beliefs and behaviors and automatically eliminate anyone who doesn't line up to every single point you approve of.  But then you would be the Green Party and your candidate would be unelectable.  

    Fortunately, the Democratic Party works for the same goals as the Green Party and others.  Sometimes they have to compromise to get the important things through.  Sometimes people that you may not see as pure enough are actually really good at what they do , and also vote the way you want them to.  If that isn't good enough for you then you will likely always be unhappy and unhopeful and unlikely to support the person who would actually get the things you want done, done.

    Or, as our very eloquent President puts it:  You are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  (Always the adult in the room!)


    by CVille Dem on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 7:28pm

    Again, I'm glad these folks vote the way they do. They are better than the baddies. But by hiding behind vestments in this case they harm the movement, just as "religiously held beliefs" shield folks from fully embracing the rights of lgbtq people. These proclamations do harm and not challenging them reinforces that harm. 

    What has happened to the pro choice movement. Jesus.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 9:06pm

    One aspect of Christianity is the concept of repentance and redemption. Robert Byrd was a Klan Kleagle, a recruiter. Byrd became a fighter for civil rights. When Conservatives want to justify their racism, they point to Nyrd, leaving out the conversion story. The conversion is a remarkable story. Obama was late in accepting Gay marriage. Obama's conversion is an amazing story. Kaine is a Catholic who supports Gay rights and was a civil rights attorney who took Nationwide to court. I doubt that you will ever see a candidate who meets your standards  and is electable.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 9:49pm

    Really, what is amazing about Obama's conversion story? You're too easily impressed.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 12:19am

    You are too cynical. Once Obama voiced his opinion, the NAACP followed suit. Polling indicated a shift away from opposing Gay Rights in the black community. It was a tectonic shift. Conservative black preachers were caught off guard and left behind.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 7:48am

    Hiding behind lgbtq beliefs shields people from religion. There's more than 1 perspective.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 9:53pm

    There are multiple perspectives, for sure. That one isn't a winner. But you already know that.

     


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 11:55pm

    Hey, leaving Thailand now where 20 years ago the norm was stages full of naked girls swaying to the music, and now a lot have closed down because tastes have gone more family and mainstream. Perspectives change. The girls I've known who had 3+ abortions weren't terribly thrilled about it, whether "nothing wrong with it" - I'll give them the last word, and I don't think they were repentant catholics or fundamentalist baptists.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 12:09am

    Tastes huh? You've got to be kidding.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 12:26am

    I'm of the opinion that advocating for any time for any reason abortion policy hurts the the fight for abortion access in the first and second trimester. That's why I'm challenging you.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 9:57pm

    Okay. We disagree about that. My central point is that anything short of a full throated "it's none of your damn business" hurts the movement. I think "safe, legal and rare" are among the worst offenders. We've seen nothing but a back slide since then. But as importantly, that thinking stigmatizes abortion. There is nothing wrong with having an abortion. Ever. No apologies.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 11:56pm

    "It's none of your damn business" might sound good in the moment but would only be a starting point in the discussion. You would then have to defend unrestricted third trimester abortion on demand. That's the discussion you've been avoiding because even you know it's totally indefensible.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 12:38am

    I haven't avoided that at all. From up thread to you:

    I'm perfectly aware of how complicated this debate gets the further a woman's pregnancy advances. Again, none of our business. Between a woman and her Healthcare providers. Full stop. 

     


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 12:58am

    In reply to Kyle Flynn above:

    Catholics are taught and believe God believes abortions are wrong. They consider it impossible for them personally  to think abortions are not wrong. They could  decide that even though God thinks abortions are  wrong they are going to have one , or assist some one else in having one. They can't think abortions  are not wrong because they think that's God's  decision and they are not God.

    Possibly they might  believe that although God would believe them to be wrong to have an abortion themselves he would not consider them to be wrong if they  abstain from preventing  some other  person from  having one.

    I guess that's Kaine's position .

    If we don't tolerate that  we are deciding not to permit him to be fully an American. That would be undesirable for too many reasons to discuss here.. 

    If Kaine said that -as well as  opposing abortion he believed that he should act to prevent others from having one- that would be a serious objection to his nomination. He should be  asked.

    He'll  have an answer. You don't spend a year  assisting the Jesuits in Central America without being forced to think through that.Much more so than e.g. Bill Clinton

    Based on my assumption as to his position I believe that those like you, and me, who believe abortion is purely the woman's decision are more secure  with someone like Kaine as the VP than with someone who had given it less thought.

     

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Sun, 07/24/2016 - 8:07pm

    Having worked in Reproductive Medicine/IVF for many years. I can tell you pregnancy tests are positive:  i.e.: sperm met egg, and pregnancy tests were positive and eventually, sadly, often fail.  

    Is that an abortion?

    Pregnancies continue, and sometimes fail.  

    Is that an abortion?

    Sometimes the sperm and egg meet and develop in the Fallopian tube. It is a life-threatening situation, requiring either medications to end that pregnancy, or sometimes surgery.

    Is that an abortion?

    I guess my point is that this is not as simple as your post labels it to be.  I once saw an embryos heart-beat in a Fallopian tube while the other embryo (where it was supposed to be) with no heart-beat.  At this level of development these are cellular, and we need to be realistic about the difference between these cellular creations and living people.

    edited for clarity

     


    by CVille Dem on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 10:30am

    Whoa. There are plenty of beliefs out there that we don't need to tolerate. You've lost me with the permitting him to be an American. Not sure what you mean. Hell, I don't even object to him being the VP nominee. Just wondering why Democrats tolerate this particular framing. I don't think they would if it applied to LGBTQ policy. And I think tacking on "rare" to the end of safe and legal is a big part of it.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 12:09am

    I again am not female, but my impression is that most females find getting pregnant pretty serious whether they carry it to term or not, and that if they're not going to, they'd much prefer it didn't happen - I.e. "rare". There's a whole lot of historical issue with unwanted pregnancies and the traps they place on women, and I doubt that concern is disappearing even without the fetus-protection laws et al. The American populace is not very receptive to an abortion-a-week attitude.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 12:22am

    Depends on what the definition of is is. Rare because it would be simple to reduce abortions if a, b and c, or rare because, c'mon, it's abhorrent. But you already know this.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 12:31am

    If anyone ever bothered to read a full Hillary quote, she said because it's typically a tragic decision. That sense of tragic may change over time, but even with (often withheld) medical abortion it's still often unsettling.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 4:23am

    It was Bill Clinton who made the phrase famous. I've heard Hillary Clinton say it too, with and without qualifiers. My central point is that that framing has been harmful in that it stigmatizes abortion.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 4:49am

    Abortion is stigmatized. That phrase sounds human.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 7:26am

     Let's stipulate that successful societies  tolerate  a broad range of individual  beliefs. That seems to work. 

    Not all beliefs, we can think of exceptions. But we make an  effort to go pretty far.

    To tell someone that she can't be President because she worships a particular God, or none, makes her less than a full member of the  society. Less than a full American. 

    We  square this circle imo by saying that each of us can worship our own God pretty much as we see fit provided we impose  as little as possible on everyone else.  

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 2:44am

    Pretty sure I agree. Entirely.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 07/25/2016 - 4:02am