October 28, 2005
Last Night
I attended the Human Life Foundation’s ‘Defender of Life’ dinner last night in NYC. They honored Nat Hentoff, a writer for the Village Voice that I have been reading since I was in my teens.
There were some really amazing people in the audience. I saw Father Rutler, a priest so funny he makes me want to be a Catholic (but don’t get any ideas, Peter). I worked on an event for his church, the Church of Our Savior, last year and every time I spoke to him he’d make me giggle. There was a contingency of pro-life Democrats in the audience and Father Rutler acknowledged them with a ‘I don’t mind people being Democrats, as long as they don’t practice.’ I saw a man wearing a button that said ‘47% of Democrats can’t be wrong’ (I can’t really argue with that since the implication is that the majority of Democrats are wrong, which they obviously always are) and when I asked to take a picture of it, he took it off and gave it to me. He’s part of a NY chapter of Democrats for Life, based in Long Beach, NY.
I also ran into my friend Joe Skelly. I have written about him before, and he was featured in National Review’s The Corner when he won a bronze star for his bravery in Iraq. Check out some of his writing here. When I asked him ‘how’s it going over there’, he smiled big and said ‘we’re winning.’ And, you know, I trust Mr. Joe Skelly more than any media that had wanted us to lose since the beginning.
Nat Hentoff was introduced by this amazing speaker, Wesley Smith. His introduction was fiery and passionate and I look forward to reading his writing.
Nat Hentoff considers himself a Jewish, libertarian, atheist, leftwing pro-lifer. I love that. I’m a big fan of challenging the idea of identity and Nat Hentoff never backs down from what he believes is right. I met a nun in the bathroom who said she used to be a pro-choice feminist. Clearly, she was able to challenge that identity for herself.
I’ve been thinking lately that I don’t really understand political ‘sides’. Like, the general position of liberals will be pro-choice, for higher taxes and a larger government and supportive of a foreign policy that is big on talking and opposed to weapons build-up while the conservative position will be pro-life, lower taxes, smaller government and a strong defense. But what do any of these things have to do with each other? How does your position on abortion, or really any life or death decisions including euthanasia or the death penalty, affect how you will feel about taxes or defense? How does wanting a strong defense tie into how you feel about gay marriage?
As I’ve written before, I see parties as a means to vote for most of the issues that matter most to you. No party will fit you 100%, it’s just not possible. So, it’s important to know what matters to you, and how it fits in with the available parties and candidates. I’m not going to turn this into another post about being realistic about politics and expecting perfection, just that being at this event last night was such a good reminder that there are people who care deeply about issues and are outside of partisanship and the left-right divide. It was encouraging.
The Human Life Foundation is one that could really use your support so if you are pro-life and donate to groups that promote life, think about throwing them a donation.
Technorati Tags: The+Human+Life+Foundation Father+Rutler Wesley+Smith Joe+Skelly Democrats+For+Life Nat+Hentoff
‘I don’t mind people being Democrats, as long as they don’t practice.’
hahahahahahahahaha! What a witty translation of the you can be gay if you don't ly with another man. From a priest no less! He must be in the "majority" that doesn't molest alter boys.
How does that sentance go, "first they came for the ____ and I didn't speak because I wasn't a ____"
It's sad that such a hatemongering group can exist in this sweet smelling city.
Posted by: toby at October 28, 2005 12:24 PMNo comprende. How is that hatemongering? And how is anyone 'coming' for anyone? And, obviously that was the joke.
Posted by: Karol at October 28, 2005 12:29 PMAll jokes are half truths.. Bridging this one into other areas beyond gays is sad to see. Its roots is a joke based on a truly disgusting stance on homosexuality. It's that whole totally bs love the sinner hate the sin thing which is just a cop out of hating the sinner in the first place.
Posted by: toby at October 28, 2005 12:38 PMNice to see Joe safe. I wish him God speed.
Posted by: Von Bek at October 28, 2005 12:46 PMThis is so hard for me to understand: why do you care what people think of you or what they consider a sin or not? Christians think I’m going to hell because I haven’t accepted Jesus but do I care? Of course not! I don’t even believe in hell (or heaven or afterlife or anything like that). Why does it anger you that they think you’re committing sin as long as you're sure you're not?
And, c’mon, what he said was funny and he was sort of poking fun at the idea of loving the sinner and hating the sin.
I'm with Karol on this one - there's nothing inherently BS about the Christian view that everyone should be loved so long as the belief is sincerely held (and not just used as a cover-up). Without knowing more about the guy, is it fair to jump to the conclusion that he's hatemongering?
Posted by: Alceste at October 28, 2005 01:00 PMI think that your statement regarding the flow of a common ideal throughout a political ideology grows more relevant by the day with the ever increasing "moral" driven voters.
The Christian right used to be the Southern Democrat right. If you want a larger government dictating a moral standard, than shouldn't you be voting for big government? If you want your government telling you that you may not have an abortion, you should be in favor of your government deciding how much your company is allowed to import and export, and how low your pants are allowed to sag (do you remember that one? Tell me how THAT is a "right-wing" value), and how many calories there are in a Big Mac.
On the other hand, if you want smaller government with less interference in our daily lives, shouldn't you also want to make your own decisions about what to watch on TV or listen to on the radio? Less government interference means I should be able to open a bar and, if I choose, allow people to smoke cigarettes in it while they are drinking; And it also means that my tax dollars should not be used to run a multi-million dollar campaign to bring the Olympics to a city that (statistically) doesn't want it.
Does this mean that we are going to need to branch our current political parties? Possibly have a party focused on moral values? The Director of Government Affairs for the Nat'l Assoc of Evangelicals just recently made statements about strides towards protecting the environment, which is not classically a republican value, (http://www.livingonearth.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05-P13-00042&segmentID=2) and would create some serious “corporate compliance” problems if it gets to be a big issue with republicans. Clearly, the libertarian contingent needs to bolster it's base and look at their contention in the next elections, because the way that Bush is running things at the moment is not up to par if you ask a lot of us.
By the way-- I read your blog often. I didn't realize that you were pro-life, but that doesn't change the fact that I enjoy reading you.
What a witty translation of the you can be gay if you don't ly with another man.
Adverbial relations are a sin in the eyes of G-d.
Posted by: Shawn at October 29, 2005 01:44 AMThe item that is most important to me is that I don't go to prison or get executed for having sex.
Since the Republican part officially favors imprisoning me for having sex, I have to be careful about what Republicans I vote for.
It's just not important to Karol if her gay friends are put in jail though for being gay. Cause you know - it doesn't affect her.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at October 29, 2005 03:10 PMAnd this post has to do with that how?
Posted by: Karol at October 29, 2005 09:14 PMBecause you always mention how that issue is just not important to you.
Funny - you never mention that about any other subject.
Posted by: Downtown Lad at October 30, 2005 12:37 AMAgain, what does it have to do with this post on a pro-life event?
Posted by: Karol at October 30, 2005 12:45 AMIf you want your government telling you that you may not have an abortion, you should be in favor of your government deciding how much your company is allowed to import and export, and how low your pants are allowed to sag (do you remember that one? Tell me how THAT is a "right-wing" value), and how many calories there are in a Big Mac.
One of the legitimate tasks of a government is preventing other governments from violating your rights. A government is an organization that claims to have legal authority over its subjects. Since pregnant women in the United States have the legal power of life and death over their unborn children, they are governments and it is legitimate for another government to interfere with them.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at October 30, 2005 01:58 AMAgain, what does it have to do with this post on a pro-life event?
Ego stroking on DL's part. Unless, of course, there is evidence online that the GOP is in fact rounding up gays and marching them into prisons around the country.
Posted by: Shawn at October 30, 2005 05:22 PM
