An aggressive assault on virtue 4

by • Politics

assault on virtueBy Tom Quiner

Virtue is in the news, and people are outraged. As we wrote on Tuesday, Attorney Bill Barr gave a sweeping speech at Notre Dame University on religion and virtue and their role in the American “experiment.” Barr described the Founders’ vision for our republic:

“They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of the American people.”

What could outrage so many about that? Barr said virtue depends on religion:

“Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.”

And there’s the rub: God. God defines virtue, not man. Says Barr:

“From the nature of things we can, through reason… discern standards of right and wrong that exist independent of human will.”

The response was intense

Said Paul Krugman of the New York Times:

“God Is now Trump’s co-conspirator.” [Barr] sounds remarkably like America’s most unhinged religious zealots” [who commit] “mass murder because schools teach the theory of evolution.”

Mary Papenfuss of the Huffington Post made a fuss about Barr’s Catholicism:

“The speech revealed how deeply the top lawman in the nation is tied to his Catholicism. [He] ‘lashed’ a recent New Jersey law requiring LGBTQ curriculum in public schools to support civil rights.”

Joan Walsh of the Nation fretted that:

“William Barr Is neck deep in extremist Catholic institutions” like the Knights of Columbus, whom she characterizes as “a fraternal order of Catholic men” and “a patriarchal cosplay group.” (Cosplay means they wear costumes, which must make them bad, unless, of course, they were to dress up as women.)

Over at the New Yorker, Jeffrey Tobin raged that Barr is out to get those who desire to act on their same-sex attractions:

“The real beleaguered minorities here are gay people who are simply trying to be treated like everyone else, but Barr twists this story into one about oppression of believers.”

This is a good time for you to conduct a Google search on who has been targeted by lawsuits the most, Christian florists and cake shops, or our friends with same-sex attractions.

Virtue is indispensable to democracy

Ultimately, Barr invoked the American belief that virtue is indispensable to democracy. And what are the virtues?

The theological virtues are faith, hope, and charity. Faith in God is certainly reviled, as William Barr’s critics revealed.

Charity has certainly fallen out of favor if one defines it as the voluntary giving of financial assistance out of one’s own pocket. Today’s political and cultural critics suggest government-backed coercion in the form of higher taxation as the most proper form of charity.

And these same critics believe hope is found in the perfectibility of mankind under the watchful eye of a large, central government, not God.

The Cardinal Virtues

The four cardinal virtues don’t fare any better. The virtue of prudence seems antiquated to modern culture. Prudence is about having the wisdom to discipline our lives on matters of money, power, sex, and other gifts God provides.

Human abortion dishonors this virtue with its lack of discipline toward our bodies, and a rejection of God’s beautiful gift of life.

The virtue of temperance is all about using self-restraint in our lifestyles. St. Thomas Aquinas says temperance is a “disposition of the mind which binds the passions,” such as one’s sexual appetites.

Human abortion dishonors this virtue with its lack of self-restraint on sexual matters and unwillingness to take responsibility for the consequences of these actions.

The virtue of fortitude is all about confronting our fear, uncertainty and intimidation we face in our lives.

Human abortion dishonors this virtue in the face of a crisis pregnancy by succumbing to fear, uncertainty, and even intimidation from family members pressing for abortion.

The virtue of justice calls on us to promote the common good by respecting the rights of our neighbors.

Human abortion dishonors this virtue by disrespecting the rights of the unique human being in the womb.

The ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ are thriving

As the assault on virtue builds in intensity, the seven deadly sins seem to be coming into their own.

Pride is in, whether it is gay pride or “shout your abortion!”

Avarice is in as politicians vow to take seize assets from those who earned it and redistribute it to those who didn’t.

Envy is in as resentment has become the foundation of entire political movements.

Gluttony is in, as 39.8% or Americans are obese, and another 31.8% are overweight.

Sloth is highly prized as politicians call for a Green New Deal which includes “economic security for those who don’t want to work.”

Lust is everywhere: on our phones, our laptops, and our tablets as porn’s tentacles spread.

And anger abounds. Breathless outrage is the norm, as William Barr discovered in the media response to his speech, noted above. Anger is especially acute toward those who stand up for our unborn brothers and sisters in the womb, as the Covington Kids discovered at last year’s March for Life.

How to save our republic

If virtue is essential to democracy, and if moral values flow from God, what must we do to save our republic? It takes education.

As William Barr asserts:

“We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor.

The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.

If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education – and more generally religiously-affiliated schools – it is today.

I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic education at all levels.”

Iowans for LIFE is already engaged in this mission. We stand up for our unborn brothers and sisters in the public square day by day, week by week, year by year.

What can you do? Support us financially. Without money, our pro-life message is silenced.

[William Barr’s speech is worth listening to in its entirety, complete with his ad libs. You can watch it below.]

 [Tom Quiner is president of Iowans for LIFE’s board of directors.]

abortion politics

The oddity of abortion politics 4

by • Politics

By Tom Quiner

This election cycle is producing increasingly odd and disturbing abortion politics. The most recent Democratic debate gave us a glimpse at the breathtaking pace Democrats are pulling away from the ‘moderate’ positions staked about by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Let’s review abortion politics in a rapid fire Q & A format:

When does life begin?

QUESTION: Do Americans think it is important to understand ‘when life begins’ when determining public policy on abortion rights?

ANSWER: Yes, according to 82% of surveyed Americans. And 93% believe “a human’s life is worthy of legal protection once it begins.”

QUESTION: So who do voters think are most qualified to tell them when human life begins? Biologists, philosophers, religious leaders, Supreme Court Justices, or other voters?

ANSWER: Biologists, according to 80% of poll recipients. (Get research detail here.)

QUESTION: When do biologists say human life begins?

ANSWER: In an interview of 5337 biologists, 96% said human life begins at fertilization.

QUESTION: That’s pretty slanted toward the pro life side. What is the profile of these biologists?

ANSWER:  87% identify as liberal; 92% as Democrats; 85% as pro-choice; and 63% as non-religious. So these biologists responded to the question based on their scientific knowledge, not their personal opinions on the subject of abortion.

The key abortion question is …

QUESTION: So this leads to an obvious question for Tuesday’s Democratic debate: “Would you support any restriction on abortion procedures, and, if so, what would it be?”

ANSWER: None of the reporters asked this question, nor has it been asked at any of the previous debates.

QUESTION: Did they ignore the abortion subject?

ANSWER: No. Rather, they asked leading questions, such as what they’d do as president to prevent states from limiting abortion early in pregnancy, or whether they’d be open to packing the Supreme Court to “protect reproductive rights,” the suggestion being that, of course, limiting reproductive rights is unacceptable.

QUESTION: So how did these candidates respond?

Radical responses

ANSWER: As president, Kamala Harris says she would simply block state laws through a scheme she calls “pre-clearance.” In other words, if a state law, in her view, seemed to contradict Roe V Wade, her Justice Department would simply snuff out it out, states rights be damned. Her rationale:

“While we still have . . . state legislators who are outdated and out of touch, mostly men who are telling women what to do with their bodies, then there needs to be accountability and consequence.”

QUESTION: Doesn’t the Supreme Court allow states to regulate abortion at a certain point?

ANSWER: Yes. The Roe decision said:

[The state] “has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.”

Roe limited human abortion to the first trimester, so Ms. Harris’ response is ironic. Every other Democratic presidential candidate (except Tulsi Gabbard) demands abortion rights for the full nine months of a woman’s pregnancy.

QUESTION: So what is Tulsi Gabbard’s position on abortion?

ANSWER: “I support codifying Roe v. Wade while making sure that, during the third trimester, abortion is not an option unless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk.”

Her position is still out of step with the rest of the country, most of whom want human abortion limited to the first three months of a pregnancy at most.

Candidates are out of step with rank and file Democrats

QUESTION: So how do rank and file Democrats view abortion policy?

ANSWER: According to a Marist poll in January, they are far more centrist than their candidates: 61% want substantial restrictions on human abortion:

29% want abortion restricted to the first three months of a pregnancy.

19% only want abortion used in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

9% only want it used if it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

4% of Democrats believe it should never be permitted under any circumstances.

Abortion politics have reached a fever pitch of oddity when candidates stake out radical positions at odds with their prime constituents’ views.

SUMMARY: Since human life begins at fertilization, according to 96% of Biologists surveyed, each abortion kills a unique human being.

Honest reporters should probe pro-abortion candidates with this type of information. In this climate of radical abortion politics on the Left, voters trust scientists more than reporters or politicians who have made radical flip-flops on this foundational issue.

[Tom Quiner is president of Iowans for LIFE’s board of directors. You can read more of his blogposts at www.IowansForLIFE.org.]