A few responses to a few responses to my post below that asked what the hell is wrong with Republican Catholics (some of these responses were eaten during this week's Blogger.com flu):
1. That a candidate may not agree that waterboarding is torture is irrelevant to the question of whether he supports torture. If anything, that he supports torture without realizing it is grounds for rejecting a candidate as too muddle-headed for the job.
2. And yes, the Church has not officially taught that waterboarding is torture. But I'm not stating that waterboarding is torture because it's Catholic doctrine. I'm stating it because it's true.
3. My issue here is not with politicians. My issue here is with Roman Catholics who enthusiastically endorse politicians who advocate grave evil. If Catholics didn't vote for these politicians, they wouldn't be politicians anymore, they'd be cable news pundits. As Anita Moore says in a comment below:
We're not going to get candidates who don't advocate grave evil until we repent, convert and otherwise straighten up.
4. The proportionality argument -- that the other party's grave evils are much more grave and evil than our party's -- is a complete nonstarter.
Let me retype that, since the proportionality argument ("70% Less Evil Than The Other Leading Brand!") is a popular one:
Whether torture is a less important issue than abortion is completely irrelevant today.
Today is May 14, 2011. The general election for U.S. President is a year and a half away. The ballots have not yet been printed. There is no choice to be made today between a candidate who supports torture and a candidate who supports abortion.
Again: There is no choice to be made today between a candidate who supports torture and a candidate who supports abortion.
The choice to be made today is whether I am satisfied with choosing between a candidate who supports torture and a candidate who supports abortion.