The Vatican has reportedly rejected at least three of President Obama’s candidates for the position of U.S. ambassador to the Holy See because they support abortion. It appears that the representatives of the United States must agree with the policies of Pope Benedict XVI.
I am not aware of this particular requirement for other nations like China, Russia, or countries with which we have major disputes. However, it creates a particularly difficult position for the White House since ambassadors are supposed to reflect the views of the President, who happens to be extremely pro-choice.
This could be particularly awkward when Mr. Obama attends a summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in Italy in July if there is no ambassador. However, does this mean that other nations like Saudi Arabia could bar an ambassador who opposes Sharia law? Conversely, does our ambassador to Israel have to support the position of that country on Jerusalem or Gaza? The general assumption is that our ambassadors are meant to represent the views of the American (and not the host) nation.
The story leaked by an Italian journalist will now put Obama in a position of (1) leaving the post ope, (2) conspicuously selecting someone without a stated position on the subject, or (3) using a pro-life litmus test for the selection of our next ambassador.
For the full story, click here.
Gyges:
in my mind, I believe that we have a mixed economy for many reasons, regulations, the tax structure, etc. One major reason is the Federal Reserve, they have artificially created boom and bust periods through their manipulation of the money supply and interest rates.
So those are a few of the differences. As a first step toward getting on the road to long term economic prosperity, I think we have to rein in the Fed and eventually eliminate it.
Economics really comes down to individual action, I want a hamburger or a new car. In a free market system unencombered by government I can get a 1/4 pounder or a 1/2 pounder, I can have cheese or onion, toasted or with seaseme seeds. I can purchase a green machine or an SUV or a pickup or sedan, what ever color and style I want. I am free to choose, government intervention prevents this because they, and we have seen this in action, tailor economic policy to produce social outcomes.
This is what I still dont understand about liberals, most of them are tenacious in their respect for individual freedoms but when it comes to one of the most basic freedoms, control of their wallet they cave like a toddler given chocolate ice cream.
How can these 2 be mutually exclusive in their minds? I actually think you can help more people with capitalism because you will have much more money.
John,
Allow me to apologize, I figured you for a troll. Your further posts have proven otherwise. My remark however is still accurate, just not aimed exclusively at the Death Penalty discussion. Re-examine your rational for torture and you’ll find a clear case of placing society above the individual.
I get the feeling that like most fans of Rand you’ve read Atlas Shrugged and possible The Fountainhead and base your view of her philosophy on that. While those are two books that everyone should read (if for no other reason than their influence on modern thought), they are not the entirety of her philosophy.
Bron,
What’s the difference between True Capitalism and what we have now?
Mespo:
That is a fact VDOT and highway builders have a lot of clout. You would think that building roads and bridges is our only industry.
John Galt:
I also think that capitalism creates the greatest good for the greatest number. I wish the slave masters in DC could get it through their heads that socialism and capitalism are like laws of nature. Like gravity, when you drop a ball off of a roof it falls. The law of socialism is that it doesnt work no matter what time in history, no matter the country it fails. The thing that I cannot fathom though is why dont the politicians understand this? If I were a politician I would have the biggest welfare state around because I would release business from taxes and most regulations. We could take care of everybody that needed help and the others would have jobs. The possibilites are endless. These guys in congress cant figure it out, if you have a raging economy even with a low tax rate you still generate tremendous tax revenue. It seems axiomatic to me. I have read so many articles about different countries reducing tax rates and their economies taking off and tax revenues increasing. One article was about Hong Kong before the Chinese take over, they had reduced marginal tax rates and tax revenue shot through the roof. They looked at it and were seriously thinking about reducing the rate to under 5%, their extrapolations, based on what had just happened, indicated a non-linear relationship-i.e. a slight reduction in rate lead to larger tax revenues.
The other thing I like about true capitalism is that it does not allow wealth to concentrate because of the dynamism of the free market. You either evolve or you “die” and you have competition which lowers the price of everything. Most people dont believe this is what will happen, but take any localized (single industry) market where you have market forces and it works, down goes the price up goes the technology and innovation. I like to use lazik eye suregery as an example.
It is a shame that objectivists can be very dogmatic when it comes to their beliefs almost like Christians I have met, they try and talk themselves into their beliefs and go way overboard.
Mirroring Mespo’s invitation please stay around and post. And he is right you have got to have your facts straight, this crowd will have you for lunch otherwise.
john galt:
I’ve followed your comments and while I feel some are not grounded in fact or a tad naive, You have however been respectful of others for the most part. I guess the problem lies in your occasional thin-skin. Knowing the group here as I do, they do not question your intellect with their pithy remarks; they simply want facts to support your views, which seems reasonable to me. We enjoy many eclectic views on this blog and the quality of discourse if very high on most days. If forced to use labels, I would say we have some conservatives, some quasi-conservatives, liberals, and me, the skeptic in residence. Please continue to opine.
I am only going to address arguments relevant to THIS article. First of all, I would like to know how I am placing society above the individual? If you mean my death penalty stance, then I wold argue that I am placing the innocent individual— the victim— above a murderer.
Secondly, I said that the church has acknowledged room for debate on the death penalty NOT that they endorsed it.
Third, just because I believe abortion is wrong doesn’t mean I want to impose my will on anyone. In my view, as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother for viability, it is that woman’s choice to make using her God-given free will. She will have to answer for her choices.
Fourth, just because I am pro death penalty doesn’t mean I’m pro lynching. Are you people even serious????? I actually believe that there should be a higher standard of proof if the death penalty is sought, i.e.eyewitnesses, video recording, a confession supported by the evidence, etc. So, no, I don’t want to lynch people.
Lastly, (Buddha, Mike I’m looking at you), it is useless and immature to attack someone because a personal conception of a label that you think fits them based on a handful of internet posts.Yes, I adopted the John Galt moniker because I see socialism for the evil it is and believe that people who create wealth should benefit.So if you want to criticize me for that go right ahead. I think the world has heard enough Catholic bashing, and the nation has surely heard enough capitalism-bashing. I just think that out of respect our Vatican ambassador should not support what the Vatican regards as a grave moral evil. That would even put myself out of the running b/c of my own opinions.
P.S. Enemy of the State- It’s gone okay. As a former Economics major in college, I think there is a lot of wisdom in what Rand writes about the descent into socialism. I even agree with her view of evil in most circumstances. I just also believe in a God-given moral compass that happens to agree with those particular Randian views. As human beings, we will always be boxed in by scarcity. It is the creators of wealth who, if allowed to create freely, better the lot of the whole of mankind.
EnemyoftheState98:
I think McDonnell dons the mantle of whatever group gets him the most political mileage. He’s a “have ideology, will travel” kind of guy in my estimation, and a pretty mediocre lawyer judging by his work in the AG’s office. He packed it with the Regent crowd and their religion first mentality. I give him about a 45% chance of winning given the clout of the Falwell-Robertson crowd, but obviously I hope he lands hard and goes back to the pulpits that spawned him. I am for those values you espoused too, and I suppose Bob would be for them as well–if it is politically expedient. Don’t count on him to rein in your taxes if the big boys propping him up need some government contract work to tide them over.
bUDDHA:
what happened to the anti-conservative tailsman?
now that you mention it, I do believe it was you. Apologies for the lack of attribution, you know how us conservatives are, always trying to make a living off the backs of everyone else.
Well I think we here in Virginia are about to elect a W wanabe for governor and here in Fairfax in my state delegate district is some W’ette by the name of Barbara Comstock. Comstock, I think, is some rich young woman from McLean whose daddy or husband is probably well connected and is buying her the seat. Looks like same old same old for the Old Dominion. the Kate Obenshain wing of the party strikes again, Jerry Kilgore was the last disaster. What a load he was, he ran around the state wearing UVA colors. Tim Cain came off as an exemplar of manliness next to him during their time on stage together.
Mespo:
Whats your take on McDonald? Is he a W wannabe or a decent guy. I wrote his campaign asking if he was going to rape us like Bush did in September with TARP but all I got was a form letter in return so I will assume the answer is “yeah baby”.
You guys have ruined me as a republican, I still want low taxes, a strong defense, less regulations, rule of law, individual liberty, etc. but I now think that they have as much interest in those “radical” ideas as pigs have in flying.
Bron,
I think that was one of my posts. The cost of execution is indeed hugely disproportionate to the cost of lifetime incarceration. So disproportionate as to make me reconsider my stance on the death penalty.
Actually if you think about it the death penalty does reduce crime, one criminal at a time. At some point in the future assuming no other criminals are born or made, we will have violent crime licked.
I think someone on this blog said it takes about $7,000,000 to try a death penalty case vs. about $25,000/year assuming they spend 40 years in prison thats about $1,000,000 over the life of a prisoner vs. $7,000,000 over maybe 10 years. If we include the time value of money that $7,000,000 will be a staggering sum. Even if the sum to house and feed a prisoner were $50,000 it would still be a huge savings.
Johnny,
Your death penalty stance is yet another reason why you can’t be taken seriously. How can someone who doesn’t believe in government for most things trust it to get executions right? Could it be that you’re a lynching proponent? Perhaps though you’re just one of those smug people who believe that the crap they peddle can’t blow up in their own faces.
Oops
I can’t cook dinner and remember to proofread at the same time. sort of like Johnny’s logical processes.
Johnny,
You death penalty stance is yet another reason why you can’t be taken seriously. How can someone who doesn’t believe in government for most things trust it to get executions right? Could it be that you’re a lynching proponent? Perhaps though you’re just one of those smug people who believe that the crap they peddle can blow up in their own faces.
John Galt:
interesting, I knew a girl in college that was catholic and wanted to reconcile objectivism with religion. I was always fascinated by her desire.
There are certain similarities. How has it worked out? I personally dont think a belief in a creator is necessarily exclusionary if one’s philosophical outlook leans toward objectivism. I have started to notice that there are “some” “objectivists” that seem to have faith or at least are agnostic.
quite interesting.
John Galt:
“Abortion is believed to be the taking of an innocent life. Makes perfect sense to me.”
you believe in abortion, dont you?
“Supporters of the death penalty believe that taking an innocent life is wrong and should result in the forfeiture of the guilty partie’s life. Abortion is believed to be the taking of an innocent life. Makes perfect sense to me.”
Johnny,
Here’s the short version. My religion doesn’t believe that life begins until God’s breath animates the lungs. Other Christian faiths either believe the same, or at least don’t believe that life begins until birth. I neither mind nor care what your religion believes as long as it doesn’t impinge on my beliefs. Catholics have the free choice not to turn to abortion, end of story. They do not have the right to define it for others who don’t believe. Also the Catholic Church does not have a history of taking the high moral ground on most matters and there is little reason to accept their teachings for non-Catholics.
Catholics believe that taking communion is eating the blood and flesh of Jesus. To me eating blood and flesh is cannibalism. Catholics believe that their Gospel has abrogated the Jews position as “chosen.” Jews disagree and further feel impinged upon by the attempted theft and mis-translation of our Torah. Also a little thing like the Inquisition causes hard feelings, not to mention an entire history of persecution.
That’s all fine though because the past is past, however, you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on me, or anyone else. Remember God sees eating pork as an abomination.
If the Jewish view is adopted goodbye Easter and Christmas ham. As a supposed objectivist devotee doesn’t that make sense to you?
As you well know Ayn Rand was an atheist. Perhaps then your religiosity is subsumed by you greed, which is why given your muddled beliefs you have little right to lay strictures on others while you so imperfectly follow the path. Somehow I don’t remember Jesus believing greed was good, but then obviously your philosophy and piety are bendable in your own self interest.
Now to respond to your implications about my not answering you seriously, it was because you didn’t posit a serious point and you’re arrogant enough to appropriate a pseudonym that you have little right to. When you figure out just what you do believe, in a logical manner, than perhaps I’d take you seriously. Ron Paul, interesting man same problem, with a hint of insanity around the eyes.
Perhaps not a “Rand worshiper”, but the mask a man chooses says much about the man. Yours says “me, me, me” as do most of your comments. Just because you think torturing to save “your” life is acceptable when it most clearly is illegal, unethical and ineffective neither makes it right nor desirable. But I can tell you’re a “company man” by your defense of organizations over individuals and your proud Catholicism when your God of Choice is questioned. When one is willing to hurt another out of fear, one is hurting themselves by reducing their own humanity for a false sense of security. 1) Torture is crap for information gathering. 2) Security is an illusion as any man can be killed by a determined enough attacker. The fact is that you have a greater chance of being struck by lightening than being killed by a terrorist. So why is it okay to torture again? To “save lives”? To “defend the institutions”? Not only is that the same argument used by your beloved RCC’s Tomas de Torquemada, it’s pure bullshit. In addition to a total disregard for the lives of your fellow man that anyone elitist enough to pick that nick would naturally have to display, your stances on torture in other threads show you to be little more than a sadistic ego worshiping fool. You can put “rational” in front of the word “selfishness” but it does not change that in the end it is just selfish. That’s why Rand fails and why the RCC is becoming a joke – it’s outmoded and useless. It’s ego worship and out of control self-love and self-laudatory nonsense about your superiority. Sorry to break it to you John, but you’re not special, Rand isn’t special and the RCC isn’t special. Except in your own mind. Do you know what the easiest to replace segment of an ecosystem is? Apex predators. So why don’t all you Atlas wannabes all go shrug and see how well it works out for you. Everyone else will be just fine. Your lot however, the elitists, will be screwed.
The derision will get worse and more complicated the harder you fight to defend ethically untenable positions. You’re a B grade troll at best.
Mr. Galt, the distinction recognized by the Church deals only with situations involving self-defense or the necessity of stopping imminent aggressive actions. In that sense it is related to the just war doctrine and moral choices in the face of alternative evils. It does not recognize the death penalty as a moral act of retribution for particularly heinous crimes or as a morally acceptable instrument for deterrence. Retribution and deterrence are the values espoused by pro-death politicians. It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that politicians could justify the occasional lynching as necessary to prevent riots and preserve social order. I find it regretful, but true, that the position of the American bishops on withholding communion is laced through with hypocrisy on many levels. I find it additionally distressing because I believe that the bishops have allowed themselves to be influenced by false allies in the pro-life wars, conservative evangelicals who are fundamentally anti-Catholic and anti-intellectual.
John,
Then allow me to amend:
I’d just like to point out how funny it is that the only positions we’ve heard from with the pseudonym “John Galt” are things that Ayn Rand wrote strongly against (religion, placing society above the individual, etc.). SOMEBODY didn’t read their “cliff’s notes.”
I don’t need cliffnotes. I’m not a mindless sheep following the cult of Ayn Rand. I just adopted the moniker b/c I believe A LOT of her stuff is insightful and should be heeded. I am also a practicing Catholic. I’m sorry if I can’t fit into a neat label for your derision.
I’d just like to point out how funny it is to see someone with the pseudonym “John Galt” defending a religious institution. SOMEBODY didn’t read their “cliff’s notes”