Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Today on Kresta in the Afternoon - February 28, 2012

Talking about the "things that matter most" on Feb. 28

4:00 – Issues for Catholic Voters: 2012 Edition
Pope John Paul II and, more recently, Pope Benedict XVI and the United States bishops have called on Catholics to renew their participation in American political life. That participation means, above all, taking the moral and social principles of the Catholic Faith into the voting booth. With the help of "Issues for Catholic Voters: 2012 Edition," Catholics can affirm that their participation in the political process is not an imposition of their faith on others but rather a service to the common good that is shared equally by all human persons. Catholics will come to understand the difference between principle and prudential judgment, as well as why some issues are more important in political thinking than others—dispelling the myth, for example, that caring about the protection of unborn life makes one a “single-issue” voter. Authors Deal Hudson and Matt Smith are with us.

5:00 – Kresta Commets - HHS Mandate Heads Back to Congress / Jesus, Lord of Politics


  1. Early in the interview with Deal Hudson, Al tried to impress us with what he thought would be a profound statement. Deal Hudson said that everybody, not just people of faith, brings their moral values to the political table. That's when Al felt the urge to show off.

    Al said:
    "So the charge of trying to impose values is -- in some ways, that's too big a charge. Since it applies to everybody, it applies to nobody."

    Al is saying that if some principle applies to everybody, then it gets so diluted that it applies to nobody. How silly. The fifth commandment ("thou shalt not murder") apples to everybody. To then conclude that it applies to nobody is just plain stupid.

    1. Mauman, I think you've missed the point.

      If a room full of convicted murderers has a debate, it is rather foolish for one of them to stand and try to disqualify another's participation in the discussion based on the fact that the other has murdered someone.

      This is what some portion of what supposedly non-values voters do. They rail against values voters trying to impose them on others. That point of view is only possible for someone who doesn't value anything... which is exactly no one.

      Al's point that the charge is too large, because it gathers up those who are making the charge in the first place. Even if it's not profound enough for you, it is still spot on.

    2. Freddy,

      Let me see if I understand you. I think you are saying that it is hypocritical of secular voters to complain that values voters are imposing their morals on society because, as Deal Hudson said, everybody brings their moral values to the political table. Am I right? Is that what you are saying?

      I agree with Deal that everybody brings their moral values to the political table. But a libertarian minded person will allow some activities to be legal that a values voter would make illegal. For example: prostitution, smoking dope, assisted suicide. These behaviors involve individual free choice and do not directly harm others; no coercion or fraud is involved.

      Libertarians want government to be smaller in scope than what evangelicals desire. Therefore, I think libertarians are justified in saying that values voters want to impose their morals on everyone else.

      But I don't see how any of this relates to what Al said. Maybe I just don't understand what you wrote. Could you word it more simply? Explain, in a simple way, Al's assertion that since the charge of trying to impose moral values applies to everybody, it applies to nobody.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.