Deacon Dan Wright

Obama Upholds Bush Faith-Based Policy

Here's an interesting story that I found this morning.  I'm going to reserve longer comments on it for later since I'm basically posting as I'm running out the door for work.  I'll be back later tonight to follow up--or perhaps add something different.

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington -- It seemed like a firm campaign promise. Barack Obama pledged to continue President Bush's faith-based office in the White House, but with a key change: Groups receiving federal money would no longer be allowed to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.

On Thursday, however, as President Obama disclosed the details of his faith-based program, he left the controversial Bush policy in place.

The decision angered Democrats and civil libertarians who thought Obama had agreed with their view that Bush's 2002 executive order went too far.

"Based on what he said, we thought the issue had been resolved," said Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Va.).

"You'll have to ask them why they think it's all right to discriminate," Scott said. He added that administration officials are "either offended by the idea of discrimination, or they're not."

But Thursday's announcement surprised and pleased some religious leaders, particularly religious conservatives, who had a strong ally in Bush and had been pressing the Democratic president to revoke his earlier promise.

"I'm very excited about this," said Frank Page, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of more than two dozen religious leaders named Thursday to a new White House council that will advise Obama on faith-based issues. "I know he was struggling with this particular issue. But this will allow religious groups to be true to themselves."

Obama announced that White House officials might seek guidance from the Justice Department if questions arise about the legality of potential grant recipients.

In essence, the executive order, which did not specifically mention discrimination, gives the White House the option to review a specific grant for legal reasons but does not overturn Bush's broader policy.

Administration officials rejected the notion that Obama was backtracking on a campaign promise.

A White House spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, said the new executive order "strengthens the constitutional and legal footing" of the faith-based office. She said the order "doesn't resolve all issues at the outset, but it does provide a mechanism to address difficult legal issues."

 

Read the whole story here.

Politics, the SSPX, and the Catholic League

While I've been closely following the story of the lifting of the excommunication of the SSPX bishops, especially in regard to Richard Williamson's comments regarding the Holocaust, I've been withholding my comments--all along it has seemed rather clear to me that Williamson's position on the holocaust had nothing to do with the action taken by the Pope.  I thought the row would die out soon.

However the story is alive and well and it's not just the press that's getting into it.  I wasn't sure what to think at first when I read that 47 Catholic Democratic members of the US Congress had written a letter to the Pope to voice their opposition. 

Certainly it was arrogant of them to do so, but keeping in mind Jewish-Catholic relations I understand how the lifting of an excommunication from a known Holocaust denier looks.  Nevertheless, it's pretty much an internal affair and can be easily explained to anyone with open ears.  I think our Catholic Democrat congress members acted in haste at least--and again, it was undoubtedly arrogant of them to assume they know better than the Pope regarding an internal Church matter.

But now comes the Catholic League with the perfect logic to discredit the letter writing Catholic Democrats.  After all, their position on abortion has everything to do with the why these folks in congress wrote to the Pope in the first place, right?

NEW YORK, N.Y. (Catholic League) - On January 29, nearly 50 Catholic Democratic congressmen sent a letter to Pope Benedict XVI stating their concerns over Bishop Richard Williamson’s comments questioning the historical record on the Holocaust. The bishop belongs to the St. Pius X Society, a group which recently had its excommunication lifted by the pope. The congressmen implored the pope to denounce the bishop’s views.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke to this issue today:

“The congressmen’s letter to the pope smacks of posturing and hypocrisy, and is factually wrong. They begin by saying ‘we are writing to express our deep concerns with your decision to reinstate Bishop Richard Williamson to communion with the Catholic Church….’ The fact is that the pope did not reinstate the bishop to communion with the Church—he merely lifted the excommunication of the group to which he belongs. In order for the group to be fully reinstated, it would have to express its fidelity to the teachings of the Church, as well as the norms of Vatican II. In other words, the letter is based on a false predicate.

“Facts aside, this kind of posturing is a disgrace: for American congressmen to lecture the pope about an event in which he was personally victimized, and about which he has long condemned, is nothing short of arrogant.

“The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. They beg the pope to ‘publicly state your unequivocal position on this matter so that it is clear where the Church stands….’ How ironic that most of these very same Catholics fail to speak with clarity about what the Church teaches on abortion. Of the 47 signatories, the majority have a 100 percent NARAL score (meaning they vote with the radical pro-abortion group on every issue). The leader of this group, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, never agrees with the Catholic Church on abortion—her NARAL score is 100 percent.

Source

Sorry, besides a glaring logical fallacy, I can't help but see partisan politics at work in Donohue's statement.  Not everything is about abortion, even less what 47 arrogant members of congress have to say to the Pope about something they don't even understand.

Indeed we do know how Democrats in congress vote on abortion, and indeed we should voice our opposition in that regard, but their voting record on abortion in itself does not discredit every statement they make, regardless of how inaccurate or misinformed--or even true perchance--it may be.

I fear that an observer from the outside might come to have the opinion that the Catholic religion is one aligned with a political party, and that its chief concern has mostly to do with one issue.

FOCA No Threat to Catholic Health Care

After a late night of routine work around the house, my comments will have to be brief.  However, the story speaks for itself and I will be back later for follow up.

Internet rumors to the contrary, no Catholic hospital in the United States is in danger of closing because of the Freedom of Choice Act.

As a matter of fact, the Freedom of Choice Act died with the 110th Congress and, a week after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, has not been reintroduced.

But that hasn't kept misleading e-mails from flying around the Internet, warning of the dire consequences if Obama signs FOCA into law and promoting a "FOCA novena" in the days leading up to Inauguration Day.

The Catholic Health Association "is strongly committed to opposing FOCA and (the board) is unanimous that we would do all we could to oppose it," said Bishop Robert N. Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., an elected member of the CHA board of trustees since June 2006.

"But there is no plan to shut down any hospital if it passes," he added in a Jan. 26 telephone interview. "There's no sense of ominous danger threatening health care institutions."

Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who is CHA president and CEO, was equally sure that FOCA poses no threat to Catholic hospitals or to the conscience rights of those who work there.

"I don't believe that FOCA will pass, although we will continue to monitor all proposed regulations for their potential to help people in this country and for any negative assault on the life issues," she said.

As introduced in previous congresses, the legislation "has never contained anything that would force Catholic hospitals or Catholic personnel to do abortions or to participate in them," she added.

But even in a worst-case scenario, if the most dire predictions were to materialize and a federal law were to mandate that all hospitals provide abortion services, "I want to make it very clear that Catholic health care will not close and we will not compromise our principles," Sister Carol told Catholic News Service Jan. 26.

If necessary, Catholic hospitals will take a lesson from "how people have dealt with unjust laws" in American history, "and we would respond in the same way," she said.

"A very timely example" of that is segregation, which was backed up by U.S. laws and Supreme Court decisions that were unjust, Sister Carol said. "It was a very long and very painful journey to deal with that and now we have an African-American president," she added.

Some of the confusion over FOCA might arise from the fact that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops launched a long-scheduled postcard campaign to Congress against the possible legislation just as the false Internet rumors were reaching a peak.

The postcards, which are being made available for Catholics to sign at Masses over several weekends in January and February, ask members of Congress to oppose FOCA "or any similar measure, and retain laws against federal funding and promotion of abortion."

"At this time of serious national challenges, Americans should unite to serve the good of all, born and unborn," the postcards say.

Read the entire story here.

Indeed, one of the concerns that I recently heard voiced was that if FOCA were to be enacted Catholic hospitals would have to shut down.  However, I had also heard from a good source that FOCA would only affect government entities but not hospitals, and because of existing contracts even public hospitals run by the Church would not be affected.  However, this is probably up for debate...

Expanded Role of Religion Under Obama

I was at work yesterday when I checked the news at lunch and noticed the article I'm blogging today.  It had just been released and I recognized immediately that it was good blog material--I would have put it on right away if that had been possible.  I thought the story made an important observation, one that went along well with what I mentioned in yesterday's post--that the role of religion was noticeably pronounced at the presidential inauguration.  It also reminded me of what I had said in my January 12 post, Faith and Politics on the Right.

After decades of ceding God to the GOP, at least in the public square, Democrats – with President Obama in the lead – are speaking with a fuller religious voice. The watchword? Inclusiveness.

It's a voice that signals openness at a time when diversity in American religious life is rising.

"We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers," Mr. Obama said in Tuesday's inaugural address.

Wednesday's National Prayer Service, a tradition since George Washington's inauguration, featured faith leaders chosen "to symbolize America's traditions of religious tolerance and freedom," said the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee. It included, for the first time, a sermon delivered by a woman.

For Obama, the broad outreach into the faith community isn't confined to ceremonies but is emerging as a key element in his approach to coalition-building, say religious leaders who worked on the transition.

"Barack Obama is himself a person of faith, but he also believes that the faith community has a real role to play in creating the kind of social change we need now," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, a network of Christian social activists.

Indeed, religious groups have been broadly advising the Obama transition team on issues ranging from poverty to criminal justice to foreign policy. "To move from a consuming, polluting, poverty-creating economy to one that conserves, is a good steward of the environment, and focuses on bringing people out of poverty, that's more than a structural crisis, it's a spiritual one," says Mr. Wallis.

Obama's predisposition to stake a big tent that includes a broad range of faith traditions has been evident early.

Continue reading

It's important to bear in mind that religious inclusiveness doesn't equate with pluralism in the sense that all things are equal.  It's quite possible and even commendable to have an inclusive attitude toward the faith expressions of others.  In fact such an attitude is the backbone of ecumenical dialogue.  Our being inclusive of others beliefs and values does not suggest that we adopt their beliefs as our own, but that we approach one another with the recognition that although we differ we should show tolerance and respect toward one another even when our differences cause us to disagree sharply.

The article goes on to quote Stephen Prothero, a religion professor at Boston University who says, "there's a possibility that Democrats are going to end up being more religious than Republicans."  I believe that such a statement holds some merit when we consider the overall religious makeup of the United States and the real possibility that the administration will promote an inclusive expression of faith. 

Often within particular expressions of faith we have a tendency to be inward looking--not always being aware of the vast variety of faith expressions or their values, which often differ from ours.  However, as I learned years ago in interfaith work--and by studying with Protestants--there's a big segment of society that considers itself to be strongly religious and that does not identify with evangelicalism or the religious right.  Nor do they identify with the values of Catholicism, which is perhaps less surprising.  

I recall how I felt when I first learned that one of the major denominations in my state has a pro-choice statement, while also claiming in the same statement to remain essentially anti-abortion. Of course for Catholics and evangelicals this is difficult to understand.  However, while we may rightly disagree with such beliefs and statements they still remain as part of the plural expression of the American religious tapestry--an expression with which I can easily see democrats being comfortable. 

Again, being inclusive of other faiths in no way means that we must adopt morally unacceptable positions.  Rather I tend more to think of true inclusivity as also having to do with the unwavering celebration of our particular religious identity, doctine, and values.  A truly inclusive environment demands a respectful attitude and tolerance for each faith expression, and it acts as a safeguard against persecution, ignornace, and prejudice.

Over time it will be interesting to observe how much of the attention to religion was merely part of the inaugural pageantry, and how much will carry over into the administration's long-term identity.

Pope Offers New President Blessing

I realize that it comes as something of an afterthought to blog this on the day following the presidential inauguration.  However, it's important that we must continually follow the Holy Father's example and uphold our leaders in prayer.

Pope Benedict XVI gave Barack Obama his blessing and prayed for his "unfailing wisdom and strength" in a telegram sent Tuesday before the U.S. presidential inauguration.

Benedict urged Obama to remember the "the poor, the outcast and those who have no voice" and to stick to his pledge to work for peace.

"I offer cordial good wishes, together with the assurance of my prayers that Almighty God will grant you unfailing wisdom and strength in the exercise of your high responsibilities," the telegram said.

The text was made public a few hours before Obama was to be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States.

"Under your leadership, may the American people continue to find in their impressive religious and political heritage the spiritual values and ethical principles needed to cooperate in the building of a truly just and free society," the pope told Obama.

Continue

As I watched the inauguration with my high school class yesterday, I recognized a deep spiritual presence, not only in the prayers and in the mention of God in President Obama's address, but in the visible expressions on individual faces--it was an awe inspiring event!

Though we may find that as Catholics we have several points to disagree with in regard to the new president's policy, we should uphold him in our prayers and ask that the Almighty move upon him.  Indeed America does have an impressive religious and political heritage, and the Obama presidency connects us in a real way to the spiritual struggle of a people and nation torn apart in civil war a century and a half ago, as well as all that followed.  The cry of the world is still for freedom.  When we seek God the meaning of that cry and the appropriate response to it will become apparent.

Here I am Lord

As I sat down last night to compose what was to be a short blog post for today there were several things that were on my mind.  Certainly I was feeling appreciative to have another day off this weekend, and I considered that too often I take days off for granted. 

Many years ago, before I was married, and before I was a deacon and a teacher, the kinds of jobs I had typically involved physical labor of one kind or another.  It seems that having an extra day to rest had more value then, though don't get me wrong I still value it greatly.  It's just now that it has a different character--this day off gives more of an opportunity to reflect.

Also as I was thinking about today's post I was considering the readings from Sunday.  Perhaps it's the sign of having heard a successful homily when the readings have the power to impress something on us that we can carry through the week.  Undoubtedly I heard a good homily, but the readings by themselves also have the power to do this all on their own when we listen and when we learn to allow what we hear become part of who we are.

As I listened to the priest talk about the importance of hearing the call--and not just for vocations to the priesthood or religious life alone, though that is an important part of it--I thought about the person that Americans and others throughout the world celebrate today.  That is, I thought about Martin Luther King Jr. and the call he heard to address the great injustices of his world.  It's something that we as Catholics should relate to well because our social justice teachings demand that we too stand up for the causes of justice and take the side of those who are least powerful in this world. Surely Martin Luther King Jr. heard such a call, and he acted with determination in its regard.

It becomes more and more apparent with each passing day that the times we live in demand strong action on our part.  Many of the things that Martin Luther King Jr. struggled against still make their presence felt in our world.  In addition we live in times that demand both action and prayer if humanity is to survive, and ironically it is humanity that poses the greatest threat to its own existence.

Hearing the call of the Lord, and answering "Here I am," means that we must put all of our intellect and resources together to effectively address the complex issues we face.  I believe wholeheartedly that the Christian faith still possesses the ability to continue to be a force that shapes the world.  Our faith can still satisfy the souls of the spiritually hungry as well as those who hunger physically.  We still possess the ability to show the love of God to the world.  By no means is our respect for the sacred nature of God's creation and the human person ineffectual, rather it is a necessity.

Indeed we stand on the brink of a new era, which on the eve of President Obama's inauguration we may see more clearly than at other times.  While the Obama presidency symbolizes the fulfillment, at least in part, of King's dream that humanity would stand together without regard to race, this new era is yet to be an era of great challenge, not only in terms of how we regard others but to what lengths we are willing to go to in order to preserve humanity and our world. Indeed the times demand a spirit of cooperation, but for us as Christians they demand that our evangelization must express and precipitate the sheer power of the God who is love to reach into the world and to transform it utterly into something new and full of goodness.

As I take the day off from my work as a teacher I reflect on the call--no simple matter really--and how I might answer it better.  In reflecting on how in my own life I can say "Here I am Lord," I am reflecting also on how I can join with you to bring about a kingdom of peace where we will no longer destroy the handiwork of God.

Thoughts on the ACLU Suit

Part of me understands that the ACLU is just doing what they do.  However, with the current suit it is painfully obvious that a deep rift exists in our nation in regard to the involvement of religion in the public sphere and in defining the rights of human beings. 

BOSTON (Reuters) - A U.S. civil liberties group sued the federal government Monday, charging it violated the Constitution by contracting a Roman Catholic entity to help victims of human trafficking.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was imposing its beliefs on victims of human trafficking by not allowing federal grant money to be used for contraception or abortion.

When the bishops applied for the contracts, they said they would not work with subcontractors who provided abortion services or contraceptives, such as condoms, which conflict with Catholic teachings, according to the ACLU.

The suit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston said the Department of Health and Human Services violated the separation of church and state by giving the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops $6 million in grants from 2006 through 2008.

Many women victims of human trafficking are forced to work as prostitutes, and face a high risk of assault and rape, the ACLU said in court papers.

The Department of Health and Human Services permitted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops "to impose its own religiously based substantive restrictions on the use of grant funds," the ACLU argued.

The suit asks the court to stop the department from allowing its grants being spent in a way that is restricted by religious beliefs.

Continue

However, there is a great deal going on in the ACLU suit that the press isn't sharing yet, and it's going to be interesting--vitally important--to see what outcomes emerge and exactly what the particular facts and implications are.

Why I wanted to comment on this story is twofold, and it's something on which I could write about at length but I've decided to keep it brief because I'm not overly familiar with what all is involved in the suit.  It would take more than a blog post to get at every question and concern to which such a story brings about.  

One reason for my comments has to do with the role of religion in public life.  I have a strong intuition that we're going to see more cases like this.  It's part of the spirit of our times that the role of religion--especially Christianity--in the public sphere is being challenged more and more.  The outcome of such cases as the current suit will be especially important in defining that role.

My second reason for commenting has to do with my interest in the question of how we define and determine the rights of all human beings.  We clearly live in a world where political ideology determines the dominant view of what the rights of a human being are.  Certainly we as Catholics have a responsibility to guard or protect human life as well as to see to the common good of all.

While I believe that it is appropriate to accept the restrictions that the separation of Church and state impose upon us in the US (if nothing else to protect the freedom of belief), at the same time I see a great challenge to educate and inform the world of the true rights of all human beings, which by no means should ever include the right to terminate human life.

The story brings to light not only the question of the public role of religion, but shows that when religion is rejected it's most strongly held values are often rejected along with it.

Faith and Politics on the Right

While I was searching Sunday night for newsworthy material to consider in today's post I saw that Google News had picked up piece from GetReligion.org, one of the blogs I link to here.  GetReligion's piece was a commentary on a story regarding the death of Fr. Neuhaus, which was featured in the God & Country blog at U.S. News & World Report. 

… Neuhaus’s death … reminds us that Catholics remain the brains of a conservative movement built on evangelical brawn. This played out during the Bush years in Supreme Court nominations. John Roberts, Bush’s first Supreme Court appointment, was embraced by conservative evangelicals, largely because his Catholicism assured them that he was a pro-lifer at heart, despite his thin judicial record.

Bush’s second nomination, Harriet Miers, was initially backed by evangelicals because of her evangelical Christian faith, but nearly every other constituency on the right, including many conservative Catholics, rejected her as an intellectual lightweight. Many conservative Catholics were appalled at the way conservative evangelical leaders like Focus on the Family’s James Dobson appeared to rely on her faith background as the sole basis for their support. The moment threw a light on the split between the social conservative movement’s Catholic head and evangelical heart.

The writer at GetReligion asks, "So, basically, Catholics are smart and evangelicals are, well, not as smart. Is that the point?"  He goes on to point out that in his estimation Reformed Protestants and evangelicals appear to be spending more time getting acquainted with their ancient roots in Catholic thought.

Undeniably conservative commentators like Fr. Neuhaus and the recently deceased Deacon Paul Weyrich have provided the religious right with a tone of intellect as opposed the raw passion of evangelical heart.  However, from the viewpoint of one watching news as it habitually combines faith with politics, it seems that the right is too often the only point of view given any weight in considering matters politically moral importance.

If Reformed Protestants are spending more time getting better acquainted with their roots in natural theology and Catholic thought, and I believe they are, it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that their intellectual efforts will land them on the right politically--in fact, my experience has often been that the opposite is true, especially among mainline Protestants.  However, I will allow that evangelicalism--if taken to be more or less synonymous with Christian fundamentalism--can be a predictor one's inclination to identify faith with the causes of the religious right.  Unarguably we saw this in the last election.

While political causes over the past 40 years or better have brought about a unique relationship between Catholics and evangelical Protestants, I don't particularly see evangelicals outside of academic circles considering that they hold much in common with Catholicism other than with the politics of Catholics on the right.  This brings me my point, namely, that political persuasion, either left or right, cannot be taken as the litmus test of faith when considered in the context of the public sphere.  Nor can faith (in the sense of sect) be taken as necessarily identifying one's political temperament.

Perhaps it was the historical intellectual heritage of Catholicism in general that rejected the economic liberalism of the neoconservative movement, or perhaps that rejected the current situation of involvement in an unjustifiable war.  Too often I have seen Catholics and evangelicals who, on a simplistic level, allow the politics of the right to define the shape of their faith.  A true intellectual climate in dialogue between Catholics and evangelicals will be such that politics will play only a minor role because in reality politics--even something as clearly and undeniably important as the politics of abortion--cannot be the sole source of our self-identity.

Perhaps in the sphere of the politics of the religious right certain Catholics have taken a decisively intellectual role while evangelicals have been the foot soldiers.  However, with the challenges of the coming era we stand to learn something important, especially in creating a culture of life that demands an end to abortion, armed conflict, and a fundamental option for the poor: we must transcend identifying our moral values with our political orientation.  Both evangelical Protestants and Catholics must come together at a level deeper and more meaningful than mere political ideology.

Bishop Aymond Receives Campus Ministry Award

It looks like congratulations are in order for Austin's Bishop Aymond.  I noticed the story as soon as it appeared on the local Google News feed last night, but I decided I'd schedule it for this morning.  This is from the Austin American Statesman:

The Catholic Campus Ministry Association presented Bishop Gregory M. Aymond with the 2008 Exemplary Bishop Award. Aymond, who heads the 25-county Catholic Diocese of Austin, was recognized for his outstanding leadership in campus ministry at the local, regional and national levels. Aymond recently completed a capital campaign that committed $2 million to the campus ministries at the University of Texas, Texas State University, Baylor University and Texas A&M University.

On How to Vote

I started this post as a response to a comment on my previous posting of last Sunday's homily. However, I try to keep my own comments from going on too long without placing any restrictions on how much readers are allowed to say. When it started looking long I decided that I might as well make it a post for tonight, seeing as how I'm a day overdue if you're looking for me to post daily (more or less). So with a little cutting and pasting and adding more on, here's what I have for you.

A reader writes:

For a Catholic in good standing to support politicians such as Obama and especially Biden and Pelosi flies in the face of what the Bishops have told us in documents such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

For me it flies in the face of what the Faithful Citizenship document tells us if we attempt to tell people who to vote for or how to vote (party-wise)—to allow someone to do our thinking for us goes against the Faithful Citizenship concept of forming one's own conscience in such matters. The fact is that we have to engage all the issues—and it isn't easy in the least.

Personally, I'm used to weighing the pros and cons of things and making comparisons. I tend to analyze with a critical eye toward just about everything. Also typically, when it comes to politics, I'll list what I support and what I oppose in the candidates and then ask myself how much I'm willing to work to change what is morally unacceptable in the candidate whom I choose to support—so it also includes a question of quantity. Will it be one issue only or two dozen issues that I'm going to be morally liable to do something about after I cast my vote?

When it comes to voting, keep in mind that the bishops tell us, "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position." (My italics for clarity)

I would never say who I'm going to vote for here or from any other public forum—to do so would go against my role as a deacon and would be taken as my offering public support for a candidate--essentially, I would be telling you who to vote for—something that I cannot do nor desire to do. However, if you asked me privately--and in person--who I like I'd have no problem telling you. I'd also probably tell you exactly what I don't like about the candidate as well.

You see it's one thing for me as a deacon to say who I support (publicly) and another for you as a private citizen to do it (especially given that you are basically anonymous here); however, both of us—clergy and laity—need to avoid saying "You can't vote for so-and-so because it's wrong." A well formed conscience tells us that we, as individuals in dialogue with the issues, must make such decisions for ourselves and, if we want to be moral about it, we need to consider all the issues and what we plan to do in addition to voting.

In summary, I do indeed plan to vote—you can bet on it, and I think that everyone ought to vote this time. There's a lot at stake when you look at the big, multi-issued, world of woe. There's something else that's true as well. My candidate of choice (as is true with yours) will support something that there's no way I could ever support in any possible universe. I'm going to vote for him anyway because I've looked at the issues; I've formed my conscience; I prayed about it, and I know that I'll be obligated to work to change what I cannot accept in the candidate for whom I will cast my vote. The bottom line is that support/opposition isn't so much what you do at the polling place as it is what you do afterward.

Click here for resources.