I re-read “It Can’t Happen Here” this past summer. There are so many similarities in that 1936 novel to our present political climate, like the presidential candidate’s biography in Lewis’ novel, ‘Zero Hour’, akin to a ‘Mein Kampf’, or now to an ‘Audacity of Hope’. Or promising to give out government money to the needy (and the government will decide who’s needy). Or nationalizing certain elements of our capitalist system for the greater good. All in the name of Berzelius Windrip, –er, Barack Hussein Obama.

This Obama guy still scares the bejeezus out of me, and he’s done so ever since he started running for President. Now though, his ‘just words’ have far more serious impact on this Republic that I ever though would –or could– happen (here).

Nor is Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis exaggerating, I don’t think, in vowing that “any one of us would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow—to die tomorrow—to bring about the end of abortion.”

OK, now you have pretty much jumped the shark. When anyone talks about dying for some religious cause or belief I think Taliban.
jim_collins on November 29, 2008 at 12:43 AM

There’s a difference being willing to die for cause (the bishop) and killing others in the process (the Taliban). There are a lot of people who have sympathy with the first view, but more who revile the second.

Nor is Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis exaggerating, I don’t think, in vowing that “any one of us would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow—to die tomorrow—to bring about the end of abortion.”

OK, now you have pretty much jumped the shark. When anyone talks about dying for some religious cause or belief I think Taliban.

Melinda Henneberger looks at the threat the Freedom of Choice Act poses to Catholic health-care centers that want no part of abortion, and concludes that the legislation would probably strip them of their opt-out for conscience. ……

Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 7:52 AM

Outlander you’re wrong. The Catholic Church loses money on hospitals. It runs them as non-profit organizations. Many of the doctors who work there do so pro-bono. That’s one of the ways they’re so efficient. If you go to a Catholic hospital and can’t pay you don’t.

Not only will they shut them down they will not sell them to other hospitals so abortions can be performed after they’ve left.

In the mind of the Church this is a fight against Good and Evil and nothing else. If Obama wants a second-term killer, then he should go ahead and pass FOCA.

itsspideyman on November 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM

Yep. They are money losers and Obama would be an idiot to give the Church the excuse to shed these.

FOCA is so extreme it will hurt Obama with moderates.

If Obama is smart (actually the question is “Is Rahm E. smart” since he runs the show now) he will not pursue this since it will use up much political capital in a wasteful way similar to the whole Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco.

… as well as make fools out of pro-Obama Catholics like Douglas Kmiec.

Finally! Change I can believe in. /sarc

Money is a resource. I can invest it (where I am looking for a profit return), I can buy consumer goods with it (where I am looking for a utility return), or I can donate it to charity (where I am looking for a good will return). In all three cases, I am going to deploy the money to maximize my return — even if my return is different.
Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM

These hospitals operate at a loss only in capitalistic terms. There is no way many patients are going to be able to repay the hospital, so from a ledger point of view, the hospital is a money loser. “Loss” or “profit” implies that money is important in and of itself, and that the highest use of money is to make more money. Note how many people found fault with what you said. I think I understand better your meaning, which is that some charities are better than others because they apply more of their donations to their mission, but the words you used initially didn’t say that.

Of course, I think the Church has to use the brinksmanship and mean it. The Church has to be prepared to close hospitals rather than be forced to do something counter to the its teachings. And whatever happens to those hospitals afterward is moot. As I and others have pointed out, not only must the Church be reimbursed the true value of the seized assets, but the State will take upon itself an obligation which can do nothing other than raise taxes for its constituents, because those hospitals will no longer be receiving donations from Catholics like me (I assume that you have parted with the Church to the point where you no longer support its charitable missions) to cover their losses — and rather dramatic losses, since most Catholic hospitals operate “loss-leader” emergency rooms, the providers of choice for the penniless and homeless. I will donate instead to whatever replaces those hospitals (maybe small clinics whose thrust is specialties in line with Church teaching).

Living here in LA and having seen first-hand the King-Drew fiasco, I have no doubt where such government run hospitals will go in the end.

Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM

What mainline Christian groups are doing that…I grit my teeth when these blanket statements are made, without any facts…please enlighten us as to what groups are not “doing that”.

right2bright on November 26, 2008 at 12:13 PM

I have to make the assumption that you don’t know any, you just regurgitate what “faith haters” spew.
I even told you where to look, at Forbes, and you can’t come up with any.
So, I think this statement you made applies more to you.

R2B, think carefully before attacking people for having “ridiculous” posts.

Please think carefully before attacking institutions without having any facts.
If you do, it is a “ridiculous” post…

Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 12:27 PM

In regard to charitable organizations (not government).
I used to feel like that too but then I thought about what results were acceptable. Over time I began to accept that if only one life was saved or changed for the better it was a success. You know all things are personal just like all politics is local. At some point if the war is going badly the choice is surrender or fight on even in a losing battle. Drugs is a good example. Hardly a success is the fight against drugs but battle on we do for the few we can save. We do it because we care, we’re not concerned for the financial cost. In the end we may fail but we do it out of love.

You both assumed that profit was un-Christian and that a charitable contribution must be a “loss.”

Just wanted to say that, no, I don’t. In fact, quite the opposite (well, from a distinctly different point of view).

This isn’t about money, it is about doing good. But you illustrate the danger of looking ONLY at the bottom line. You aren’t going to find ministries in poor neighborhoods turning a profit. Money is a good measure of efficiency but little else.
darcee on November 26, 2008 at 11:37 AM

I have no quarrel with ministries that serve the poor and do not expect a Church mission to turn a pecuniary profit per se. But I expect results. If the mission is to reach out to poor youth, I want evidence that drugs and crime are going down and the youth are doing better in school. I used to work in the non-profit world and saw a lot of slop passed off as “good works” because people “looked happy” and “it’s so important that people are doing something for the needy/disadvantaged.” Most of it was in secular charities, to be honest, but I saw it in Christian charities too.

PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE

To: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other controlling legal authorities

Whereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen;

Whereas, there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims;

Whereas, Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery;

Whereas, lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed;

Whereas, Hawaii at the time of Obama’s birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii;

Whereas, concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections;

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

The above article appears on WorldNetDaily.

It’s hard to look at someone who is serving people and say “you aren’t doing a good enough job, so we’re cutting your funding.” But it’s what’s in the best interest of the poor and the best interest of the donors. And I think too often, Christian groups aren’t willing to do that.

Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM

What mainline Christian groups are doing that…I grit my teeth when these blanket statements are made, without any facts…please enlighten us as to what groups are not “doing that”.

I don’t see the tension. Can you point it out for me?

Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Yes, I did…you complain because they make money or you thought they did, and then when pointed out your post was wrong you switched gears (instead of admitting your error) and then claimed they were wrong for making money that the money could be used for other purposes.
You want it both ways…both ways diss the institution.
It just can’t be any plainer then that…

My point is a bit more narrow. I want charitable dollars to do the most good. I want my efforts to help the most people. And many non-profits, some Christian, some not, are extraordinarily inefficient. Other non-profits are more efficient. And by efficient, I mean good stewards of the charitable dollars and labor entrusted to their care.

It’s hard to look at someone who is serving people and say “you aren’t doing a good enough job, so we’re cutting your funding.” But it’s what’s in the best interest of the poor and the best interest of the donors. And I think too often, Christian groups aren’t willing to do that.

Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM

But what you seem to be missing is that the donors don’t give to see the most return on their money. They give to serve those who need the most.

This isn’t about money, it is about doing good. But you illustrate the danger of looking ONLY at the bottom line. You aren’t going to find ministries in poor neighborhoods turning a profit. Money is a good measure of efficiency but little else.

But there’s real money involved with the hospitals. The Church can’t walk away from that money. And if any diocese decided to shut down its hospitals, my guess is the diocese’s creditors would either put the diocese into involuntary bankruptcy or receivership and force the sale of the hospital for the benefit of creditors. (This goes double if the diocese happens to have a lot of priest abuse claims).
Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 7:52 AM

Outlander, everything is not about money. That is something some people do not understand. I am not Catholic, I am Baptist. I do have family who are Catholics though. There is a point, the belief in the loss of the eternal soul, that far outweighs “mammon” Mammon is a term that was used to describe riches, avarice, and worldly gain in Biblical literature.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Mark 8:36

You may not subscribe to these concepts but MANY people believe in the concept of eternal separation from God because of their actions during life.

Look, I don’t hate the Catholic Church. I stopped attending church or participating in the faith since the priest abuse scandal, but I generally respect the institution. And what I’m saying is that the brinksmanship is a bad idea for them because the Democrats will probably call them on it… And then, they either have to deep-six the hospitals (which, if they are a source of revenue for the benefit of creditors, isn’t going to work) or expose themselves for being hypocrits.

Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM

The Catholic hospitals don’t turn a profit. That’s why they’re the only hospital in the area. Anyone looking to establish a hospital to make a decent profit would have moved in were that the case. They subsist for the difference almost entirely on charity and philanthropy.

The Democrats, should they pursue this, should be called on it. Democrats as a party don’t seem to understand that their radicial ideology has actual consequences.

Not that I think it will matter, the ivory tower academic will simply blame a hospital closing due to government mandated abortions on those backward thinking Catholics. He will then settle back into his gated community, ignoring all the poor folk outside his door.

The Casey decision came very close to gutting Roe. The question with FOCA hinges on whether SCOTUS sees abortion as a fundamental right which in turn greatly affects how much it can be regulated. Also, some Justices will question whether the Feds are beyond their Commerce Clause powers.

dedalus on November 25, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Gutting – not so much.
Simply placing parameters, just as previous cases in the late 70′s -early 80′s resulted in the Hyde amendment the late 80′s – early 90′s saw further parameters with Webster & Rust. Casey just put in place further guidelines. I think Casey actually strengthens Roe as a fundamental right. The commerce clause? – You think that back door approach will work?

Really? Go read about some of the very difficult pregnancies and medical emergencies and come back when you have something intelligent to say.

jim m on November 26, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Most times when a therapeutic abortion is offered it is in the cases where the mother is undergoing treatment wherein the treatment may result in a miscarriage or severe deformity/retardation. True there are “difficult” pregnancies (pre-eclampsia) but fortunately there are also medical interventions that can allow women to continue with the pregnancy and their life.
The leading cause of maternal death, and a medical emergency, is a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. In this case the developing cells die, so a restriction on abortion has no effect on saving the woman. Can you provide a case for medically necessary theraputic abortion?

In this day & age the arguement of “to save the life of the mother” is frankly the last bastion for those who won’t simply say I support abortion rights.

If the Church is losing money on the hospitals, it shouldn’t be running them. It’s one thing to have a hospital with a balanced budget that relies on donations of money and labor to provide care to indigent patients. It’s another to run a business that’s losing money.
Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 9:09 AM

If you really believe this then all hospitals that provide indigent care would be closed. They lose money. Most, if not all, teaching hospitals lose money, you want to close them too? Indigents rarely present in the ER or clinic with one simple problem. They are usually in poor health, malnurished, can be chemically addicted, injured, infected, non-compliant, and even at times combative. Some present with difficult and rare diseases that require expensive or experimental treatments. Treatment for drug resistant TB is a great example. Caring for the poor is a money losing proposition, you should bless CC for doing it not curse them.

Outlander on November 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM

On this I must disagree with you. If Catholic Hospitals are forced to give abortions they will close. It is not an option for the Catholic hopitals to commit mortal sin and take life. Even if ordered by the government. Only war itself is the one exception to taking human life.