April 24, 2007
Brownback Embraces and Defends Catholicism at Boston College Debate with Dodd
Senator Brownback was awesome in last night’s debate with Sen. Dodd at Boston College. Like I have noted before, the Catholic vote is an extremely important voting bloc in America politics, especially in close elections like we have seen recently.
I personally believe Brownback truly embodies what it means to be a Catholic politican. Brownback is not afraid to defend Catholic doctrine nor does he stray away from its teachings like most politicians do; in fact, he embraces it. But what really puts Senator Brownback a cut above the rest is that he never comes across as trying to be “morally superior” to others, and always remains positive when talking about and applying his faith. He is a frequent user of the word “love,” which is rare in politics. While I think Senator Santorum was a great senator with a great voting record, I think many were turned off by his overall negative demeanor when it came to contentious social or faith issues.
Many also complain that conservative Catholic politicians tend to compassionately fight for the unborn, but don’t show much compassion to those who are born. The same can’t be said about Brownback, who fights for all humanity — whether it is a child in the womb, a man suffering from AIDS in Africa, a homeless person on the streets of DC, or victims of genocide in Darfur. One of my friends, who once worked as Brownback’s Senate driver, told me a story of how Brownback told him to drop him off at a DC homeless shelter. When he asked when he should pick the Senator up, Brownback said “in the morning.” He’s been known to do things like that. He is not afraid to truly practice what he believes.
With all the hype the media puts around religion and politics, and as the majority of politicians denouce their religion or say it doesn’t affect them in any way, its refreshing to see a major politican embracing his religion and letting it humbly effect his public policy decisions in the most positive way possible.
Anyway, here are some highlights from the debate:
Presidential contenders Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback, stepping beyond the traditional bounds of their respective parties, outlined a series of political differences Monday rooted in their varying interpretations of their shared Catholic faith.
The two, appearing jointly at a Boston College forum on faith and politics, differed on abortion rights, civil unions for gay couples and embryonic stem cell research. Nonetheless, they used modest tones to suggest both Democrats and Republicans could bridge such gaps with more tolerance for their respective positions.
On Iraq:
In a moment of agreement, both Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, and Brownback, a Kansas Republican, urged President Bush to work with Congress to devise a solution that will meet his demand for continued funding of U.S. troops in Iraq while promoting a diplomatic solution to quell insurgent violence and reduce the military death toll.
Brownback revealed he told Vice President Dick Cheney last week, during a White House meeting the senator requested, that the administration should consider a “three-state, one-country” solution in which Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis live independently but under the banner of a federal city in Baghdad.
The senator said his proposal, which he said he also shared with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, was met with no reaction from either man.
“I’m frustrated that both parties have gotten to more in the way of fighting than trying to figure out what we can do,” Brownback said afterward during an interview with The Associated Press.
On converting to Catholicism:
At another point, the senator said he switched from being an evangelical Christian to a member of the Roman Catholic Church four years ago because of the latter faith’s rich tradition.
“I love the depth of thought that’s there,” said Brownback, who was raised a Methodist. “Coming from the Protestant tradition, you don’t build as much on past people’s comments, with saints, and going into the Catholic church, you’ve got people thinking about something for 2,000 years, and it’s a great source of wisdom, and maybe I can appreciate it better than many who have been raised in the Catholic Church.”
More on Iraq:
The session’s moderator, Tim Russert, host of the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” prompted the discussion of Iraq by asking each senator if he felt the war there was just.
Dodd, who like Brownback voted in 2002 to authorize military action in the nation, said he now felt the war was wrong and the justifications “fabricated.”
Brownback said: “You make the call on what information and facts you have at the time, and I don’t think it’s fair to the troops on the ground to second-guess it four years later with the information you have at this point in time.”
On gay marriage and homosexuality:
While the two similarly agreed that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman - not gay couples - they differed in talking about their views on homosexuality.
Dodd, the father of two young girls, said, “I think it’s a good question to ask how you would like your children treated.”
Brownback, however, called homosexual acts immoral - as has the Catholic church - and said sanctioning them threatens the stability of traditional marriage.
“The issue is when you take away the sacredness or the uniqueness of marriage and you start redefining it, a lot of people just say, `Well, the institution doesn’t have the meaning to me,”‘ the senator said. “And you now see northern European countries where you have 80 percent of your first-born children born out of wedlock. You’re driving down the number of children in a stable family setting.”
C-SPAN taped this debate and will be airing it, and I’ll certainly let everyone know when it will be on.
Right: Senator Brownback talks with Boston College Law Student Danielle Huntley, who is the Co-Chair of Students for Brownback.
http://race42008.com/2007/04/24/brownback-embraces-and-defends-catholicism-at-boston-college-debate-with-dodd/trackback/
April 24th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Can we have a caption contest for that last photo? Please?
April 24th, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] post by Billy Valentine and software by Elliott [...]
April 24th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Haha sounds good. It will give me something to think about during my next boring class.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:01 am
I agree with Billy though I am not catholtic I think the pro-life community has to embrace Sam Brownback’s idea of being pro-life for the whole life. That is not just the child in the womb but the child in darfur and the homeless man on the street. If we just focus on the child in the womb we will be accused of being hyporcrits that we don’t care for the poor,etc.
Kudos to Brownback for being such a strong pro-life candidate he deserves a looking at from pro-life voters.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Nice to hear that Brownback is finding common cause with the Democrats on Iraq. For a little compare and contrast, here’s Romney’s take on the defeatist attitudes so prevalent in the Senate:
April 24th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Interesting Billy Valentine, I’ll admit that don’t know much about Brownback at all. I find it heartening about his support for those “not in the womb”. What is his stand on daycare assistance and family support? One of my biggest complaints about the Pro-Life crowd is their interest in protecting the unborn but wanting to cut out all assistance once the child is born, decrying the “welfare” state.
I’m actually pretty impressed, not that I will be able to overlook my liberal views easily. That’s why Rudy is, so far, the only Republican I will vote for.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
“One of my biggest complaints about the Pro-Life crowd is their interest in protecting the unborn but wanting to cut out all assistance once the child is born, decrying the “welfare” state.”
To quote the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are *LIFE* Liberty and the *PURSUIT of HAPPINESS*.”
Casey,
I believe this applies to all men (any color, any age, born & unborn). To abort your seed denies will deny your seed LIFE and the pursuit of happiness.
All MEN (again that is any color, any age, born & unborn in my view) are entitled to the pursuit of happiness. This should not be interpreted as all men are entitled to a free three ethnic meals a day just for having mass and consuming oxygen. Most Republicans (myself included) support welfare for the very needy. To say that Republicans don’t simply is not true. Please back up this statement here:
“…wanting to cut out all assistance..”
Republicans abhor the waste, abuse, and corruptions that is sometimes associated with welfare and other government programs.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
What I can’t understand is why liberals are willing to give more rights to Chickens than their own seed:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E7D7173DF934A35754C0A9659C8B63&sec=travel
Does that make sense?
April 24th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
As a member of the “Pro-Life crowd” I would take issue with the assertion that Pro-Lifers don’t want to support children once born. Most collegiate Pro-Life groups, including those I was involved in both in undergrad and law school, work very hard to raise funds and provide support for young women in crisis pregnancies well aafter birth. Such support includes housing, parenting classes, clothing, monetary support, counseling, babysitting, car seats, high chairs, strollers, etc. just to name a few. These efforts are certainly representative of the efforts of Pro-LIfers around the nation.
In fact, your assertion reminds me of an episode in law school where a liberal student group took to putting a flier under every Pro-Life flier stating “Compassion does not end at birth”, clearly implying the same - that we cared less for born babies. I spoke with the leaders of that group and we organized a co-sponsored activity between 5 student groups to raise funds and have a coat drive for families in such situations. We wanted to buy the needed winter clothing for young children, toys for parents who could not afford Christmas presents (there was a fair amount of poverty in the area), etc. In the end, however, the ONLY group of the 5 co-sponsors to not give ANY money was the very same liberal group who had put up the fliers stating “Compassion does not end at birth.” The vast majority of the volunteers also came from the Pro-Life student group.
Besides counseling alternatives to abortion, as abortuaries refuse to do, (and have even lobbied against laws requiring abortion centers to counsel women as to ALL their options before making an uninformed “choice”, likely because it’d be bad business), Pro-Life counseling pregnancy centers also work hard to provide every type of support to women after birth.
Many people may want to work hard to provide such support despite not supporting government involvement via welfare programs. Reasonable minds differ on the best way(s) to help people rise out of poverty. Some welfare programs, such as Clinton’s earned income tax credit as a prime example, arguably hurt the very people they are meant to benefit. The marginal tax rate for those receiving the benefits is so high, sometimes astronomically so, that they have a higher marginal tax rate than millionaires. Those in poverty who have to risk losing the benefits of welfare programs on which they are made to rely if they work more hours are induced into remaining in poverty by the programs. The phase-out of benefits per extra dollar earned is too steep. Never mind that the taxes that pay for many welfare programs, such as even social security and medicare, are collected at a higher percentage rate from lower class and middle class Americans, thereby necessitating the need for those very programs. I remember speaking once with a janitor who broke down in tears as she talked about how she discovered that because of her job, she didn’t qualify for the same programs as her unemployed neighbor. The harder she worked at her jobs, the worse her family came out for it due to the programs. The programs created an artificial ceiling through which she could not break out of poverty.
Some programs, and the “safety net” theory, are good, and I would support them. But the devil is truly in the details. I believe Brownback understands this. Also, if liberals are so concerned with compassion for struggling poor families, why would they oppose taking provisions out of the tax code that are discriminatory towards married couples. I know Brownback has reflected the “Compassion after birth” theme by opposing marriage penalties in the tax code.