Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS

















































































« Genesis 1: A Cosmogenesis? | by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki | Main | Benedict XVI on St. Germanus of Constantinople, defender of holy images »

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7c369e201157059ee54970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pres. Obama responds to Glendon's decision:

Comments

g

Carl, MSN is owned by GE which has gotten a ton of $$ from the O Administration. Its not possible for their bias not to show.

Evan

"I recall that when then-candidate Obama, while in a debate with Sen. McCain, was asked by Rick Warren at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama famously said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.” So he won't actually take part in the debate, but he'll happily go to Notre Dame and receive the honorary law degree, etc."


A law degree, you say? Not a degree in science or theology?

LJ

Well done Evan. That hair was a particularly fine one and so far from the issue that splitting it must have required great precision.

Joe

Of course from a devil's standpoint, this is why Fr. Jenkin's move was so good: once posed, the question itself lowers the bar of the debate. Obama is a good man, regardless of what position he takes, as long as he is true to his conscience.

The real scandal is why a man like Jenkons is allowed to continue making poor decisions for a premier Church school.

Evan

Well done Evan. That hair was a particularly fine one and so far from the issue that splitting it must have required great precision.

Oh, come off it. I'm opposed to Obama's recognition as well, and I've praised Glendon's decision in other venues and against strong opposition from others, even though I haven't really jumped into the ND issue here on the Ignatius blog.

But we've got to split hairs... we simply have to. Constructive responses could have involved the necessary natural basis of just law and Obama's failure to work within such a framework, or some other critique the cuts pro-choice policy off at its knees. The whole basis of Obama's original point to Warren was that he recognizes various modes of inquiry as distinct and his pro-choice policy stance responds to legal rather than biological or theological questions. You're not going to preach effectively to anyone but the choir if you mash all of that together and assume that your opponent is, or should be, on the same page.

Splitting hairs or not, I'm not simply being contrarian. Obama's whole point is that legal work requires certain responses where biological and theological considerations are not universally recognized. You can't begin to make a dent in this argument until you open your eyes to realize that it's there, and then respond appropriately.

There, I've said my piece. But do, go on assuming you know where I land on all of these issues because I offer some dispute here and there. That'll do wonders for the collective penchant for critical thought, I'm sure.

Carl E. Olson

A law degree, you say? Not a degree in science or theology?

Yes, a law degree. After all, Obama is a lawyer/politician who has been actively involved in all sorts of legislation and activities having to do with abortion. Surely he must, at some point, had to consider central theological and philosophical questions about the the beginning of human life, even if he himself is not trained as a theologian or philosopher. (And if he hasn't, what does that say about him as a thinker? A moral leader?) If, in fact, having a law degree has nothing to do with making theological or philosophical distinctions and judgment, why was "Roe v. Wade" so shot through with metaphysical and philosophical assumptions and judgments? Obama's statement was indeed clever, but it also exposed the emptiness of his position and the crass utilitarianism of his staunch support of abortion and "choice," and his willingness to conveniently categorize matters so that he can escape proper moral responsibility for his various political and public actions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Blog powered by Typepad