Loyal Disrespect

"There are not many things which move me to anything like a personal contempt. I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification. I do not feel any contempt for a Bolshevist, who is a man driven to the same negative simplification by a revolt against very positive wrongs. But there is one type of person for whom I feel what I can only call contempt. And that is the popular propagandist of what he or she absurdly describes as Birth-Control...a child is the very sign and sacrament of personal freedom." (G.K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows)

I have thought rather long and deeply about this, before daring to put it into words. What I am saying in this post may come as a bit of a shock to some who read it, because in some sense it represents a bit of a "flip-flop" from a former position which I can no longer hold in honesty and integrity.

We often hear the phrase "My country, right or wrong," or "even if I didn't vote for him, he's my president," or other such non-statements. As Chesterton tells us, the man who says "My country, right or wrong," is saying as much as the man who says "My mother, drunk or sober." Of such silliness is the remark, "I respect the office, not the man."

Really? And, exactly how do you do that? For example, peering back in time, how would you advise a German citizen -- who happens to be Jewish--to respect the office of Fuhrer, but not the man; Hitler? Should he give the straight-arm salute? Should he be faithful in wearing his Star-of-David arm band? Please, tell me, how should he do this "respect the office" dance? I confess, that I no longer believe in such advice, and I will no longer give it.

I respect Responsible Leadership; but when the Fuhrer, or the President do not exercise Responsible Leadership, then I -- as a loyal citizen-- will not respect them; not even through the veneer of their office.

Now to my point. Barack Obama is pro-death. He is vigorously anti-life. His appointment of so-called "pro-choice Catholics" to a myriad of administration positions, and his appointment of "Catholic collaborators" to several others is a cynical attack on the Truths held and taught by the Holy Catholic Church. He believes in, and will fight to the death for a "fundamental right to abortion." That being the case, I don't care at all what his policies are on war, hunger, education, capital punishment, or anything else. I don't believe that he can be trusted on the key issue of the "fundamental right to life," therefore I believe he would lie and mislead with regard to any and all other issues. He is what he is, and I cannot trust him; I will not.

I am tired of this whole "work together on the issues we agree on" approach. Somehow, I have this idea stuck in my head that abortion really IS child-killing; that every abortion really DOES end in homicide. So, how--in God's Name--do I agree, for even a moment, to set that "issue" aside, and work on "other issues on which we agree?" To do that, means to set aside the child-killing "issue," WHILE IT CONTINUES TO GO ON, so we can talk about "other things." Someone tell me, please, which children who will be killed (while we talk about other things) are so expendable?

Would we sit down with a serial killer, setting aside the fact that he's going to continue killing, and work together on other issues we agree on? Would we sit down with a habitual rapist, setting aside the fact that he's going to continue raping, and talk about areas where we can cooperate? Would we sit down with Hitler, setting aside the holocaust, and talk about the value of a disciplined military? Does anyone get it?

Somehow, I cannot imagine a Knight giving respect to a nave who slays children--nor to a "lord" who orders or condones such slaying. In fact, we would expect the Knight to defend the defenseless.

I cannot respect both Life, and the forces aligned against it. And I will no longer pretend to do so.