90 Comments

• Andrew007 | Jun 23, 2012, 02:41 AM EDT

  @BrianO, PART 2: You claim that in regards to poor inner city residents: “They have had their self reliance bought from them, their self respect, and initiative”, but fail to acknowledge that amidst their poverty and deprivation they had very little to begin with (apart from what little they gained from the (few) inner city church missions that existed), and whenever problems erupted from their crime-infested boroughs govts merely reacted with a “law and order” mentality with little or no thought to solving what caused the problems in the first place … and whenever anyone tried to publicly highlight the problems they were often shouted down by groups that were living comfortably and didn’t want the status quo to be challenged – as exemplified by the response to Elvis Presley’s 1970’s song “In the Ghetto”. Little wonder then that - just as poor Irish had done before them - inner city (and poor) blacks and Hispanics (and whites) turned to violent expression of their anger, or to “self-medication” amidst their despair and deprivation.

• Andrew007 | Jun 23, 2012, 02:39 AM EDT

  @BrianO (I presume it was you who responded in the unnamed comment of Jun 17, 2012, 11:23 AM EDT): Did you completely read my replies to you? What examples did I "mention out of context"? I've provided you with evidence to back up my argument, so please either respond in kind, specifically challenge my evidence (as opposed to making vague dismissive comments), or accept what I've said. But addressing your claims: you said "Free market capitalism allows the lowest of the low the opportunity to achieve the highest of the highs". Tell me, what stats (and from where?) do you have to support your claim that social mobility is best in the "Free market capitalist" USA? I put it to you that this in NO WAY comes even close to counterbalancing the horrendous stats concerning (entrenched and generational) poverty in the USA. You mention the US inner city and blame present administrators, who are trying to fix a situation that was ALREADY terrible mess long before they arrived on the scene, and which was largely created in the 1950's and 60's as funding was diverted away from the largely inner urban African-American and then increasingly Hispanic communities (which were then left to rot in neglect), in order to sponsor the migration of White Americans to the new suburbs. This was reflected in the funding of social programmes also.

• Andrew007 | Jun 23, 2012, 01:59 AM EDT

  Note: the comment of "Jun 17, 2012, 11:23 AM EDT" wasn't me (Andrew007), but instead - I presume - BrianO, with whom I was having a debate.

• Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 11:23 AM EDT

  Andrew you need to be on the bottom to see how America is the only system that lets you get to the top. You grab examples out of context and apply as equal. Free market capitalism allows the lowest of the low the opportunity to achieve the highest of the highs. Why is the inner city(is this your racist concern?) in such shambles? Who is in charge of most inner cities, the taxers,redistributors,regulators. Lets give money to these poor saps so they can exist and get by, that is no way to live. The receivers of the redistributed money suffer most of all. When was the last time you drove through or God forbid stop into an inner city neighborhood, Why with food stamps,wic,ebt,child assistance, etc. are these peoples lives so miserable. They have had their self reliance bought from them, their self respect, and initiative. Some get out, If they are smart enough to deal drugs make money off the grid and run. Some get out by running first, learn the rules of society second and work 3 times harder than you or I.

• Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:47 AM EDT

  @BrianO: Part B3 (aargh!): You say the US has the “best system that doesn't keep generations in serfdom", but what else is it if the poor cannot rise out from their poverty, and if they try to they’re burdened with massive debts for an education which undermines future financial viability and the providing for future families, which – unless “lucky” - effectively leaves them slaving for the rest of lives in order to pay off the debt to the bank with very little chance of “getting ahead”? If this isn’t a modern form of serfdom or “slavery” I don’t know what is! For all intents and purposes, for most Americans the so-called “American Dream” is dead …

• Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:43 AM EDT

  @BrianO: Part B2: You fail to see that US Corporations and US politics together are amongst the most corrupt in the world, with powerful corporations effectively buying politicians and distorting the legal system and thus allowed to run amok, with virtually NO accountability for the GFC THEY created (which came EXTREMELY close to repeating 1929), and little or no regulations to protect ordinary ppl, who are then forced to rely on uncertain private legal action in order to obtain some compensation (IF they can afford it!). You also fail to acknowledge the fact that the inner city high rise areas were left to rot by (often racist) elites since the 1950s and their ills left untreated – with the result that now most US inner city areas are dangerous urban ghettos infested with drug abuse and criminals preying upon the weak and needy. You ignore the fact that while the US is still the richest and most powerful country in the world, with about 26% of the world’s GDP (down from about 33% in the late 1990s), the divide between rich and poor is a deepening and almost bottomless chasm: the fact that in 2007 the top 1% owned 34.6% of the privately held wealth is contrasted with the fact that the bottom 80% owned only 15%, with some areas arguably resembling third world conditions, with 15% of Americans officially currently living below the poverty line, another 15% unable to make ends meet (according to an NPR report), and as far back as 1969 it was estimated that 60% of working class families failed to meet minimum recommended budgets (advised by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) in order to live adequately.

• Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:34 AM EDT

  @BrianO: Part B1: You claim that I "may be right in theory, but [that you] live In reality. [Really?!] Tyrants have murdered thousands in the name of equity or utopia ...". Did you not read what I said about the Irish Famine? Are you not aware of the stealing of land from the poor and the native ppls &c (incl. in my Part 2)? Are you not aware of the exploitation of the poor in appalling labour conditions, which STILL CONTINUES? Are you not aware of the white and then black slave trades, which was done according to the then new capitalist principles (despite it coming before Adam Smith's treatise), and that sex slavery STILL CONTINUES even in the US? Are you not aware of the conquest and pillaging of non-Western states and tribal areas - including in the Americas? You say "We have the American model that worked best, perfect no, but the best system that doesn't keep generations in serfdom." I have seen a wall mural, which showed an American Indian chief with the caption "The first casualty of liberty". You say the American system "worked best", but then ignore the fact that while the USA has some of the best medical facilities in the world, 30% of the people are so impoverished that they cannot afford even basic medical care, that medicines cost 3-4 times what they cost in Canada and often up to *12 TIMES* what they cost in Australia, and that medical staff even demand surety of payment BEFORE treatment!!!

• Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:23 AM EDT

  @BrianO: Part 2: Extending upon what eiriamach has said, if redistribution of property is theft, as you claim, then what about the initial seizing of property in the first place? Where do you think the property of the industrial tycoons first came from, if not from the lands seized from poor peasants in the British Isles (or native peoples elsewhere, like the American-Indians), and which had been sanctioned by the very same MPs (in the case of England), who as the gentry seized the land and enforced the unjust laws as the local judges (or during Empire used military power to enforce expansion)? This was the seizing of the Commons in England during the forcible Enclosures in the 18thC (which effectively stole the land which had been held as the Commonwealth of villagers throughout England for at least 1100years), the seized clan lands in Scotland during the Highland Clearances in the late 18th and 19thC (which had been held by the whole clan by right according to ancient law), and the 19thC Evictions in Ireland, in which (English) landowners expelled native Irish from their homes who were too poor to pay increasingly exorbitant rents and too weak to resist during the Irish Famine and afterwards. What about the exploitation of labour since the late 18thC, in which corporations profited from conditions that have often been so appalling that even untold numbers of CHILDREN died in hellish circumstances in England and as elsewhere (and which formed the foundation of Marx’ critique of capitalism)? What about the profits made from the kidnapping, enslaving and genocidal ethnic cleansing of even whole populations, of Gaels of Ireland and Scotland (the Irish of whom were even disgustingly called “white N------” by English overlords), of Indians from the Americas, of Africans and others, and the usurping of their lands and the massacring of their peoples and often total destruction of their societies?

• Andrew007 | Jun 17, 2012, 12:21 AM EDT

  @BrianO: apologies, but my Part2 wasn't published, & I've requested that it be published. It may be controversial (it refers to the disgusting attitudes in the past concerning race), but it answers your accusation that redistribution is "theft".

• Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 10:49 PM EDT

  @BrianO: Part 2: Extending upon what eiriamach has said, if redistribution of property is theft, as you claim, then what about the initial seizing of property in the first place? Where do you think the property of the industrial tycoons first came from, if not from the lands seized from poor peasants in the British Isles (or native peoples elsewhere, like the American-Indians), and which had been sanctioned by the very same MPs (in the case of England), who as the gentry seized the land and enforced the unjust laws as the local judges (or during Empire used military power to enforce expansion)? This was the seizing of the Commons in England during the forcible Enclosures in the 18thC (which effectively stole the land which had been held as the Commonwealth of villagers throughout England for at least 1100years), the seized clan lands in Scotland during the Highland Clearances in the late 18th and 19thC (which had been held by the whole clan by right according to ancient law), and the 19thC Evictions in Ireland, in which (English) landowners expelled native Irish from their homes who were too poor to pay increasingly exorbitant rents and too weak to resist during the Irish Famine and afterwards. What about the exploitation of labour since the late 18thC, in which corporations profited from conditions that have often been so appalling that even untold numbers of CHILDREN died in hellish circumstances in England and as elsewhere (and which formed the foundation of Marx’ critique of capitalism)? What about the profits made from the kidnapping, enslaving and genocidal ethnic cleansing of even whole populations, of Gaels of Ireland and Scotland (the Irish of whom were called “white niggers” by English overlords), of Indians from the Americas, of Africans and others, and the usurping of their lands and the massacring of their peoples and often total destruction of their societies?

• BrianO | Jun 16, 2012, 03:34 PM EDT

  Andrew007, in the effort to restrain the rich the middle class is ensnared. I neither wish to punish or steal from any of my fellow citizens, I do not want to steal Al Gores money to help a homeless person in some modern day robin hood fairy tale. Instead I wish the impedements that prevent upward mobility of the poor to not exist. You may be right in theory, but I live In reality. Tyrants have murdered thousands in the name of equity or utopia, We have the American model that worked best, perfect no, but the best system that doesn't keep generations in serfdom. This system is barely alive in America and it is time to stop restraining it.

• Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 02:44 PM EDT

  @ BrianO: Part 4 (arrgh!): You no doubt are proud of the many achievements of modern Western civilisation, and our art, science, medicine, technology, military power, the accumulation of astronomical amounts of wealth, &c, but when I see the skyscrapers of Western (and now Eastern) cities, I see little but towers built to Man’s greed, ambition and selfishness built upon the ruin of countless millions of voiceless people; and I truly believe – as I said to a homeless man just recently – that many if not almost all who inhabit such spires in the temple of Greed will, sadly (but deservedly), go to hell. The fact that homeless children live and die unloved, uncared for and often unnoticed in the shadow of these towers shows the façade for what it truly is … Apologies for the length of my reply.

• Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 02:43 PM EDT

  @BrianO: Part 3: You see BrianO, you claim that the mere redistribution of property is theft, but the people who control most of the property are very often themselves guilty of the worst kinds of theft, for it is they (or their ancestors) who very often committed atrocities to gain their property in the first place, and who then deepen their guilt before God by continuing to mistreat the poor, weak and vulnerable by exploiting their voicelessness in order to extract as much profit from their labour as possible … preferably avoiding as much as possible any responsibility to their fellow citizens (who have some protections at least) – let alone their fellow Man in other countries. Little wonder then that Jesus Christ declared that “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eyes of the needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven”; and this is probably why God through the Bible often condemns the rich and the powerful (not just their pride) … and it is abundantly clear by their actions that these men (and women) were virtually all “whitewashed walls that hid corruption”, speaking Christian words and seeming fair but whose hearts were foul that knew not God and which were darkened with dreams of power and wealth and callousness towards their fellow Man.

• Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 02:13 PM EDT

  @BrianO: Part 1: So many things to say and so little space! You claimed that the “good works you hope for are bastardized when it is done by force, look at who are the most and least charitable. the believers of redistribution tend to be the least charitable and vice versa”. BUT, this very often is NOT supported by historical evidence. So called “laissez faire capitalism” (in which the govt plays as little a role as possible – preferably none – in the economy and therefore in socio-economic regulation) was to a very large extent responsible for very many disasters in the modern world, or at the very least exacerbated and greatly worsened crises already happening. This proves that privileged people mostly do NOT act to help their fellow citizens/humans unless forced to (or unless there’s something to be gained), and 20thC studies have shown that economic elites are much more prepared to lie, cheat, steal and mistreat others if it suits their interests. Examples of these crises are MANY. The Great Irish Famine in the 1840’s was of course sparked by the Potato Blight, and was coupled with what’s called British “Providentialism” (that God must’ve wanted the famine because the Irish must’ve been unworthy (“obviously to drive the unworthy Irish out”), otherwise it wouldn’t have happened) and British anti-Irish racism (even to the point of important leaders actually desiring the native Irish would simply die out in the more fertile areas); BUT the relevant fact here is the actions of the Whig govt of the day were largely determined by capitalist fanatics who didn’t want to interfere in the “market”, which would’ve meant unprofitably acting in the interests of millions of unproductive but starving poor people as opposed to the “market” (i.e. the comparatively tiny number of land-owning elites who controlled the market).

• Andrew007 | Jun 16, 2012, 12:59 PM EDT

  @eiriamach: no need to apologise ... besides, you were already involved in the discussion anyway, so you weren't jumping in! :) I almost totally agree with your rebuttal of BrianO's points, and I do like MLK's quote you provided. Also, I do have to commend you on your knowledge of political theory. For me, my interest is focussed on the pragmatic application of the theories (or more accurately, what is termed "Realism", or 'real politik'), not so much on what I generally regard as being the pontifications of self-important elitists from a bygone era - unless of course the theories were devised in response to great need and genuine injustice at the time ... I would suggest that many theorists were in any case trying to create worldviews that while clear-sighted in some areas, were very often obtuse in others, and either ignorant of or indifferent to the less kind consequences of their theories ... and most certainly open to many severe criticisms ... examples of this are many, of which I'm sure you know ...

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 12:58 PM EDT

  Ya see, BrianO? If we keep the dialogue going to the point that we reach the founding principles and values, we see that we agree, after all! Now the challenge is to find some agreement on how to keep those fundamental values and principles working for us under the current threats.

• BrianO | Jun 15, 2012, 12:24 PM EDT

  Yes, I believe every individual should use his/her talents to achieve the best they can under as few constraints as possible. So I'll settle for government to be restrained by the founding documents, the negative powers of the constitution as the present president likes to term it. And I, and I hope you, can live your life Free and pursue what endeavors make you happy.

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 10:37 AM EDT

  Government can do something to protect and encourage equal opportunity. But "We aren't communists!" as that mafioso said in "The Godfather." I have no delusions that we'll get equal results. But wouldn't we like to see everyone get an equal shot and end up with at least enough for a decent life? That's the gist of the social contract.

• BrianO | Jun 15, 2012, 10:04 AM EDT

  Equal opportunity or equal result?

• eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 09:03 AM EDT

  BrianO, While you're stacking your chips with Locke (and Jefferson, who adopted Locke's individualism), notice that Locke took a social contract approach to the question of who ought to "own" what. See Ch. 5 of his "Second Treatise of Civil Government" (on line) for his famous, ever-problematic formula that property belongs to the one who "mixes his labour with the soil." It's an agriculture-based approach to property rights that focuses on the value of human work and frames the context of "the pursuit of happiness" as economic: "Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.... where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." Locke justifies private property, but only within a fair "contract"-- access must remain equal for all. How we ensure that equal opportunity is THE problem!

• BrianO | Jun 14, 2012, 07:31 PM EDT

  life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, originally the pursuit of happiness part read property as it was considered that important to ones individual freedom, so I'll stack my chips with locke and jefferson

• eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 05:04 PM EDT

  BrianO, you raise an interesting philosophic question when you say "redistribution of wealth is theft." This is not the place for full discussion, but I must at least reply with Proudhon's famous maxim "Property is theft!" ("La propriété, c'est le vol!"), from "What is Property?" 1840. Unless your property fell from the heavens into your lap and you did not need anyone else's labor to produce it or others' taxes to protect its acquisition or others' accommodation of your entrepreneurial efforts, some of it, at least, "belongs" rightly to the many others whose efforts contributed to your having it.

• BrianO | Jun 14, 2012, 04:30 PM EDT

  I believe you would be right if life was lived in a vacuum, but freemen do not live in a vacuum, they have the ability to raise themselves out of dire situations. the nanny state provides meager compensation in exchange for dependency, and loss of initiative. There is need for government but it must not be allowed to be master, as it is now.Don't believe me try to open a business. Oh and Eiriamach-- redistribution of wealth is theft, the percentage is only how much. If you believe groups to be immoral why do you support practices to decrease individual freedoms.

• eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 11:34 AM EDT

  BrianO and Andrew007, I saw after I posted that the comment before my recent one was addressed to Andrew. I apologize for jumping in.

• eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 11:28 AM EDT

  BrianO, redistribution of a percentage of private wealth is a universal characteristic of government. Consider: until there are goods and money in people's hands, they do not need the protections of government and have no reason to support one. But under good government, justice is not only of the compensatory (rights and reciprocal duties) kind, but also of the distributive kind. In other words, the poor or weak are as much in need of and as deserving of the protections and benefits of government as the wealthy or powerful. (They also have their fair share of the burdens and duties government imposes.) I have no utopian fantasies. I know how slow and agonizing the pace of change toward more complete justice can be. But I also know, as Martin Luther King put it, "Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily ... as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals." So if regulation of finance industries is necessary to protect private wealth and middle-class stability, justice requires us to impose regulation. Ditto for other reforms that the more privileged abhor.

• BrianO | Jun 14, 2012, 09:28 AM EDT

  Andrew007, I wish to be 6' 4" and forever young, but reality doesn't allow that to be. Alas the promise of a socialist utopia has captured and enslaved many an idealistic person. There will always be imperfection in the world and in the people that inhabit it. The good works you hope for are bastardized when it is done by force, look at who are the most and least charitable. the believers of redistribution tend to be the least charitable and vice versa. An example would be of the current president who wants to do away with the charitable giving tax deduction, this would have a negative effect on private charitable gifts.

• eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 09:09 AM EDT

  Now the American bishops have decided to shift tactics. They are preparing a pre-election pastoral letter on economic concerns (not "social justice"). Will their new themes deepen polarization and help Romney or support infrastructure spending for stimulus and job creation? From CNS: "[T]he committee proposed a 12- to 15-page pastoral message to communicate the bishops' pastoral concerns as well as solidarity with those 'left behind in our economy,' especially workers without jobs and families living in poverty. A message on the economy would 'seek to get beyond some of the ideological and partisan polarization' surrounding economic issues, the document said. It would recognize that personal responsibility and public action, family structure and economic structures and solidarity and subsidiarity are essential." Some bishops want to address the increasing deficit [with austerity measures?], and there's no plan to respond to escalating costs of health care nor loss of workers' union protections.

• Andrew007 | Jun 14, 2012, 03:53 AM EDT

  @eiriamach and EamonnDublin, re the mistakenly named comms, thanks! @eiriamach, re the references: another thanks! I too am saddened at the loss of consensus and common ground, not just within the US, but also increasingly in the UK, Australia and other Western nations. It seems as if society has become increasingly polarised and intolerant of difference even before 9-11. We focus on what divides us not upon that which unites, but in this divisive "culture war" I wonder if there IS anything to unite us, as there are decreasingly ANY commonly accepted values. To be honest, this culture war seems to be an increasingly intense "civil war" of words; and I fear that if we go down this path for too much longer it won't just be of words, and Oklahoma and Norway may well be just the "opening shots" in a deteriorating situation, if you'll forgive my unintended pun. Some commentators have already begun to talk of something like this in the US, and this includes senior Marine officers. @hollabackgurl: why the question? Relevance?

• Andrew007 | Jun 14, 2012, 03:31 AM EDT

  @BrianO: I presume you meant to ask me for MY definition of social justice? Well, that would be broadly in line with what the Bible says, here are some things: taking care of the poor and needy, protecting/liberating the oppressed/slaves, ensuring that govt and law is good and just, protecting the innocent/children, and maintaining a morally good society (which req. faith). In the post-Industrial Revolution world, I believe this includes (not in any order): ensuring wages & conditions for workers are fair and safe, for there to be universal health care for the poor and some re-distribution of wealth (to prevent the growth of corrupting entrenched interests), the dignity of all (God-created) races is respected, women be treated with honour and gentleness (and with equal rights to voting, generally employment, &c - I'm opposed to women in combat), trad. family values are upheld and protected, children are protected from abuse (incl. the unborn) and taught faith and morality alongside secular subjects, corruption is extirpated, the political & commercial classes are held to account, the promotion of heinous immorality (like bestiality, by academic Peter Singer) is silenced and harshly punished, violent crime (incl. rape) is harshly punished, religious ldrs lead by example and purged when they don't ... etc. I hope that answers your question. Cheers.

• hollabackgurl | Jun 13, 2012, 02:25 PM EDT

  Andrew007 you don't live in the United States do you?

• EamonnDublin | Jun 12, 2012, 04:04 PM EDT

  On the question of "no name" appearing, etc., the problem starts with the omission to Log In. Always remember to Log In before you begin to comment and all will be OK. I made the mistake a few times before I twigged! Éamonn, Dublin, Ireland.

• BrianO | Jun 12, 2012, 03:40 PM EDT

  So Andrew, first off if you have read enough of Cahirs articles the answer to your Question would be ---deliberately deceptive, second what is our definition of social justice. thank you.

• eiriamach | Jun 12, 2012, 03:37 PM EDT

  Yes again, gone are the days when Thomas Merton (before his life as a Cistercian monk and spiritual writer) could hang around chatting in NYC coffee shops with blacklisted communists or socialists imported from war-ravaged Europe! The spirit of Catholicism was ecumenical, and the spirit of politics was free speech and freedom of inquiry rediscovered. People learned from each other, and no one was cast out with a nasty label. These days, guilt by association seems to be an accepted attitude and we need to be ever so careful.

• eiriamach | Jun 12, 2012, 03:27 PM EDT

  Yes, Andrew007, there's a software bug in IC com boxes. The 07/Jun 12, 2012 box had NO NAME attached to it when I first saw it. IF you post after a no-name box, your name gets attached to the no-name box as well as to your own com box. This has happened to others, including me, so we know about it but can't fix it. By experience also I've learned that IC rejects postings with Internet addresses. But just Google "The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life" and on the home page, you'll find a link to "2012 American Values Survey." You can download the entire report or view the click-through presentation, etc. The other report I cited was the one I thought you referred to at the Gallup site. Just Google (or other search engine): Gallup poll "Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious."

• BrianO | Jun 12, 2012, 03:25 PM EDT

  Andrew, it was mine sometimes your name doesn't show up on the post

• Andrew007 | Jun 12, 2012, 02:48 PM EDT

  Umm, there's been a mistake. I wrote the post headed by "Andrew007/Jun 12, 2012, 02:40 PM EDT"; but I certainly did NOT write the post headed by "Andrew007/Jun 12, 2012, 01:52 PM EDT". I don't know what happened there, unless someone's using my Handle of "Andrew007" when they shouldn't.

• Andrew007 | Jun 12, 2012, 02:40 PM EDT

  @eiriamach: Very interesting. Do you have the webpage addresses for those surveys? I do agree with you regarding the GOP far right alienating many - the anti-Democrat hysteria and even violent ranting of at least some of the pundits is quite shocking. I believe this reflects the increasing intolerance of what passes for the "Far Left" in the US. I have to say that ever since my political awakening in the 90's, I've been increasingly alarmed by the intolerant divisive vitriol coming from both sides of the political, religious and socio-economic divide, as I have also by the degree to which commentators are prepared to use untruths and hostile personal attacks against opponents (regarding them not as opponents but as the “enemy”). I partly blame the media for this (incl. commentators like Cahir), but also morally compromised political and religious leaders who evidently believe the ends justify the means ... BTW, I’ve recently noticed you replied to an earlier comment of mine, I’ll reply when able.

• Andrew007 | Jun 12, 2012, 01:52 PM EDT

  eiriamach how can we be polarized, we have had 3 1/2 years of "together we can" from the great unifier Barrack Hussien Obama. Besides unifying the country we are also post racial, and if those evil business owners would just do as he says and hire more people the economy would be just fine.

• eiriamach | Jun 12, 2012, 11:26 AM EDT

  The June 4 Pew Research Center report shows us highly polarized on values since 1987. On the social safety net, the gap between Republicans and Democrats is now 41%, on labor unions 37%, on equal opportunity 33%, and on immigration 24%. Repub support for the social safety net has dropped from 62% in 1987 to 40% in 2012, and Independents' support has dropped from 70% to 59%, while Dem support has dropped only 4 points from 79%. In agreeing with "old-fashioned values about family and marriage," Repubs have dropped only 4 points from 92% in 1987, while Dems have dropped from 86% to 60% and Independents from 86% to 72%. Voters who "lean" Democrat are 48%; 40% "lean" Republican. Hispanics vote independent by 46%; African Americans vote Dem by 69%. The gap between men and women: 43% of men and 33% of women are independent, while 27% of men and 37% of women are Dems, and men and women are evenly Repubs (25% & 24%), and female voters outnumber male by 10%. While only 22% of all respondents identify themselves as liberal and 36% as conservative, 37%-- again the largest number-- self-identify as moderate. Conservatives don't have any election in their pockets because GOP far-right drift has alienated so many.

• eiriamach | Jun 12, 2012, 11:19 AM EDT

  About that Gallup poll, IrishAndProud, you should expect confused results when respondents are given categories like "liberal Republican" and "conservative Democrat" as choices! Gallup doesn't tell us much. But looking at both Gallup and the current Pew polls, I find the following: *1) Independents, not conservatives, will decide the next election. While Dems (32%) still outnumber the GOP (24%), independents form a larger group (38%, up from 29% just since 1990). *2) Polarization on religion and values will play a huge role in the election (a flight from polarities probably accounts for much of the surge in Independents), with 68% of the GOP identifying themselves as "Conservative" and 38% of Dems as "Liberal." *3) On religion and values, independents are far closer to Dems than to the GOP (see Gallup poll Sept. 1, 2010, "Republicans Remain Disproportionately White and Religious" and Pew Report June 6, 2012 on Values). Current (May-June 2012) Pew research shows that white evangelical voters favor Romney by a significant margin. Among black Protestants and religiously unaffiliated voters, however, Obama has a wide lead over Romney. Religious affiliation and lack of it closely matches the social/values positions of voters.

• EamonnDublin | Jun 12, 2012, 06:08 AM EDT

  Mr. O'Doherty - How many times did you vomit, overwhelmed by hysterical anger, shortness of breath, and the red mist coming down, before you managed to finish your latest rant? Éamonn, Dublin, Ireland.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 12, 2012, 04:06 AM EDT

  Oh, and get this opening of an article from none other than the Washington Post. Things have gotten so bad for Barack Obama, that even a left-wing pillar like the Post states thusly (and this is for you, Cahir!): "It has been a Junius Horribilis for President Obama. Job growth has stalled, the Democrats have been humiliated in Wisconsin, the attorney general is facing a contempt-of-Congress citation, talks with Pakistan have broken down, Bill Clinton is contradicting Obama, Mitt Romney is outraising him, Democrats and Republicans alike are complaining about a “cascade” of national-security leaks from his administration, and he is now on record as saying that the “private sector is doing fine. Could it get any worse? Early Monday morning, Obama learned that it could. His aides delivered the news to him that his commerce secretary had been cited for a felony hit-and-run after allegedly crashing his car three times over the weekend. In one incident, the previously obscure Cabinet officer apparently rear-ended a Buick, spoke to the car’s occupants, then hit the vehicle again as he left." Whew! Obama is one and done!

• Andrew007 | Jun 12, 2012, 12:47 AM EDT

  Part 2: #3). Cahir claimed that Christian opposition to Obama “… is just an orchestrated campaign by Christian conservatives to discredit the president in his re-election year”. Wrong! Many Christians are opposing Obama not because of his “socialism” or his race (although admittedly some, being misled gullible bigots, are), but rather because of the increasingly immoral and even anti-Christian public stance that he and his administration has taken in recent years. This doesn’t mean that they agree with or belong to the GOP, but that they are increasingly offended by Obama’s pandering to the immoral minority, and taking THEIR side against those who seek to defend traditional morality and the ancient institutions of marriage and family. #4) Cahir claimed the “opposing viewpoint [to the RC leadership is held by] most of the nation and the world now”. Tell me, is there ANY evidence to support this, or is this just another example of a self-important opinion trying to inflate itself to claim a moral authority it clearly doesn’t possess?

• Andrew007 | Jun 12, 2012, 12:23 AM EDT

  What a ridiculous article! The author made numerous foolish claims that rather conveniently overlooks many facts, to the extent that it makes one wonder if he’s truly ignorant or being deliberately deceptive. #1). Cahir claimed “Economic and social justice, the Religious Right teaches, are the goals of socialists”? Hardly! Social justice is a key foundational value of Judeao-Christianity, as the Bible repeatedly says “do unto others as you would have them do to you” and Jesus Christ stated that to “love one another” is the second greatest of all commandments (Matt. 22:36-40). His claim also ignores the fact that there are many “Christian Socialists”, and that the churches (incl. RC) are the creators of almost all charities, and Christians of all walks have been at the forefront (and often originators) of virtually all social justice movements in the West in the past few hundred years. #2). Cahir claimed “For decades the religious right here have fixated on contraception, abortion, creationism and the gays … to prevent us all from fixating on Health Care, Social Welfare, Education, Poverty and Equality”. Rubbish! Christianity is not just about love for one another (i.e. compassion and social justice), but more importantly it’s about love and fear of the Lord God (the greatest commandment according to JC – Ibid, Matt.), and thus necessarily living a life that seeks holiness – and this includes private and public morality. Christian holiness and compassion exist as two halves of the same faith – you can’t truly have one without the other.

• kilgara | Jun 11, 2012, 09:36 PM EDT

  O'Doherty, your political blather is oh so tiring. You speak for fringe degenerates, who are not fit to tie Cardinal Dolans' shoestrings.

• IrishAndProud | Jun 11, 2012, 09:17 PM EDT

  Oh, as a passing follow-up to my earlier comments, from Gallup: 21% of Americans identify as liberal. I would say that makes it at least somewhat likely that liberalism is not an American majority.

• misneac | Jun 11, 2012, 08:41 PM EDT

  The one enduring fact of feature writers and contributors to Irish Central is their inability to spell common English words . The writer of the article keeps saying " saber " . The correct spelling is " sabre " . Why do we bother to read continuous bigotry from people who can not even spell ,and get paid for the nonsense they write !

• BrianO | Jun 11, 2012, 07:22 PM EDT

  eiriamach your premise that the left is moderate and balanced being pushed further to the center is false. It is a nice marketing ploy though. Are those on the left socialist in nature or not.----------------- a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.

• BrianO | Jun 11, 2012, 07:09 PM EDT

  Hollabackgurl, nice to hear from you again, realize satire can be complicated for the tolerant and ever caring persons on the left, I believe my comment was more of an observation than an attack. If my job were to refute the far left liberals on IC you would be right to want my job as it is the easiest thing to do, alas it is only a hobby, take care though I have worried about you, as your usual logic has been lacking in the last few weeks

• seanomelb | Jun 11, 2012, 07:00 PM EDT

  Fox may represent the conservative majority but it does not represent the American majority. Poor auld Irishandproud speaks from the dribbles from both sides of his mouth.

• eiriamach | Jun 11, 2012, 04:52 PM EDT

  Gearoid4, I recognize that Cahir's blogs refer to a very real, measurable polarity between the GOP, which drifts further and further to the right, and Democrats, who have been pushed uncomfortably to center by the GOP's movement to extreme Right. But your characterization of this polarity is clearly biased. History presents a frightening set of possibilities when the polarization, the rift, grows as great as it now is. Common purpose becomes impossible because the Right demonizes the Left as "socialist" and "secularist," or in Card. Dolan's word "strangling." It looks as though you have no coherent arguments for your far-right positions, so you resort to didactic preaching and name-calling. Whatever happened to that great Christian guiding principle of reconciliation?

• IrishAndProud | Jun 11, 2012, 03:45 PM EDT

  I might also add: Irish Central has a blog called 'From the Right.' Why doesn't it have one called 'From the Left?' Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not), but wouldn't Cahir's posts fall slightly, slightly to the left (of, say, Karl Marx)?

• IrishAndProud | Jun 11, 2012, 03:33 PM EDT

  There is nothing 'tolerant' or 'diverse' about your average 'progressive.' They throw foul-mouthed hissy fits at the slightest, slightest disagreement with them. How is that 'tolerant'? The old joke used to go how a Puritan would wake up at night in a cold sweat, mortified at the thought that someone somewhere was having fun. Well now just substitute 'progressive' for Puritan, and 'disagreeing with them' instead of 'fun.' (BTW we conservatives ARE having fun...we have better sex and LOTS more kids!). And finally, you could just as easily ask 'Fox News or CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN News -- which is it, Cahir?' But at least if he answered the latter, we'd finally know who that guy is who still watches them. 'Progressives' (even foreign ones like Cahir) hate Fox SOOOOOO much because A) it's a network they DON'T CONTROL (an anathema thought, for a 'progressive') B) it's wildly successful and C) it actually reflects the USA's conservative majority -- and they've been at wit's end as to how to respond effectively to all that, for the past decade now.

• Gearoid4 | Jun 11, 2012, 03:11 PM EDT

  @Eiriamach, Cahir O'Doherty's various blogs are consistent in their Manichean division of the religio-political scene in the US into Repulibans(oppressive and bigoted) V Democrats(progressive and enlightened). It is a dualistic version which is both simplistic and distorted. I'm afraid your reference to "my fallacious comparisons" tends to show your failure to recognize the reality of the points that I'm making.

• hollabackgurl | Jun 11, 2012, 02:42 PM EDT

  I notice you always attack the messenger rather than dispute the message, BrianO. I want your job, it requires no actual thought.

• mayoman | Jun 11, 2012, 02:02 PM EDT

  A very good article. Every time Cardinal Dolan condemns something that frightens him, I feel less and less a part of the Church. Is there any room left in the Roman Catholic Church for progressive thinkers? Why does the Church even use the term "catholic" (universal, open to all), if it insists on deriding and alienating its own members?

• BrianO | Jun 11, 2012, 01:32 PM EDT

  Ephraim, your logic seems to have slipped, I want Cahir's job, you write the same article over and over again, the only thing that changes are the titles. Standing Headline Obama is the best and conservatives want everyone to go to hell, oh and they hate gays, ae racist and they kick their dogs.

• jamieLM | Jun 11, 2012, 10:19 AM EDT

  @aidenlambert, spot on. Dolan answers to his bosses and colleagues in The Vatican, not the laity.

• hollabackgurl | Jun 11, 2012, 09:21 AM EDT

  The Irish weren't at the Congress in Dublin with Cardinal Dolan (the stadium was half empty, the majority of its participants flown in from other countries) No, the Irish were all in Poland (or at home) watching a football match as Cardinal Dolan and his fellow hardliners wondered what happened.

• aidenlambert | Jun 11, 2012, 02:24 AM EDT

  No offence there but Cardinal Dolan does NOT answer to his congregation, he answers to his bosses and colleagues in The Vatican and nobody else. So just like Cardinal Brady in Ireland who won't be resigning despite covering up for the Serial rapist Brendan Smyth for 20 some years he is under no real pressure to respond to calls from the Laity, no matter how loud they are.

• seanomelb | Jun 11, 2012, 02:15 AM EDT

  another religious foxspeak person

• Seanmor | Jun 10, 2012, 10:41 PM EDT

  Not only are most of the mainstream media strongly subborting Obama in his efforts to impose his will on the R.C. prelates and deprive the freedom to which they have a constitutional right, the federal courts will probably back the White House by curtailing the religious freedom of the Roman Church.

• seanomelb | Jun 10, 2012, 06:54 PM EDT

  Dolan is no different to any other Foxspeak religious creationist freaks on the right.Madeliene such language from a religious hypocrite.Cahir's article is correct and the freaks don't like it.

• Madeliene | Jun 10, 2012, 06:48 PM EDT

  I think Cahir, you are a liberal arse.

• eiriamach | Jun 10, 2012, 06:36 PM EDT

  Gearoid04's kind of "either/or" is not only a blatant fallacy of logic, but it is also offensive: "Republican/Religious Faith (in [Cahir's] opinion unreasonable, rabid right wing) V Democrat/socialist/secularist," reasonable. Very few Democrats are "socialists," Dems I know are certainly not "secularists," and I've known a few unreasonable ones, just as I've known US Republicans who are thoroughly irreligious, and a few who are simply libertarian and reasonable, but who do not understand the need for a government of sufficient resources to protect the equal rights of its many, many diverse citizens. What reasonable person could be swayed by such obviously skewed, fallacious comparisons?

• SCVMal | Jun 10, 2012, 06:19 PM EDT

  jjkleprechaun: We are called to be Christian, an adjective meaning "Christ-like"; not nouns!! Your hero Dolan paid off child-raping Priests to get them out of the Priesthood and avoid his real responsibility as Bishop! What other cover ups is he hiding? And why is it that you Pontificating arse-kissers are ok with the horrible things that the Pope and many American Bishops say about people who happen to be gay (including the youth who are virgins in EVERY sense of the word and struggling with their sexual identity.) We know full well about the scandal with the Vatican bank that is being leaked out. As Christ Himself said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!" Dolan's setting fires to take the eyes of the media off him and his past participation with the rapist priests! We are all made in God's image and likeness, and that includes our brain. Use yours and stop being a robotic (adjective) Catholic (noun)! Be a Christ-like person, for Chrizt's sake!

• eiriamach | Jun 10, 2012, 06:18 PM EDT

  jjkleprechaun, how'd you guess? Many of my friends ARE "ex-Catholics," and we pray for each other! I notice that you did not reply to the connection I drew between Catholic doctrine and the bigotries that play into Cardinal Dolan's political campaign. Is it possible for someone to believe, as Catholics profess to believe, that homosexuality is an unnatural and "disordered" sexuality, yet at the same time to deal with homosexuals as equally worthy in the eyes of God, i.e., by NOT discriminating against them and not lobbying to deprive them of civil rights? Answer that question, please, before you accuse me of "hatred." In the USA, we acknowledge the equality of everyone by treating everyone equally. How, then, can followers of Cardinal Dolan oppose equal rights for gays, for women, for non-Catholics, etc., and still profess to believe that we are all equal in the eyes of God?

• Gearoid4 | Jun 10, 2012, 05:14 PM EDT

  Here we go again. Cahir is deliberately trying to "politicize" the current reasonable campaign by Catholic bishops to protect their religious rights, threatened by the ObamaCare Mandate, and Catholic teachings in general. He wants to turn it into a Republican/Religious Faith(in his opinion unreasonable,rabid right wing) V Democrat/socialist/secularist(the reasonable camp, in his opinion). It is the current Democrat administration that has picked the fight and forced it onto the Church, and by extension, people with deep, religious principles. Some people would prefer the Church to be another, worldly, socialist organization that ignored key teachings in the area of human sexuality,reproduction and marriage. But if the Church went down that road, She would be betraying Christ Himself.

• Bythebay | Jun 10, 2012, 05:00 PM EDT

  Fox News is the #1 cable news because of its bigotry. It appeals to the most basic nastiness of the human race and the most vicious. Rationale man is unknown on Fox News, it breeds on fear and contempt.

• McNamara31 | Jun 10, 2012, 04:03 PM EDT

  maggiepoo Your statement is a perfect example of how Fox News has impacted our political conversation in this country. No longer can different points of view have a discussion and find compromise or common ground. Fox has turned its viewers into people who think “all others” are the enemy, and to be vilified; Fox totally thinks all they say and do is "right" and all other views are evil. It’s pathetic, narrow minded and only benefits the conservative GOP whose only interest is with corporate America and at the price of the middle class. If Cardinal Dolan aligns himself with Fox, that day I loose all respect for the man.

• jjkleprechaun | Jun 10, 2012, 02:48 PM EDT

  Sorry, eiriamach...you don't understand the meaning of "Christian" -- sad. And your hatred of the Roman Catholic Church spews forth like venom...too bad. All your "ex-Catholic friends" are praying for you, I'm sure.

• eiriamach | Jun 10, 2012, 02:34 PM EDT

  I puzzled over this for years: "the continuing alignment of the institutional church and its leadership with the political hard right." I no longer have any Catholic friends. I walked away because they incessantly disparaged gays, feminists, pro-choice Democrats, ethnic minorities, Protestant social missions, and more! Dolan's political campaigns play into these attitudes, which Catholics seem to pick up in their colleges or ethnic neighborhoods. In my experience, the situation is uglier than Cahir says. It isn't manipulation OF Dolan by the extreme Right; it's manipulation BY Dolan of bigotries drawn subtly from archaic RCC doctrines: homosexuality is unnatural, ethnic inequality and male power hierarchies are natural, women must bow to male authority, Jews are Christ-killers, non-Catholics are hell-bound, parents are to blame for the sexual exploitation of their children, etc. These attitudes amount to hatred of the world that Christians are called to sanctify, not to condemn. I won't generalize to all Catholics from the East Coast ones I've met because I've known many elsewhere who have the spirit of Christ. However, Catholic homophobia, misogyny, etc., seem highly concentrated in Dolan's domain. He had an opportunity to teach and transform; instead he has chosen to legitimize entrenched hatreds. Call his campaigns "Catholic," but please don't call them Christian!

• jjkleprechaun | Jun 10, 2012, 02:24 PM EDT

  Cardinal Dolan answers to a Higher Authority...I do believe His Name is GOD. I agree with him totally.

• Nicomax | Jun 10, 2012, 01:28 PM EDT

  Within our secular governmental structure, religious organizations have a limited role in that they can promote their beliefs all they want, and try to convert whomever they can, but their laws can never trump civil law. If this were a group of Imans spouting off like Dolan would be so accommodating?

• Shug | Jun 10, 2012, 01:21 PM EDT

  The ignorance and narrow mindedness of some people amazes me. Did you grow up in a cave or some cloistered corner of your local church? Learn to think for yourselves instead of blindly following these fascist old dinosaurs.

• Bert Dugan | Jun 10, 2012, 01:21 PM EDT

  Cardinal Timothy Dolan is like a first mate screaming and blaming the crew because his ship is sinking, when in reality, his boat is going down, doomed by brittle, unbending and rotting planks.

• EphraimKibbey | Jun 10, 2012, 01:03 PM EDT

  I guess he got his conservative Fox News talking points confused when he slammed the Ryan Budget as UNCHRISTIAN! It cuts relief to and increases taxes on the poor. It reduces taxes on the rich and on corporations. That seems like the exact reverse of Christ's teachings. Even the good cardinal could see it. I wonder why a self-proclaimed evangelical Christian like Ryan would come up with such a plan? Oh yea, Ryan, in a speech, said that the NUMBER ONE influence in his life had been Ayn Rand. His role model is not Christ but a self-centered atheist. I'm glad Dolan called him on it. I wonder where Ryan hides his mammon idol? Dolan just seems to be expressing the RCC and vatican talking points which sometimes coincide with those of the GOP and their propaganda machine, Fox News.

• BrianO | Jun 10, 2012, 01:02 PM EDT

  Patrickesq, you might want to review the Constitution of the United States to determine if your premise of the president doing his job is correct. if you are against individual freedom, free market capitalism, I could see how you would want the executive branch to be the all powerful benevolent and all providing dictatorship. It would be convenient, you could deem all resistance to be abolished.

• mikehoulihan | Jun 10, 2012, 12:53 PM EDT

  There is a war on Catholicism, and it's being led by fakers like the twit who wrote this column and his boss Niall O'Dowd.

• forflann | Jun 10, 2012, 12:52 PM EDT

  maggiepoo, it's been a long time since the church had people like St. Vincent de Paul caring about the poor in it. You live a tunnel-vision warped spin world of Fox news. If you're a good Catholic try getting out in the real world and volunteer at a food-pantry. You'll meet a 75 year old widow, barely getting by on social security, veterans of two different wars, one newly parted from service who can't find a job. Cardinal George berates Father Flager for being "political" yet calls the gay community in Chicago KKK like. Service was the original concept of the church long ago. Little things like the Spanish Inquisition, do get in the way.

• etighe1130 | Jun 10, 2012, 12:17 PM EDT

  After a while, I stop reading these "hit pieces". If you believe Irish Central, the RC Church in Ireland is on the verge of collapse.

• patrickesq | Jun 10, 2012, 12:14 PM EDT

  If is pathetic that such a'top' figure in the Catholic hierarchy has to attack the President when all he is doing is his job ,to execute a public health policy enacted by the US Congress. The Cardinal wants to deprive US citizens, who happen to work for educational and health institutions run by the Church, of contraceptives provided under the health care law. The Church's (hierarchy) belief that using artificial contraceptives is immoral ( a belief that up to 80 % of US Catholics have rejected), is not put in question by the law. The Cardinal would gain more respect if he were to concentrate his time and efforts to revitalize the Church with real reforms of openness and equality that would allow the Church to be the 'People of God' and not an old man's aristocracy- hierarchy, that seems to be unable to focus on the true mission of love for all!

• hollabackgurl | Jun 10, 2012, 11:35 AM EDT

  Game shows and beauty pageants have ratings, Maggiepoo - cable news ought to have a mission and sense of purpose (other than promoting the GOP). Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

• mace1246 | Jun 10, 2012, 11:06 AM EDT

  Mr O'Doherty you are so far left you are going to fall off the cliff. Cardinal Dolan is our spiritual leader, which people like YOU are strangling the church. They have no recorse now but to fight back, and I think it is about time. We are tired of hearing and listening about all your garbage. We live by the Catholic Bible, which the Church sould not and will not change their stance on contraception, abortion, creationism & homosexuals. If you feel you are being left behind then you better catch-up before you fall off the cliff. We will not let our Beautiful country go down the tubes

• BarbaraB | Jun 10, 2012, 10:53 AM EDT

  You've stated correctly the current situtation which, I fear, will continue to escalate. The right wing of the Republican party has learned how to influence the public through distortion and lies. Thanks for putting this so well.

• hollabackgurl | Jun 10, 2012, 10:48 AM EDT

  "They start out preaching the Good News but end up spreading Fox News." That's well said and too true!

• Portia777 | Jun 10, 2012, 10:29 AM EDT

  milfordmama He is what the Catholic church (which has become wishy-washy in recent years) needs: a strong leader who says it like it REALLY is." Fantastic conclusion on your part. So you agree with keeping the sheeple under Roman rule? You do not agree with human freedom? then you are welcome to your church, but please do not expect evolved souls to side with murder, gender discrimination, child rape etc. Show me your company and I will tell you who you are " springs to mind.

• Portia777 | Jun 10, 2012, 10:24 AM EDT

  "I wonder who is served most by all this divisive language and saber rattling and I doubt if its Jesus." Quite simple- it is history repeating itself as the top controllers line up the Christians V Muslims and sacrifice both to their god of death.

• hermitTalker | Jun 10, 2012, 10:14 AM EDT

  Simple facts. # 1 Mr Obama and Ms Pelosi picked this fight with the First Amendment and it happened the R C Christian Community had the most to lose with its size, schools and health care facilities, but they were not alone as the Leftist media ignored the many citizens who are afraid also. # 2 The Catholic Church's agenda is not captured or imprisoned by any political party, ideology today and never were. Spin all you wish, we can take it and thank God we have the freedom to say so and you allow us that freedom. Unlike the Leftists who hide, spin and distort, as do the extremists in all causes

• milfordmama | Jun 10, 2012, 09:49 AM EDT

  You seem to hate the Catholic church in all your articles, so I am not surprised that you "slam" Cardinal Dolan. Maybe some "real" Catholics would agree with you, but I think most would not. He is what the Catholic church (which has become wishy-washy in recent years) needs: a strong leader who says it like it REALLY is.