My last blog post wasn't supposed to be about Obama or Notre Dame as much as it was supposed to be about the silence of the Bishop of Peoria. However, it seems pretty clear that I missed that target.
One commenter made some good points on my past post, but the one I want to address is about George W. Bush, who was also honored by Notre Dame in 2001. I agree with Bill's statement, "this has not been the first and will not be the last person they invite to speak who is both simultaneously "for" and "against" life."
To majorly oversimplify, Obama is much more pro-life than Bush in areas of social justice and torture, ie waterboarding. Bush, on the other hand, is against abortion. Obama, as reported by the Washington Post "strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion."
To be honest, I don't remember if anyone was upset that Bush was honored by ND. I think some eyebrows should have been raised and that we should have been upset. There are plenty of people who are in complete agreement with the Church's teachings and ND could have honored them. But should we have been as upset about Bush as we are about Obama? I don't think so; when it comes to whose policies are de-humanizing and killing more people (innocent or guilty), Obama wins.
Here's a good article about comparing abortion and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn't address all the horrible things Bush let happen, but I think it makes a good point.