In yesterday's Washington Post, Michelle Boorstein has a great article looking at how Donald Trump is dividing evangelicals or, more precisely, bringing divisions that were already emerging to the surface.
And, in today's WaPo, two items, on different topics, both of which demonstrate the problems with maximalist agendas of the kind that suits the fundraising needs of special interest groups but which do little for the common good or even for the causes at issue. First, Fordham's Charles Camosy points out that Democrats did better in key parts of the country and with key demographics when they were less beholden to the Emily's List line on abortion. If the Dems pursue a "big tent" approach again, they will do better not just in races for the White House but down ballot too. And, UVA's Doug Laycock, one of the nation's foremost and most resected champions of religious liberty, argues that the maximalist position taken by the USCCB and the Becket Fund on the HHS contraception mandate may cause more harm to religious liberty in the long run.
Yesterday, the Holy Father set aside his prepared text to compare the plight of migrants and refugees to Jesus being handed off between Pilate and Herod. He said: "Even as every form of justice is denied to him, Jesus also experiences in his own flesh indifference, since no one wishes to take responsibility for his fate. And I think of the many people, so many outcasts, so many asylum seekers, so many refugees, all of those for whose fate no one wishes to take responsibility. " Amen.
