Archbishop Burke: The Dems are the party of death

[Nick_in_MB]

But thats more important than murder of the unborn. Whatever:shrug:

No, and I don’t think I implied that either.

There was a post about how the dems want to keep the poor down. And personally, I don’t see that as being the case. I don’t know that if we waited for 10 years, if we would have been able to get a house anyway. All I know is, we were under Clinton, and just about lost it under Bush, well before the Dems took control of Congress in 2006, had to give up getting an education just so I could get a job to help pay for the house (didn’t have to do that under Clinton).

 

[JimG]

See, I don’t see it that way.
I see it that my family was poor, were able to then easily buy a house under Clinton, and send me off to college.
Then Bush came along, and the house went into foreclosure, family had to move into a more affordable house (more affordable than the home we could easily afford under Clinton), I had to quit college and get a job to help pay for the new home, and barely get by month to month.
So we have a cheaper house we can barely afford, from having a house we could easily afford, and all that changed was the politicians in office.

Something doesn’t nake sense here. All that changed was the politicians in office? Simply putting a new politician in office has no effect on anyone’s existing mortgage. Something else must have changed.

Was this an ARM where the rate adjusted upward? Was there a change in family income? A change in family expenses? Just changing politicians doesn’t put anyone into foreclosure.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

My wife’s mind was changed because of those pictures- I guess that disproves your theory that those pictures aren’t going to change anyone’s mind.

Reality has a funny way of changing people’s minds.

And I have more than one friend who was so repulsed by those pictures and the way the protesters shoved them at their cars, (in the faces of their small children) that they donated $$ to Planned Parenthood.

The way “reality” is presented also has a way of backfiring.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Of course the Republican party deceives social conservatives. Mark my word, this next election you will see the biggest pandering to Catholics and other social conservatives we’ve ever seen. Will the party actually stop abortion and gay marriage? Of course not. (For one thing, too many of their daughters have had abortions to save face. Also, look what happened with Dick Cheney supporting gay marriage now that he is no longer running for election. It’s because he has a gay daughter). And more importantly, there simply aren’t enough rich folks to hang on to a voting base without the support of the Christian right. We saw that ring true with the last election, where John McCain, who was virtually silent on moral issues (how could he speak with credibility after what he did to his wife in a wheelchair?) was handily defeated.

As Catholics, we had better be voting for the individual. In a republic like ours, we’ve got to take the time to do the research on each individual candidate, if we’re going to say that our vote carries moral and theological implications. You cannot, I repeat CANNOT trust or give allegiance to a particular party.

I agree completely with this. It’s critically important to take the time to know who the candidates are on BOTH sides, and not blindly walk in and vote party line.

I’ll admit, I’ve grown pretty cynical about politicians. I have serious doubts that any politician, no matter what party, is really going to do anything about abortion as long as the polling data continues to show that Americans want it kept legal. Same with stem cell research, and any other life issue.

 

[turtle18]

See, I don’t see it that way.
I see it that my family was poor, were able to then easily buy a house under Clinton, and send me off to college.
Then Bush came along, and the house went into foreclosure, family had to move into a more affordable house (more affordable than the home we could easily afford under Clinton), I had to quit college and get a job to help pay for the new home, and barely get by month to month.
So we have a cheaper house we can barely afford, from having a house we could easily afford, and all that changed was the politicians in office.

In the interest of spreading truth, Interest rates for mortgage were at their lowest in years under the Bush administration.

I am not under any sort of deception by the Republican party. But the fact is, Republicans might not be able to stop abortion, but most Republicans do not engage in policies that fund or promote abortions or homosexuality. Democrats do and that is the bottom line. When all is done at the end of the day, Democrats don’t really promote policies that end poverty, either–they just promote policies that enlarge our government.

One of the things the Catholic Church could do to end abortion is to pray–include it in the petitions at Mass–but do they? What is more powerful than prayer? God has the power to stop all this–to change people’s hearts.

But does our Church ever speak up? No, because it offends all the “pro-choice” people in the congregation. Being offended reaks of pride & lack of humility. The Catholic Church needs to clean its own house first–when it does, the result will spill out into society.

But you can’t deny that the Democratic party has a negative effect on the Catholic Church in America–look at how many Catholics don’t believe abortion is wrong & our pro-choice (i.e. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius) all in the name of their political party.

 

[ProVobis]

Dems the party of death? Need to remind him that the Republicans brought us the seemingly irreversible Roe vs Wade. Even Reagan was pro-abortion at one point.

And let’s not forget the Dems (led by, of all people, Joe Biden) voting for Clarence Thomas at great political risks to themselves.

Point is this, if the Dems are the party of death, then let’s pray for their conversion. These things do happen.

 

[royal_archer]

I was just reading this article of an interview with Archbishop Burke where he called the Democrats the “party of death”. Later, he said that he was for not giving Communion to politicians who favored the right to abortion (that is the wording of the article, so don’t shoot the messenger).

While I am not in favor of abortion and I am probably just as uncomfortable about Catholic politicians voting for abortion as the Archbishop, I didn’t like his rhetoric or his tactics.

To say the Democrats are the party of death would imply that the Republicans are the party of life. Considering the war machine that the last administration created, that’s going to be hard to defend. Or how about the amount of greed, deceit and the disregard for the poor and working classes that has been quite prevalent over the last 8 years? None of that is in defense of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In fact, creating an environment in which people are pushed in to complete destitution is exactly what presents abortion as a viable solution.

To not give communion to pro-choice politicians may be proper catechism, but it is an ineffective political tactic. My mom told me that when JFK was elected people feared that the Pope was now running the country. We thought it was funny; mainly because Catholicism is not fundamentalism. It does not up-hold faith to spite reason. It doesn’t use threats in place of appeals to the divine law. If anything, since the sin is public and consciously being made, a call to repentance would be appropriate.

In reflecting on what the Archbishop said, I thought of praying for a party that was morally righteous and at the same time socially conscious. As far as I’m concerned, neither of these parties bare witness to Jesus Christ.

I wish the Bishop would have spoken out like that before the election. Unfortunately the church kept very quiet and many of the population at large did not fully understand how the politicians views were in conflict with church teachings. allow ing these politicians to receive communion may be perceived as an endorsement by the church.

As far as republicans and war. I agree they were wrong but Obama has been just as bad He isn’t bringing the troops back, he is just sending them to a different war. (while cutting funding for equipment they need for their safety) remember when Clinton was spouting off about landmines? At about that same time he canceled funding for the Grizzly Mine Clearing vehicle.

As for greed deceipt and disregard for the poor… has anyone been helped by these so called stimulus packages (other than stock holders and corporate executives). The Government keeps giving our tax dollars to multinational corporations and it is only a matter of time till they start raising our taxes to pay for it.

Bottom line is that neither of the two big parties are all that great right now. It is about time that the church start publishing score cards on individual politicians and how good they are from a Christian perspective.

 

[royal_archer]

The rock and a hard place people around the world face. Without spoilling your vote, and in the absence of morally righteous independents, voting for political party amounts to the ‘best of a bad bunch’.

It seems that the best we can hope for is politicians that will just not make things worse and will stop trying to force deviant individuals views of morality on the rest of society. In other words don’t force our hospitals to perform abortions, don’t force our businesses to give spousal bennefits to gay couples, don’t force us to accomodate other peoples acts that we find immoral.

 

[royal_archer]

See, I don’t see it that way.
I see it that my family was poor, were able to then easily buy a house under Clinton, and send me off to college.
Then Bush came along, and the house went into foreclosure, family had to move into a more affordable house (more affordable than the home we could easily afford under Clinton), I had to quit college and get a job to help pay for the new home, and barely get by month to month.
So we have a cheaper house we can barely afford, from having a house we could easily afford, and all that changed was the politicians in office.

The democrats pushed through programs that forced banks to give loans to people who could not afford them and low variable rates. Then when the variable rates varied, the people were left with loans they could not afford. Many of those people would have been better off without government intervention.

 

[Holly3278]

Archbishop Burke is totally correct in calling the Democratic Party a party of death. It is definitely a party of death. They support legalized murder (abortion and euthanasia) and they support the death penalty as well in most cases.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Archbishop Burke is totally correct in calling the Democratic Party a party of death. It is definitely a party of death. They support legalized murder (abortion and euthanasia) and they support the death penalty as well in most cases.

and the Republicans supported a war of choice that killed thousands. BOTH parties support death-which is why the Church needs to stay away from aligning herself with either of them.

 

[JimG]

The Democratic Party platform supports abortion rights and supports Roe v Wade; the Republican Party platform opposes abortion and supports life. It’s pretty clear cut. High profile Democrats such as Pelosi, Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, are all supporters of abortion rights. The party has for years accepted millions of dollars from pro-abortion lobbyists. Not only that, but over the course of the past several decades, the Democratic party has become even more pro-abortion with each new election cycle. It appears that Archbishop Burke is only stating the obvious.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

The Democratic Party platform supports abortion rights and supports Roe v Wade; the Republican Party platform opposes abortion and supports life. It’s pretty clear cut. High profile Democrats such as Pelosi, Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, are all supporters of abortion rights. The party has for years accepted millions of dollars from pro-abortion lobbyists. Not only that, but over the course of the past several decades, the Democratic party has become even more pro-abortion with each new election cycle. It appears that Archbishop Burke is only stating the obvious.

The previous poster was correct-pro-life is a new stance for the GOP. Back in the Goldwater days they would have said hands off to all of their “life issues” and said that it was up to the states. Roe changed that, and the GOP saw a large number of people that they could steal from the Democrats on that issue.

It’s not about the party being “pro life”, it’s about getting voters in their corner, and they were able to take a lot of votes from the Democrats while doing relatively nothing. The pro life voter has been loyal despite little evidence of actual results.

 

[fix]

The previous poster was correct-pro-life is a new stance for the GOP. Back in the Goldwater days they would have said hands off to all of their “life issues” and said that it was up to the states. Roe changed that, and the GOP saw a large number of people that they could steal from the Democrats on that issue.

It’s not about the party being “pro life”, it’s about getting voters in their corner, and they were able to take a lot of votes from the Democrats while doing relatively nothing. The pro life voter has been loyal despite little evidence of actual results.

What has the democrat party done to stop abortion?

 

[RobbyS]

and the Republicans supported a war of choice that killed thousands. BOTH parties support death-which is why the Church needs to stay away from aligning herself with either of them.

You equate a policy that resulted in the death of thousands with one that results in the deaths of millions. IAC, both parties are ambivalent on the issue of abortion. It was a Republican appointee who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, and a Democratic appointee who was a prominent dissenter in that case. Nixon public decried the decision, but acted with great haste to implement its terms, and Gerald Ford and his wife were among the loudest supporters of the right.

On the other hand, Ronald Reagan became very pro-life and from 1976 onwards the Republican Party adopted a pro-life plank in its national platform. It remains from the 1980s a party split between a pro-life majority and a pro-choice minority. The Democratic Party went the other way. From 1980 onwards, all major Democratic politicians, including the likes of Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, have become pro-choice. When Ronald Reagan nomiminated Robert Bork, a jurist who was known to dislike Roe to be a member of the Supreme Court, the Democrats went to war to keep him off the bench. Since then
Roe v. Wade has become a party shibboleth, and no Democrat can be elected/appointed to a major office who is opposed to “the right.” Some pro-life Democrartic pols remain, but they are inconsequential. .

 

[JimG]

The previous poster was correct-pro-life is a new stance for the GOP. Back in the Goldwater days they would have said hands off to all of their “life issues” and said that it was up to the states. Roe changed that, and the GOP saw a large number of people that they could steal from the Democrats on that issue.

It’s not about the party being “pro life”, it’s about getting voters in their corner, and they were able to take a lot of votes from the Democrats while doing relatively nothing. The pro life voter has been loyal despite little evidence of actual results.

The main reason the GOP could “steal” pro-life voters is because the Democratic Party actively embraced the pro-choice cause, putting it in their platform, and accepting lobbying money from organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Indeed, I think it took many lifelong Democrats a very long time before they realized that their party had been hijacked by pro-death forces.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

The main reason the GOP could “steal” pro-life voters is because the Democratic Party actively embraced the pro-choice cause, putting it in their platform, and accepting lobbying money from organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Indeed, I think it took many lifelong Democrats a very long time before they realized that their party had been hijacked by pro-death forces.

My point is-there was no “higher motive” to the GOP stance on abortion other than seeing an opportunity to grab voters from the Democrats. It’s not about God, it’s not even about the babies-it’s about donations and votes. The minute the GOP thinks that platform is hurting them at the polls they’ll drop it like an old shoe-and that day may be coming. They’re losing voters by the thousands-the GOP convention this year looked like a crowd shot at my parents retirement village-lots of old white people in funny hats. I think the last poll had them at about 20%. If they think dropping or watering down the anti-abortion platform will make them competitive in 2010 and change that percentage, they’re going to do it.

We need to stop giving these people credit for being anything other than politicians.

 

[JimG]

My point is-there was no “higher motive” to the GOP stance on abortion other than seeing an opportunity to grab voters from the Democrats. It’s not about God, it’s not even about the babies-it’s about donations and votes. The minute the GOP thinks that platform is hurting them at the polls they’ll drop it like an old shoe-and that day may be coming. They’re losing voters by the thousands-the GOP convention this year looked like a crowd shot at my parents retirement village-lots of old white people in funny hats. I think the last poll had them at about 20%. If they think dropping or watering down the anti-abortion platform will make them competitive in 2010 and change that percentage, they’re going to do it.

We need to stop giving these people credit for being anything other than politicians.

But if it’s only about donations and votes, why hasn’t the GOP already abandoned the pro-life voters? If it was all about money and votes, and IF pro-life is a losing issue, we would have seen pro-life voters dumped long before this.

In fact, I’ve seen studies showing that on balance, being pro-life is a net positive for a candidate, other factors being equal.

And if all politicians are simply cynical vote followers, who do we expect to represent us in Congress? Do we encourage candidates to run by saying, “Yes, you should run for office; then you’ll be a politician and I’ll hate you for it!”

 

[adowcday]

I think you added the implication that the republican party is the party of life. The fact is, republicans share more Catholic values than most democrats, such as that they are usually pro-life and have concern for moral and family issues.

The Republican Party is the only choice for Catholics only if you think that abortion is the one and only issue that Catholics should care about. I don’t, and I voted for Obama.

I also think that Archbishop Burke is in serious danger of inviting a loss of tax-exempt status for his diocese.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

What has the democrat party done to stop abortion?

What have they promised to do? Nothing.

What has the GOP promised to do? And what have they succeeded in doing?

I’m not a fan of EITHER party. Just because I’m calling the GOP out for being politicians doesn’t mean I’m in love with the other side. I’m just tired of listening to people lionize the GOP when they are politicians that are simply using a wedge issue in order to get votes. That’s it, there’s nothing more noble to their “pro-life” speeches and promises than that.