Are you pro-life or Republican first?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LCMS_No_More
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my opinion, I believe that voting for the lesser of two evils is a compromise which sends the wrong message and does nothing, but enable the downward spiral. This time around the lesser evil is this bad, next time around it is a little bit worse, and so on. If there were large numbers of Catholics and other pro-life folks who refrained from giving the approval and sanction to these people, there would be greater chance of someone running with a pro-life agenda which would appeal to these absent voters.
 
I also believe that the important thing is not so much the elections themselves, but the whole process which happens beforehand in working to promote those eligible folks who would champion the pro-life cause. The main reason there are few pro-life candidates is that we are not making our views clear enough to the world and not working hard enough to get such candidates.
 
mapleoak said:
In my opinion, I believe that voting for the lesser of two evils is a compromise which sends the wrong message and does nothing, but enable the downward spiral. This time around the lesser evil is this bad, next time around it is a little bit worse, and so on. If there were large numbers of Catholics and other pro-life folks who refrained from giving the approval and sanction to these people, there would be greater chance of someone running with a pro-life agenda which would appeal to these absent voters.
Click to expand...
What is the alternative – not to vote at all? The Church teaches us we must be involved.

In fact, we need to do two things – first of all, always support the candidate who is closer to Catholic teaching, with first priority to the life issues. Secondly to recruit and support the next generation of candidates. We need to look, not only to this election, but to the next, and the next, and the next. Today’s city councilman may be a Congressman, Senator, or President in twenty years or so.
 
vern_humphrey said:
What is the alternative – not to vote at all? The Church teaches us we must be involved.

In fact, we need to do two things – first of all, always support the candidate who is closer to Catholic teaching, with first priority to the life issues. Secondly to recruit and support the next generation of candidates. We need to look, not only to this election, but to the next, and the next, and the next. Today’s city councilman may be a Congressman, Senator, or President in twenty years or so.
Click to expand...
This is one area which troubles me deeply.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Remember, most disasters could have been prevented if someone had only started work soon enough.
Click to expand...
This is the problem, I will be voting for someone who is solidly pro-life as have in the past, but they most assuredly will not win. I can’t help but think it is because too many of us compromise our position, as I have done in the past, to the ‘lesser evil’, believing that is what everyone else will be doing as well. When you believe something hard enough…

I firmly believe the ‘soon enough’ part of it needs to be worked on well before election times even approach.
 
I have wondered for years why most of our bishops are so week and refuse to stand for the turth. I know what has happened. I just can’t understand why.

CDL
 
mapleoak said:
This is the problem, I will be voting for someone who is solidly pro-life as have in the past, but they most assuredly will not win. I can’t help but think it is because too many of us compromise our position, as I have done in the past, to the ‘lesser evil’, believing that is what everyone else will be doing as well. When you believe something hard enough…

I firmly believe the ‘soon enough’ part of it needs to be worked on well before election times even approach.
Click to expand...
When it comes to the Presidency, there are only two parties in this country that have a shadow of a chance of winning. Therefore, you have three choices:
  1. Vote for the greater of two evils – who will be a member of one of those two parties.
  2. Vote for the lesser of two evils – who will be a member of one of those two parties.
  3. Vote for a third party candidate who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hades of winning, and thereby not vote against the greater of the two evils. Which is to say, Choice 3 is the same as Choice 1.
 
vern_humphrey said:
When it comes to the Presidency, there are only two parties in this country that have a shadow of a chance of winning. Therefore, you have three choices:
  1. Vote for the greater of two evils – who will be a member of one of those two parties.
  2. Vote for the lesser of two evils – who will be a member of one of those two parties.
  3. Vote for a third party candidate who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hades of winning, and thereby not vote against the greater of the two evils. Which is to say, Choice 3 is the same as Choice 1.
Click to expand...
Well, then one party better put up a prolife candidate. They might well lose a lot of votes. As far as the lesser of two evils, if they are so evil to support a holocaust, who cares what the demon’s name is.
 
pnewton said:
Well, then one party better put up a prolife candidate. They might well lose a lot of votes. As far as the lesser of two evils, if they are so evil to support a holocaust, who cares what the demon’s name is.
Click to expand...
Do you say that a candidate who supports unlimited taxpayer-supported abortion is the same as one who supports some restrictions?
 
vern_humphrey said:
Do you say that a candidate who supports unlimited taxpayer-supported abortion is the same as one who supports some restrictions?
Click to expand...
No and I understand your point. But if neither party puts us a pro-life candidate and a third party does, I will vote third party.
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I have wondered for years why most of our bishops are so week and refuse to stand for the turth. I know what has happened. I just can’t understand why.

CDL
Click to expand...
I don’t purport to know either, but I do have some suspicions.

First, while the reign of the “lavendar mafia” was dominant, some might have been compromised in soul. You might recall that one current presidential candidate illegally obtained hundreds of FBI files some years back. No one even knows for sure on whom. We know for certain that some bishops, e.g., Weakland, who was powerful in the USCCB, were homosexual. Who, among the enemies of the Church knew that? Fortunately, the “lavendar mafia” seems to be receding from influence.

Second, there is no doubt in my mind that some bishops bought into popular conceptions of things. I will always believe Cdl Law was persuaded that the psychobabble of the psychological world that the abuser priests could be rehabilitated with a little counselling and “discernment”. It is possible, however, that his chancery was more responsible than was he.

Third, most Catholic bishops in the U.S. came from Dem backgrounds. Many canoodle with the powerful in the Church, e.g., the Kennedys, who are profoundly compromised. Some of it could have to do with that, and with the money such people bring to bear.

Fourth, I really do think many of them, having been formed during the “spirit of VII” era, are vague and weak in their own beliefs, and have adopted the sociopolitical in lieu of the religious. The current emphasis on “loving, caring and sharing” in many Catholic schools, with almost no real catechesis, are strongly suggestive of that. Unfortunately, the orders of sisters who went feminist and political are as thick in the chanceries as are fleas on a stray hound. I have suspected this happened as a sop to those who were clamoring for “power in the Church” (i.e., ordination) and positions of administrative power were given to them as a sop. Church bureaucrats often run dioceses more than do the bishops themselves.

Fifth and last, I think bishops have an inordinate fear of losing their dioceses’ tax exemptions if they become “too political”. Well, they lost their backsides anyway in the “abuse” lawsuits, so they might as well have dared it. But they didn’t.

Those are my guesses.
 
pnewton said:
No and I understand your point. But if neither party puts us a pro-life candidate and a third party does, I will vote third party.
Click to expand...
That assumes the two major party candidates are equal, and there is no greater and lesser evil.

Remember, when you don’t vote, or vote for a third party, you politically emasculate yourself. You no longer count in the calculations of the only parties that can win elections.
 
vern_humphrey said:
That assumes the two major party candidates are equal, and there is no greater and lesser evil.
Click to expand...
No, assuming there is no pro-life candidate. If both favor the right to abortion, I will make no distinction, even if one is more militant in their position. Will the vote be wasted? As with all things, the vote of everyone is wasted who does not win, whether they finish 2nd or 3rd. I can accept the practicality of compromising this position and respect those who do, but I have to do what I think is right.
 
vern_humphrey said:
When it comes to the Presidency, there are only two parties in this country that have a shadow of a chance of winning. Therefore, you have three choices:
  1. Vote for the greater of two evils – who will be a member of one of those two parties.
  2. Vote for the lesser of two evils – who will be a member of one of those two parties.
  3. Vote for a third party candidate who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hades of winning, and thereby not vote against the greater of the two evils. Which is to say, Choice 3 is the same as Choice 1.
Click to expand...
Talk about mental masturbation.
 
pnewton said:
No, assuming there is no pro-life candidate. If both favor the right to abortion, I will make no distinction, even if one is more militant in their position. Will the vote be wasted? As with all things, the vote of everyone is wasted who does not win, whether they finish 2nd or 3rd. I can accept the practicality of compromising this position and respect those who do, but I have to do what I think is right.
Click to expand...
I’ve thought a lot about this, as I will not be voting on Super Tuesday. Once Thompson left the race, I felt that I couldn’t decide who was my next choice, so better to not vote at all.

Of course, I will vote in the general election.

But, while I understand your thoughts on the ‘lesser evil’, the words of some General (Patton?) comes to mind. We aren’t retreating, we’re advancing backwards. Or something similar - perhaps it’s just a movie quote.

If I vote the lesser of the 2 evils, does it not slow down the progression of evil? And therefore perhaps reduce the amount of evil done until the next election? Who knows what can happen politically and socially in the meanwhile. Rather than retreat, I would rather regroup. And I would rather regroup with someone less militant in charge.
 
Sheeniac said:
If I vote the lesser of the 2 evils, does it not slow down the progression of evil? And therefore perhaps reduce the amount of evil done until the next election?
Click to expand...
Then what happens? If a party is gets unconditional support from anti-abortionists despite their pro-abortion stand, what incintive is there ever to support ant-abortionists? Furthermore, what will prevent the further alienation by pro-abortionists? This isn’t the only election and there is no guarentee that the two parties in power will be forever.
 
I’m very unhappy with our partisan politics. I find myself disagreeing with all candidates on both sides.

I wish there was a truly Catholic candidate. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top