Are you pro-life or Republican first?

[LCMS_No_More]

I would agree that the Democrat party seems not to be favored by the majority on this site. But one has to ask why that’s so. For most, I think it’s a hatred of abortion, not of Democrats. For some, it’s exacerbated by a sense of being betrayed. I can’t answer for anyone beside myself, but I was a Democrat once myself; an organizer and an officeholder in the party. I remember well when the abortion lobby captured the party. I remember when, as a Catholic Democrat, you either had to openly compromise your faithfulness to the teachings of the Church or refuse to be a party to what they were doing. My wife (who was also a party officeholder) and I made our choices, though we fought it, and in a very serious way, as did others, but the abortionists won. As abortion on demand became a party absolute, the party became more and more leftward leaning, precisely because those who favored abortion also tended to be immoderate in other ways. I was there when that change took place, and I remember it well. And I wasn’t the only one, either. Not by a long way.

I confess that I resent what happened to the party. I resent the fact that favoring abortion is the absolute litmust test for the party. I resent it that the party no longer does anything for the poor or for working people, yet claims that it does. It’s living off its patrimony in that regard, like a dissolute generation that pretends to be straight when going to its parents for money. So, it would be fair to say that I resent what has happened to the party. It no longer exists in the way I knew it and in the way too many still think of it. I don’t hate Democrats. I do hate the fact that the party claims to be something it isn’t, and that many people believe it.

Most Catholics were once Democrats or the children of Democrats. It should surprise no one that, when the Democrat party effectively betrayed faithful Catholics, it would cause a certain amount of resentment. But that’s not the same thing as hate for Democrats themselves.

Lest you or anyone else misunderstand, I’m not a Republican, though I have been asked to run for office as a Republican. I guess I’m like Zell Miller in that way. It doesn’t feel natural to do it, and I still believe in the old Democrat principles notwithstanding that the Democrat party of today doesn’t.

If you want balance, let’s look at this the way it really is and get some real balance.

I hear you, absolutely.

Personally, I am angry with the Republican party because I feel as though I had been betrayed or deceived by the purveyors of republicanism. I used to be a true believer but Bush’s arrogation of power unto himself after 9/11 really made me take a second look and I have come to see that there is a great danger in giving too much power to any man. I used to think it would come from a Democrat but I see that the right is more likely to become dictatorial in America than the left.

Thus, I am by no means friendly to the politics of the Right and if it weren’t for the life issue(s), I would be a Democrat today.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I used to be a true believer but Bush’s arrogation of power unto himself after 9/11 really made me take a second look and I have come to see that there is a great danger in giving too much power to any man. I used to think it would come from a Democrat but I see that the right is more likely to become dictatorial in America than the left.

Thus, I am by no means friendly to the politics of the Right and if it weren’t for the life issue(s), I would be a Democrat today.

There is a lot for which one can legitimately criticize Bush, but having too much power is not one of them. He is one of the weakest presidents in recent memory. He couldn’t even control his own party. Certainly, he did not, and does not, really control the CIA. U.S. Attorneys defied him openly, though they are part of the Executive Branch. And when he fired one that was openly insubordinate, which he had every right to do, his Attorney General was hounded out of office. Amazingly, he effectively ceded to Congress the right to vote to end the war long after it had started; a right Congress doesn’t have. Congress refused to vote to end it, with scarcely a Democrat vote to end it. No, the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to continue the war virtually every one of them voted for in the first place, but wanted to blame him alone for it because the American people are frustrated with it. And the American people do blame him for it.

Bush’s “arrogation of power” is one of the biggest myths that has ever been perpetrated on Americans, and a significant number are ready to vote for the person who “accidentally” obtained hundreds of FBI files on political enemies and their private citizen supporters, without having any legal right whatever to do it. Another president of recent memory started a war in the Balkans without even having Congressional approval to do it, unlike Bush, who did in Iraq, and came within a hairs breadth of starting a war with the Russians in the process; an outcome that was only narrowly averted by the refusal of a British general to cooperate in it. And he got a pass. Now that’s power. I would say the American people are likely to learn what real power is within twelve months, and to wish we had a weak president again.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Ridgerunner,

You are quite correct in your analysis. Thank you for it. You make this otherwise stupid and bleak thread tolerable.

CDL

 

[Conservative]

I strongly believe that Republicanism is an ideology based on the notions that a tax is the worst possible evil in the universe and that business can do no wrong. I also strongly believe that the Republican party added its “pro-life” plank in 1980 in order to garner the Christian vote but would jettison it if they thought they could win without it. Anyway, I’d like to see what would happen if the parties changed their views on morals issues ONLY.

I’m leaving the poll anonymous so no one has to feel they need to explain their vote to their fellows.

By the way, DP means death penalty and “Big 5” refers to the so-called 5 “non-negotiables.”

While I didn’t vote in the poll - my stand is First - and Foremost - Pro-Life. I’m no saint, but no political party precedes my moral / religious beliefs. If they can’t fill the bill, they don’t get my vote. Not only do I have to live with myself - but I have to face God someday - even on what I do in the voting booth. Isn’t it amazing how they talk about separation of Church and State in the U.S. - but lawmakers step right in, tell us what we can legally do - immoral as it might be - and then wonder if we put our religious beliefs ahead of anything else? What bothers me more are conservatives who call as Election Day approaches and urge me to vote for someone who they claim is the lesser of two evils. (No reflection on comment made by OP - it happens all the time here.) I’m not planning to vote again until we get a decent, honest candidate. In the land of “pro-choice”, it seems that Catholics/Christians don’t seem to have a choice if we put our moral thinking caps on. And if a “pro-life” candidate comes on the scene, why do they disappear? Win or lose, that’s my Pro-Choice !

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not planning to vote again until we get a decent, honest candidate. In the land of “pro-choice”, it seems that Catholics/Christians don’t seem to have a choice if we put our moral thinking caps on. And if a “pro-life” candidate comes on the scene, why do they disappear? Win or lose, that’s my Pro-Choice !

You undestand that by abandoning the political arena, you have lost any influence you might have in selecting future candidates?

Our sin is that we refuse to work to get good candidates, and then back away from the hard choices we face as a result of our refusal.

If Catholics would get involved and work to recruit and support good candidates, we’d have good candidates. Having failed to do that, we are left with the lesser option of simply denying the worst candidates the nomination and election. And if we back away from that, then we must accept the blame for the consequences.

 

[Scottgun]

Yes, I think the poll is inflammatory with lots of excluded middles, so I did not answer it.

I think that while I agree that the Republican party cannot ultimately be counted on for the kind of pro-life support we want, it is still the pro-life movement’s base of operations in the political realm, and should remain so barring a complete, manifest betrayal. The repudiation of Guliani (who was a shoe-in for the nomination a few months ago) goes a long way to maintaining at least enough vestigial trust that we should stick.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, I think the poll is inflammatory with lots of excluded middles, so I did not answer it.

I think that while I agree that the Republican party cannot ultimately be counted on for the kind of pro-life support we want, it is still the pro-life movement’s base of operations in the political realm, and should remain so barring a complete, manifest betrayal. The repudiation of Guliani (who was a shoe-in for the nomination a few months ago) goes a long way to maintaining at least enough vestigial trust that we should stick.

You are absolutely right.

We can control who the nominees are – if we will only get off our Catholic duffs and do it. I’d explain how, but to do that I’d have to use the “W” word (work!)

 

[BamaRider]

The repubs can only do so much in a country that is basically split 50-50. They don’t have the votes to pass any pro life bills, and as long as Roe V Wade stands, they can’t anyway.

Going to boil down to this; going to be a close election, either way. A few million votes will decide it in a key state. A pro choice in the White House has the potential to put a pro abortion judge on the court and shore up Roe v Wade, and if he gets more than 1 pick, can make Roe v Wade virtually unassailable for a generation. The fact he peeled off votes from Catholics, would be really hard to accept in a close election, because it makes you wonder if those were the deceisive votes.

 

[justme]

I strongly believe that Republicanism is an ideology based on the notions that a tax is the worst possible evil in the universe and that business can do no wrong. I also strongly believe that the Republican party added its “pro-life” plank in 1980 in order to garner the Christian vote but would jettison it if they thought they could win without it. Anyway, I’d like to see what would happen if the parties changed their views on morals issues ONLY.

I’m leaving the poll anonymous so no one has to feel they need to explain their vote to their fellows.

By the way, DP means death penalty and “Big 5” refers to the so-called 5 “non-negotiables.”

When did matters that are not dogma become the “no-negotiables”?

As Catholics we are free to hold differeing views on all of those listed.

And I noticed that the thread title has a question about being “pro-life” yet your “non-negotiables” does not list “pro-life”.

Seems like a very bad poll.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When did matters that are not dogma become the “no-negotiables”?

As Catholics we are free to hold differeing views on all of those listed.

And I noticed that the thread title has a question about being “pro-life” yet your “non-negotiables” does not list “pro-life”.

Seems like a very bad poll.

It’s a clumsy example of the old “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” school of questions.

 

[Nino]

well,well.this is an outdated deftinition of ‘republican’ both parties are taxing we,the middle class to death! There has not been a true Teddy Roosevelt republican since…well,TR himself! We have had no-win wars,trade with horrible nations like China,the ignoring of our borders,no president has ever attended our right to life demos in Jan…we freeze while the pro-life prez sits in a heated rooms…from the gipper to the present…Pro-life means…pro INNOCENT LIFE…I ,like Jesus,would not complain if ,after due process,a felon gets the juice! America is moving more and more to the left…and its not ‘liberalism’ but ‘conservativism’ a conservative is for the status quo…and since all we get now are members of the CFR etc…we ,who oppose them ,are the true liberals! A liberal is against abortion for it kills an innocent developing baby,a liberal is for the states to decide on issues of education etc…a liberal is for congress to act on a war…a liberal is for a balanced budget,not inflation and recession caused by jobs …made in america…being shipped overseas to dictatorships like china…we liberals are like the dec.of independence proclaimed…for the right of everyone to the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness…amen and amen…it looks bad,may God have mercy on us,will open discussion of Christianity be outlawed as a hate crime within 5 years…tick tick tick

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There is a lot for which one can legitimately criticize Bush, but having too much power is not one of them. He is one of the weakest presidents in recent memory. He couldn’t even control his own party. Certainly, he did not, and does not, really control the CIA. U.S. Attorneys defied him openly, though they are part of the Executive Branch. And when he fired one that was openly insubordinate, which he had every right to do, his Attorney General was hounded out of office. Amazingly, he effectively ceded to Congress the right to vote to end the war long after it had started; a right Congress doesn’t have. Congress refused to vote to end it, with scarcely a Democrat vote to end it. No, the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to continue the war virtually every one of them voted for in the first place, but wanted to blame him alone for it because the American people are frustrated with it. And the American people do blame him for it.

Bush’s “arrogation of power” is one of the biggest myths that has ever been perpetrated on Americans, and a significant number are ready to vote for the person who “accidentally” obtained hundreds of FBI files on political enemies and their private citizen supporters, without having any legal right whatever to do it. Another president of recent memory started a war in the Balkans without even having Congressional approval to do it, unlike Bush, who did in Iraq, and came within a hairs breadth of starting a war with the Russians in the process; an outcome that was only narrowly averted by the refusal of a British general to cooperate in it. And he got a pass. Now that’s power. I would say the American people are likely to learn what real power is within twelve months, and to wish we had a weak president again.

He’s still pretty powerful in what he can do to US Citizens without review or sanction, which is what I was talking about. What started me on the road away from Republicanism is the President’s elimination of habaeus corpus. He has had torture redefined so that he can say “we do not torture!” while, under definitions of international law, we ARE doing so. He believes he has the power to spy on anyone’s communication at any time on a whim and has been doing so since before 9/11.

So, while he may no longer be politically powerful (Deo gratias), he can still make the lives of people he has issues with pretty miserable.

So, in 352 days, 9 hours 6 minutes, 45 seconds, I will be celebrating the end of the worst Presidency ever.

 

[BamaRider]

 

[Ender]

What started me on the road away from Republicanism is the President’s elimination of habaeus corpus.

This is untrue. Habeas corpus applies to us as much now as it ever has. It does not, however, apply to non-US citizens not on US soil.

He has had torture redefined so that he can say “we do not torture!”

This is also untrue. The laws define what constitutes torture and the laws are the responsibility of Congress. A proposal to outlaw waterboarding was introduced in an earlier Congress and failed to get a majority of either party. The Democrats control Congress now; if they want to make waterboarding illegal they can introduce a bill and vote on it.

under definitions of international law, we ARE doing so.

I don’t know if this is true or not but if we have not signed the international agreement to which you refer then we are no more constrained by it than other nations are constrained by our laws.

He believes he has the power to spy on anyone’s communication at any time on a whim and has been doing so since before 9/11.

Once again, this is untrue. He has no authority - nor has he sought any - to intercept communications between US citizens. The debate was whether he had the authorization to intercept communication between identified terrorists outside of the US with someone inside the US as well as communication completely outside of the US that happened to be routed through comm devices in the US.

I will be celebrating the end of the worst Presidency ever.

I am indifferent to your opinion but not to the truth of your allegations.

Ender

 

[LCMS_No_More]

This is untrue. Habeas corpus applies to us as much now as it ever has. It does not, however, apply to non-US citizens not on US soil.

Mmmhmmm…oh, what’s that US citizen’s name who was sent to Guantanamo from Chicago…oh, yes, Padilla.

This is also untrue. The laws define what constitutes torture and the laws are the responsibility of Congress. A proposal to outlaw waterboarding was introduced in an earlier Congress and failed to get a majority of either party. The Democrats control Congress now; if they want to make waterboarding illegal they can introduce a bill and vote on it.

We are signatories of treaties that define torture and the Constitution specifically states that treaties signed by the United States trump national laws.

I don’t know if this is true or not but if we have not signed the international agreement to which you refer then we are no more constrained by it than other nations are constrained by our laws.

If we hadn’t signed anything, then we aren’t bound by anything, but if we have signed, we are indeed bound by it, regardless of what the President says.

Once again, this is untrue. He has no authority - nor has he sought any - to intercept communications between US citizens. The debate was whether he had the authorization to intercept communication between identified terrorists outside of the US with someone inside the US as well as communication completely outside of the US that happened to be routed through comm devices in the US.

Apparently you only get your information from sources vetted by the White House? He was spying on citizens before 9/11…why else would he by insisting on amnesty for telecommunication corporations? Amnesty is only useful for people who have broken the law.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Mmmhmmm…oh, what’s that US citizen’s name who was sent to Guantanamo from Chicago…oh, yes, Padilla.

Mmmhmmm…oh, what’s that US citizen’s name who was captured in the US spying for the Nazis, tried by a military commission and executed …oh, yes, William Colepaugh

We are signatories of treaties that define torture and the Constitution specifically states that treaties signed by the United States trump national laws.

Which treaty? Give us a cite to the provision that “defines torture.”

If we hadn’t signed anything, then we aren’t bound by anything, but if we have signed, we are indeed bound by it, regardless of what the President says.

So what is it we signed?

Let me point out that American service members who are liable to capture and torture are subjected to “water boarding” as a part of their standard Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training.

Apparently you only get your information from sources vetted by the White House?

As opposed to MoveOn: People-Powered Progress)

He was spying on citizens before 9/11…why else would he by insisting on amnesty for telecommunication corporations? Amnesty is only useful for people who have broken the law.

Can you give us cites about this “spying?”

 

[Conservative]

You undestand that by abandoning the political arena, you have lost any influence you might have in selecting future candidates?

Our sin is that we refuse to work to get good candidates, and then back away from the hard choices we face as a result of our refusal.

If Catholics would get involved and work to recruit and support good candidates, we’d have good candidates. Having failed to do that, we are left with the lesser option of simply denying the worst candidates the nomination and election. And if we back away from that, then we must accept the blame for the consequences.

Vern -
I haven’t abandoned the political arena. I’ve tried, I’ve voted - for the ‘lesser of two evils’ - or however it’s termed - but we still vote for so-called conservative parties who have no more conservative intent than the man in the moon!

In the name of life - I’ve marched in Washington in the freezing cold of January, stood in protest lines along highways or demonstrated outside of Planned Parenthood, signed petitions, etc. I’ve learned that writing to politicians - gets a polite “thank you”. Unless we show them - big time - how it would hurt in the wallet, as well as numbers in the voting booth, we get little in the way of positive response. You’re absolutely right - Catholics should be more active - Catholic candidates, in particular - those with strong convictions - and then Catholic voters with those same voting convictions — but where are they? Why are they afraid to surface? We’re not afraid to speak our minds on the side of right - we can’t be the only ones.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern -
I haven’t abandoned the political arena. I’ve tried, I’ve voted - for the ‘lesser of two evils’ - or however it’s termed - but we still vote for so-called conservative parties who have no more conservative intent than the man in the moon!

I agree it isn’t easy – but we are called to fight the good fight, not to abandon the field to evil.

In the name of life - I’ve marched in Washington in the freezing cold of January, stood in protest lines along highways or demonstrated outside of Planned Parenthood, signed petitions, etc. I’ve learned that writing to politicians - gets a polite “thank you”. Unless we show them - big time - how it would hurt in the wallet, as well as numbers in the voting booth, we get little in the way of positive response. You’re absolutely right - Catholics should be more active - Catholic candidates, in particular - those with strong convictions - and then Catholic voters with those same voting convictions — but where are they?

We must recruit pro-life politicians. We must join political parties, attend all the boring meetings, work to have influence within our local committees, and back good candidates at the local level – city councilman, justice of the peace, and so on.

Then we will have credible, viable candidates for state office, and eventually for national office.

Why are they afraid to surface? We’re not afraid to speak our minds on the side of right - we can’t be the only ones.

We are told that during the persecutions there were people who saw Christians face martyrdom, and who were inspired to step forward, declare themselves Christians and die with them.

Let us, by speaking out and working hard, seek to likewise inspire others to bear witness with us.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am going to quibble a bit with Vern and Conservative both, but not much.

I truly think the Dem party is too far gone to change in any “normal” way. When it got rid of the once nearly universal caucus system, which really did allow a dedicated, organized group to greatly influence candidate selection, it was “game over”. The McGovernites kicked down the ladder by which they ascended to power, by doing away with that system.

In truth, I don’t think we’re really going to see positive changes in a major way until the Catholic bishops decide to be brave. It is they who have encouraged Catholics to be blinded to evil by the “consistent life ethic”. It allows for corruption of soul. If, in my heart, I really don’t want to see abortion on demand go away as a “constitutional right”, I can vote for the abortion candidate who, for instance, opposes the death penalty, or who promises (but of course never delivers) “aid to the poor”, and thus salve my conscience. That approach is profoundly corrupting and the USCCB ought to stop doing it, and start at the top of the list, making the “non-negotiable five” a “non-negotiable one”.

They need to take one thing at a time and be courageous about it. If they took a clear stand, i.e., there is no political issue more important than innocent human life, and if you support those who support abortion, you commit a grave sin. That’s the truth. Why don’t they tell it, just like that, and not fuzz it up with a bunch of generalities about “social justice”? And, while many of the Cafeteria Catholics would be mightily offended by it, and money would be lost, the Archbishop of Boston should openly excommunicate Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and tell the reason why. The same should happen to Nancy Pelosi and the many other pro abortion Catholic officeholders. There will be hell to pay, but it will give a clear message to Catholics; Catholics who have not received one.

Catholics are not going to rally around a “consistent ethic of life” because it can be interpreted in so many ways. If, by courageous speaking and by taking actions for which there absolutely will be retaliation, then in time perhaps Catholics could be persuaded to speak with a unified voice.

The irony of all this is that if the leaders of this Church took one thing at a time; the most important first, and really did encourage “single issue” voting, issue by issue, election cycle by election cycle, Catholics could make a huge difference. This is the time to do it. There actually isn’t much difference between the parties; certainly not between the two leading candidates in any way other than the protection of the unborn. Nobody can win the presidency if 20% of the electorate rejects him/her out of hand. If Catholics in Massachussets voted “single issue”, according to Church teachings, just once, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry would either change their positions or be ousted. On the Republican side, it’s even more dramatic. The Repub candidates have made their stands pretty clear.

We got in this shape by the U.S. Bishops’ compromising the consciences of Catholics instead of providing leadership. In my mind, the cure starts there too.

In the meantime, and in the absence of a real “Catholic vote” consistent with what should be Catholic conscience, our obligation is to vote “single issue”, and keep hammering on that one thing.

But you can’t do it by trying to change the abortion party from the inside. The only thing it will understand is defeat, and lots of it. Then, and then only, will it allow prolife candidates within its ranks.

 

[Conservative]

Thank you both, Vern and Ridgerunner -
Both excellently versed in your explanations. ***And how, where are those fire and brimstone sermons on Sunday ***- either instructed by the Bishop or parish priest - telling us not who to vote for (can you imagine the furor?) - but maybe asking "who would Jesus vote for"?

I’m hesitant posting various association links for fear of my post disappearing. However, perhaps members are acquainted with the following. (1) **Right to Life **groups, sadly I’m afraid, have been either too small or too meek in accomplishing the aforementioned posts’ goals. And without more coming from the Bishops (???). (2) While Donohue’s “Catholic League” has accomplished much in public, I wonder why we haven’t seen more (unless I’ve just missed it) on the League’s part when it comes to finding appropriate candidates. (3) There is, however, a Christian group (AFA, American Family Association) who I’ve somehow gotten on email list for. Unless it’s all hype, they’ve accomplished a great deal in alerting me, and forcing the media to clean up their act, stores putting Christmas (versus “holiday” ads) back into the foreground, etc. - by email petitions. Maybe we should be petitioning the Bishops first ! Has their ever been that sort of a movement contacting the Bishops?

So, I guess it comes down to Right-to-Lifers - whole regional committees, not just individuals - to attend these meetings. Otherwise, we/the unborn are rendered near voiceless.