Can a catholic be a democrat?

[SuperLuigi]

I am from Massachusetts and is not true that Romney is for abortion just in cases of rape. Romney was full pro choice and there are multiple statements of him while being governor Herr supporting the pro choice movement. He was pro IVF and pro all anti life idea and even his son who used surrogacy (ronmey promoted surrogacy in MA) wanted to force his surrogate to have an abortion.
Romney was always a fierce liberal (can I remind you he won as governor of MA and oh yes he was supporting Decal Patrick too) what happens is that for the candidacy

I’ll bet real money Romney was better than the alternative in that race. But I was talking about 2012, not Romney’s past as governor where he had to deal a state legislature that was 85% democrat.

they realized with him as liberal republican no one on the southern states was going to vote for him and he put a temporary show during the elections.

I thought that was because he was Mormon.

Also if you don’t remember Obamacare is not from Obama…obamacare is ROMNEYCARE. All Obama did was copied the exact same law that Romney created so no, the story that

That’s a left-wing talking point designed to sell ObamaCare.

The fact is Romney signed onto the bill because it’s what the people of Massachusetts wanted, unlike ObamaCare which was shoved down the people’s throats with bought-off politicians. That was over four years ago and the people still don’t want it.

Oh yeah, and Romney didn’t cut Medicaid by billions of dollars to fund the program either.

Romney was only in favor of abortion for cases of rape may worked for southern people who heard of Romney for the first time before the elections but not for people in MA who already knew Romney.

This point is moot because I was talking about the 2012 election.

 

[Midwest88]

@ Mary: Obamacare isn’t Romneycare. Obama’s plan was, what, 1,000+ pages vs Romney’s 70 page. That’s like how many Finnegan’s Wake vs one Mere Christianity lying cover up.

mittromneyandhealthcare.blogspot.com/p/romneycare-vs-obamacare.html

It never ceases to surprise how cliche, naive and gullible responses are on political threads receive here on CAF. It’s great that some that respond have Faith but sheesh … As someone who use to hold very liberal views and was all (D) voting it’s eye rolling.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I totally agree with this. Both parties are faithless. I don’t know why people think that somehow republicans are more religious when is all pick and choose. Also we are talking about republicans being pro life and the Court that gave us the planned parenthood v Casey ruling on abortion was by far majority “republican” and most of its justices were names by either Reagan or Bush so basically the pro life legacy that republican left us was… Abortion? So I think that vision that republicans are religious is completely flawed.

As far as being faithless is concerned, I’d like to ask the same about African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Jews and all those “Minnesota nice”, humble pie-eating, homegrown heartlanders who vote democrat despite disagreeing with them on most moral issues.

I wish I had a buck every time an African-American called into a talk radio show defending the indefensible and the fact that he/she voted for Barack Obama just because he’s “black” or a union teacher from the heartland who ran straight into the arms of conservatives (not their union or the NLRB) every time they discipline a kid and get written up on sexual harassment or child abuse.

Frankly, these folks have no legs to stand on when it comes to criticizing republicans for trying to find ways to win elections with over 90% of the American media against them and an increasingly lazy and ungrateful electorate.

You get the government you vote for, and if Americans want to be obsessed over skin colour and salivate over crumbs from the kings table, then it’s par for the course and history has so many examples.

So if American voters have a problem, they should start by taking a good, hard look in the mirror.

the Court that gave us the planned parenthood v Casey ruling on abortion was by far majority “republican” and most of its justices were names by either Reagan or Bush so basically the pro life legacy that republican left us was… Abortion? So I think that vision that republicans are religious is completely flawed.

Since we’re going to point these things out, I can say the same things about the pro-life movement.

Really, thinking that a personhood amendment would pass in New Mexico because a lot of Hispanics are there? And why is Roe v Wade still legal? It flies in the face of the Constitution.

Why is that when it comes to defending social, conservative morals people check their intelligence at the door?

And do liberal Catholics help these organizations?

Cue the “you’ve never prayed in front an abortion clinic” retort in 3…2…1…

 

[SuperLuigi]

It never ceases to surprise how cliche, naive and gullible responses are on political threads receive here on CAF. It’s great that some that respond have Faith but sheesh … As someone who use to hold very liberal views and was all (D) voting it’s eye rolling.

Some of the comments over the years suggest that some American Catholics are looking for any straw they can to vote Democrat; I guess just so they can impress their friends, family or something like that and be without breaking any moral principles.

What a waste of time and energy!

 

[VincentChristop]

For the record our country is not a democratic country.

Our country mastered the art to control the masses.

 

[Nelka]

America is more of an oligarchy.

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

 

[johnnyt3000]

Some of the comments over the years suggest that some American Catholics are looking for any straw they can to vote Democrat; I guess just so they can impress their friends, family or something like that and be without breaking any moral principles.

What a waste of time and energy!

Probably not to just impress their friends or family, what if their friends/family were super conservative? Wouldn’t impress them much. The reasons I choose to lean left are probably the same reasons other American Catholics are too, the republican party does nothing to help the poor or homeless, all they do is want to decrease taxes for the rich and say it’s the poor person’s fault that they are poor. Not to mention the unjust immigration laws that they want to impose on people who are trying their best to have a decent life for them and their families. I would rather increase taxes for a millionare if it meant to help pay for a public school, because private schools are very expensive (and yes Catholic schools), and kids (especially one’s who can barely afford 3 meals a day), need an education. Reducing taxes for the rich all for the sake of improving the economy won’t help the poor man on the side of the road holding up a sign to get a meal, and we should do our best to help protect the environment, God gave us this beautiful planet and many awesome creatures with it, let’s do what we can to help preserve it

 

[marymary1975]

@ Mary: Obamacare isn’t Romneycare. Obama’s plan was, what, 1,000+ pages vs Romney’s 70 page. That’s like how many Finnegan’s Wake vs one Mere Christianity lying cover up.

mittromneyandhealthcare.blogspot.com/p/romneycare-vs-obamacare.html

It never ceases to surprise how cliche, naive and gullible responses are on political threads receive here on CAF. It’s great that some that respond have Faith but sheesh … As someone who use to hold very liberal views and was all (D) voting it’s eye rolling.

From the blog you posted I just looked at two things:
Romney vetoed the penalthy to employers…??? Obviously the person who wrote that does not live in MA or missed the news of all the players in MA that got sanctioned over Romneycare. Romney’s plan does have penalties to employers. (In fact here both the employee and the employer get sanctioned) Now if the employer has “less” than a certain # of employees (like employers with 4 or 5 employees then there is no penalty) but that is very different to the statement on the blog. So just from reading that I can tell you the blog is completely misleading.

Second : taxes. Have you ever wondered why Mass is nicknamed “taxachusetts” if you keep in mind that we are talking about taxachusetts you will quickly realized to one extent the different length ( most states don’t even half of the MA taxes) and why the tax differences. If you attempt to pass a bill from a state which has ridiculous taxes on everything in a state that doesn’t have those taxes you need to make up somewhere.

The real difference can be seen in actual implementation and there was no change with Obama care in MA except for that the prices went up. Besides paying more, there was zero change in MA which if there was so much difference why there was no change at all?

Also, superluigi, I really doubt that people in MA wanted that law because again here the vast majority of people were heavily against it. Doctors and nurses and hospitals were all against it and from what I remember very little people were in favor of it and everybody was complaining. Romney was heavily beaten up over it and people say that was why Romney got retired because he got so much negative response that he could not seal with it and that is supposedly why he went to support Deval Patrick.

Again I am not saying that Obama is better, what I am saying is that Romney is the same as Obama. I don’t know where people get the idea that Romney is more religious or pro life or better. Romney again is pro choice and is exactly as bad as Obama.

 

[marymary1975]

As far as being faithless is concerned, I’d like to ask the same about African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Jews and all those “Minnesota nice”, humble pie-eating, homegrown heartlanders who vote democrat despite disagreeing with them oncould ost moral issues.

I wish I had a buck every time an African-American called into a talk radio show defending the indefensible and the fact that he/she voted for Barack Obama just because he’s “black” or a union teacher from the heartland who ran straight into the arms of conservatives (not their union or the NLRB) every time they discipline a kid and get written up on sexual harassment or child abuse.

Frankly, these folks have no legs to stand on when it comes to criticizing republicans for trying to find ways to win elections with over 90% of the American media against them and an increasingly lazy and ungrateful electorate.

You get the government you vote for, and if Americans want to be obsessed over skin colour and salivate over crumbs from the kings table, then it’s par for the course and history has so many examples.

So if American voters have a problem, they should start by taking a good, hard look in the mirror.

Since we’re going to point these things out, I can say the same things about the pro-life movement.

Really, thinking that a personhood amendment would pass in New Mexico because a lot of Hispanics are there? And why is Roe v Wade still legal? It flies in the face of the Constitution.

Why is that when it comes to defending social, conservative morals people check their intelligence at the door?

And do liberal Catholics help these organizations?

Cue the “you’ve never prayed in front an abortion clinic” retort in 3…2…1…

Roe v Wade is still legal because Ronald Reagan and George Bush father appointed three republicans to the Court: Sandra day o connor, David Souter, Anthony kennedy and those three republicans decided (having the power at the time to overthown it) that Roe v Wade “could not” be overthrown and those three republicans decided that states could not place an undue burden on women’s right to have an abortion. (Case name planned parenthood v casey) Ironically, two democrats (Rehnquist and Byron white) named by two democrat presidents voted to overthrow Roe and these both democrats indicated that there is no right to abortion in the constitution. Ironically too the Justice who fought his entire life to get roe overthrown was William Renquisht, a democrat, who unfortunately died without being able to overthrow Roe thanks to “republicans”. If you also want to add that all Kennedy, Souter and o Connor were all catholics while Renquist and White who were really pro life were not even catholics, then is even worse. If you ask me I think is shameful.

Again I am neither a democrat nor a republican precisely because I think BOTH are faithless, I think they are both lying and I think they both are pick and choose. But it troubles me a lot when I see people thinking that republicans are pro life. Now I agree that individual people in the republican base are pro life…just like there are some individual people that ate democrat and pro life, but the political base is not really pro life. They are playing a card to attract Christians but in reality they are not pro life.

And I also don’t get why African Americans say they voted for Obama. The guy is not even black he is a mulato who grew around white people and had very little influence from African american culture. But again just like republicans do with the pro life thing, this a card that democrats use to attrack people. They are selling it to people and unfortunately too many people don’t think and just buy the story.

 

[marymary1975]

@ Mary: Obamacare isn’t Romneycare. Obama’s plan was, what, 1,000+ pages vs Romney’s 70 page. That’s like how many Finnegan’s Wake vs one Mere Christianity lying cover up.

mittromneyandhealthcare.blogspot.com/p/romneycare-vs-obamacare.html

It never ceases to surprise how cliche, naive and gullible responses are on political threads receive here on CAF. It’s great that some that respond have Faith but sheesh … As someone who use to hold very liberal views and was all (D) voting it’s eye rolling.

I read some more:
Obama care unconstitutional. I wonder if the person who wrote that blog realizes that the only ones who can determine the constitutionality of a law are the SCOTUS, not him. Maybe he is thinking that a republican majority court was going to vote for its constitutionality? Wellbad guess because that rrepublican majority including Roberts said it was constitutional.I personally don’t agree with that decision however same issue I am pointing, you are thinking Republicans are better and you got republicans telling you obamacare is constitutional.

And… Romneycare had great support, etc…??? Where does that person lives??? Certainly not in MA.

 

[marymary1975]

not Romney’s past as governor

Oh yeah, and Romney didn’t cut Medicaid by billions of dollars to fund the program either.

This point is moot because I was talking about the 2012 election.

Romney did not become pro choice when he became governor. Romney has been pro choice his entire life. I know that you are talking about the elections for president. What I am trying to tell you is that Romney was lying when he said he is favor of abortion I’m cases of rape, he was saying that to make conservatives happy but he himself, is fiercely pro choice and had he arrived to the presidency he would have appointed another David Souter or another Anthony Kennedy to the Court so I don’t think how he could have been worst in that sense. At least Sonia Sotomayor is not fully pro choice and has disagreements with Roe but had been Romney we would have gotten stuck with a younger version of john Paul Stevens.

 

[AnnieHall]

What you need in America are more parties to choose from.

Bingo!

I think this Gallup poll telling political affiliations in 2013 is rather telling:

Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008.

gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

42% compared to 31% and 25% seems pretty clear that a whole lot of Americans don’t align with the views of either of the “big 2”. Add to that the number of Republicans and Democrats who aren’t thrilled with their parties, and the frustration with the “us vs. them” attitude that both sides have, and I certainly am envious of other countries’ political systems that have evolved with way more (realistic) options.

Of course, there will always be independents, and I think in a lot of ways it’s a good habit to vote for by the candidate and by the issues instead of just for a party, but it certainly would make me happier to go to a voting booth knowing that there were more options, so I could find someone I agreed with on more issues.

 

[Ender]

The reasons I choose to lean left are probably the same reasons other American Catholics are too, the republican party does nothing to help the poor or homeless, all they do is want to decrease taxes for the rich and say it’s the poor person’s fault that they are poor.

The big problem with this argument is not just that it’s malicious but that it’s silly. First, it should be obvious that you have no idea why people behave as they do, and to say all Republicans want to do is help the rich and blame the poor is to judge them uncharitably…two things the church teaches you are to avoid. Second, you assume that wanting to do the right thing is the same as knowing what the right thing is, things, as any parent will tell you, that are quite different.

I would rather increase taxes for a millionare if it meant to help pay for a public school, because private schools are very expensive (and yes Catholic schools), and kids (especially one’s who can barely afford 3 meals a day), need an education.

Education is indeed very important, so can I assume that you support school vouchers that allow poor kids assigned to poor schools to get into better schools where they can get that better education they need?

Reducing taxes for the rich all for the sake of improving the economy won’t help the poor man on the side of the road holding up a sign to get a meal…

You should certainly support those politicians who advocate policies you believe will help, but why would you assume that politicians who support the contrary position do so because they don’t want to help rather than accept they oppose your positions because they sincerely believe they will make things worse? Why do you insist those people are evil rather than simply misguided?

Ender

 

[Boy_Wonder]

The democratic party supports abortion and gay marriage, and other things against church teaching, is it ever possible for a faithful practicing catholic to vote for a democrat and not sin, and is it a sin for a catholic to support obamacare?

Neither party (Republican nor Democrat) espouses positions which are 100% in-line with Catholic teaching. Each has planks in its platform that are closer to our faith than the other. When making political decisions, it’s almost never an “all or nothing” situation. More often than not, we’re forced to navigate to or between the lesser of two evils.

We run a huge risk whenever we align the faith with one political party. When we do so, the faith always suffers. So yes, one can vote either party, as long as we use our properly formed conscience to do so.

 

[SMGS127]

Education is indeed very important, so can I assume that you support school vouchers that allow poor kids assigned to poor schools to get into better schools where they can get that better education they need?

When the government gives vouchers, private schools (excluding Catholic schools) simply raise their tuitions and pocket the vouchers entirely, giving the poor children no tuition relief whatsoever. It is much better for the government to flood the money into public schools to help the entirety of poor kids. Even conservatives acknowledge this combination of government support + tuition hikes, so it boggles the mind how conservatives can justify slashing public school funding in favor of wasteful vouchers.

By the way, education in the South is much poorer than education in New England. This should give any person pause about supporting harmful cuts to public education.

 

[Ender]

Roe v Wade is still legal because Ronald Reagan and George Bush father appointed three republicans to the Court: Sandra day o connor, David Souter, Anthony kennedy and those three republicans decided (having the power at the time to overthown it) that Roe v Wade “could not” be overthrown and those three republicans decided that states could not place an undue burden on women’s right to have an abortion.

Of all the possible arguments, the one that Republicans are responsible for not overturning Roe is surely the most fantastic. This is not to say that O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy were good picks for the Supreme Court, only that there was no expectation before hand that they would support Roe, unlike every single nominee made by the Democrats. For those short on the facts regarding Kennedy, it should be understood that he was not Reagan’s first or even second choice for justice. Reagan’s first choice was Robert Bork, who was so savaged by the Democrats - who controlled the Senate - that to this day his name is used as a verb to describe someone who is unfairly and brutally treated.

Bork was also that last nominee to ever discuss his position on Roe; something that won’t happen again, in no small measure because of what happened to him. His position on Roe was known; he had written about the original decision and had already said it was wrongly decided. Had he been approved Roe would have been overturned a quarter century ago. So Kennedy got nominated … and this is clearly the Republicans’ fault?

Ironically, two democrats (Rehnquist and Byron white) named by two democrat presidents voted to overthrow Roe and these both democrats indicated that there is no right to abortion in the constitution.

Rehnquist was appointed by President Nixon. At what point in time was Nixon a Democrat? White at least was appointed by a Democrat but, in both of these instances, they were appointed before Roe was decided and became the litmus test by which future nominees were judged.

Ironically too the Justice who fought his entire life to get roe overthrown was William Renquisht, a democrat, who unfortunately died without being able to overthrow Roe thanks to “republicans”.

This is breathtakingly wrong. It is surely true that not all justices appointed by Republican presidents (subsequent to Roe) have voted to overturn it, but it is certainly true that the only justices who have opposed Roe have been those appointed by Republicans, and just as true that Roe will never be overturned so long as Democrats continue to nominate justices.

But it troubles me a lot when I see people thinking that republicans are pro life.

Whether or not you consider Republicans to be pro-life or not the fact remains that without exception every bill introduced anywhere in the country to restrict abortion is introduced by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. Given that, I’m not too exercised about whether they all get 100% ratings from the Right to Life folks. The choice between the parties (on this issue) may not be perfect but it is obvious.

Ender

 

[Ender]

When the government gives vouchers, private schools (excluding Catholic schools) simply raise their tuitions and pocket the vouchers entirely, giving the poor children no tuition relief whatsoever.

Doesn’t it bother you just a little bit to invent facts like this? This assertion is preposterous. One area where vouchers were strongly supported was in Washington DC where a number of the inner city schools are quite bad. It was not lack of support from the parents - or the inability to afford the schools - that doomed the program but opposition from the politicians controlling the city. You may personally oppose vouchers but the parents trying to get a better education for their children certainly support them.

it boggles the mind how conservatives can justify slashing public school funding in favor of wasteful vouchers.

Once again your assertion bears no resemblance to the truth. When a child is given a voucher the money does indeed come from public funds, but the voucher is typically for about half the amount spent to educate a child in a public school. That is, a child given a voucher costs the public school system only half as much as a child that remains in the system so if more children are given vouchers this means more money, not less, is available for those who remain.

Ender

 

[Veronica97]

The democratic party supports abortion and gay marriage, and other things against church teaching, is it ever possible for a faithful practicing catholic to vote for a democrat and not sin, and is it a sin for a catholic to support obamacare?

I used to think it was possible to vote for a Democrat, as long as the candidate was pro-life. But two years ago, I planned to vote for a “pro-life” Catholic Democrat for U.S. Senate–I had even put a sign in my yard. Then one night, I read the news story of how this “pro-life” candidate said in a debate with his opponent that he was for abortion in cases of rape. The Republican candidate wasn’t. Something niggled at me (likely the Holy Spirit). I immediately went out in the yard (even though it was dark) and ripped the sign out of the yard. I happen to be a product of rape, adopted by good parents, and after this debate my birthmother’s picture was in the local newspaper in an article supporting the Republican candidate. She was quoted as saying her daughter was a product of rape, and she is glad she (I) was born. I suppose it’s POSSIBLE to find a Democratic candidate who does not support the party platform, and if I ever do, I’ll consider voting for him/her (provided they don’t support any other evils). As for Obamacare, the main thing that is evil about it is that it is an affront to religious freedom, forcing Christians/Catholics and others to provide coverage for things (contraception/abortifacients) that are against their consciences.

 

[JimG]

I have seen school districts wherein no possible amount of public money will improve education outcomes. I have a relative who is a counselor in one such district. It’s a depressing and thankless job. She says it’s like working in a third world nation. What the children need is not more education money. They need parents—something the government is unable to provide.

Children ought not to be condemned to schools of the government’s choice. Let the parent’s choose the schools.

 

[SMGS127]

I have seen school districts wherein no possible amount of public money will improve education outcomes. I have a relative who is a counselor in one such district. It’s a depressing and thankless job. She says it’s like working in a third world nation. What the children need is not more education money. They need parents—something the government is unable to provide.

Children ought not to be condemned to schools of the government’s choice. Let the parent’s choose the schools.

I would absolutely support vouchers if private school tuitions and fees were capped at a set, affordable amount, so they couldn’t just raise tuitions in response. We saw what happened with college tuitions once the government got involved, and I’m not letting that happen to our high schools too.