Can a Catholic be Democrat?

[upant]

Out of context much?

I read it in context with other statements in the document. (bold below mine). must always be opposed… you are not opposing it knowing your vote will support it. opposing it (IMHO) means voting against the politician supporting it.

1. Our 1998 statement, Living the Gospel of Life, declares, “Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others” (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong.

it is like saying I am against abortion personally but pro-choice for others.

The goals outlined, chapter by chapter, is the goal of Economic Security anti-Christ?

Good stewardship of the earth or supporting Veterans, anti-Christ?

I repeat (bold mine)

St. Pope John Paul II is clear on it

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

That’s what Jesuits call ‘a leap of faith’.

no, one just needs to look at the history of the movement.

My! France has laws against female head coverings, too, I think. Do you think that would apply in the US where nuns would come under the law?

of course not, the Dems only have issues with certain religions. The Dems have already targeted the nuns for contraception, they don’t need head coverings.

the party of the"Nones" has already tried to use being part of a catholic org as a reason to reject someone for a district court. where will it stop?

Yet this is the organization now been trashed by two Democratic senators, Kamala Harris of California, who has presidential ambitions, and Hawai’s Mazie Hirono.

They were questioning the right of Judge Brian C. Buescher, a KOC member, to serve as a judge in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. (Irish times)

 

[Kindnessmatters]

And it is only a matter of time. As marrying people requires powers from the state, it is only a short drive from the status quo to the day when priests will be stripped of such state powers unless they will marry any and all who ask, including gay couples.

Another Democrat talking point is to strip churches of tax exempt status.

Catholic charities already had to get out of adoption because they would have otherwise had to place children with gay couples in many states. Also Democrat doing.

 

[Anrakyr]

I disagree

You disagree with math?

While first past the post heavily favors a two party system, it doesn’t inherently result in it.

Yes it does and I’ll break it down for you.

Party A B C & D in order from right wing to left politically.

Let’s say you have 11 voters. Since centrist is more popular being they appeal to more people party B and C get three-four a piece while A&D get two. After a few elections where B&C trade lead a few times maybe A&D due to political events score an extra vote and form opposition.

Eventually the voter of A&D disenfranchised because even if they form opposition they never hold power long enough. They switch to the more centrist parties close to their own comprising for second best.

A 1
B 5
C 3
D 1

The election after this convinces the one remaining votes in the extremes to either stop voting (what’s the point?) Or sign onto B & C respectively.

Now only B & C remaining. In order to secure votes they move a little more left and right respectively to secure their voter base.

As the population grows maybe small groups arise to rekindle A&D. Often at the expense of the parties closest to them. Say A returns. C seeing this sends them some anonymous donations hoping A&B split their vote due to A’s momentum.

Election time again, as predicted A&B split the vote C laughs its way to the bank and the vote splitters point fingers at each other.

Is any of this sounding familiar?
Two party is inevitable.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

They hide behind the disguise as holier than thou.

In the political arena everyone does that.

 

[JimG]

From the Democratic Party Platform:

"Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

I disagree

You disagree with math?

I disagree on the simple basis that there are first-past-the-post countries that are not two-party systems, such as the Solomon Islands and Malawi. There are also countries where, while there are two major parties that dominate discourse, they do not do so to the same extent as the US (e.g. in the UK they can’t always form a majority on their own and there are other parties represented in their legislature).

First-past-the-post heavily favors a two-party system. That is why there aren’t many examples of countries with it that don’t fall into a two-party system (whether an extreme case like the US or a less extreme case like the UK). But there are still examples of such. Favoring is different from guaranteeing.

While first past the post heavily favors a two party system, it doesn’t inherently result in it.

Yes it does and I’ll break it down for you.

Your breakdown is an explanation as to why first past the post favors a two party system. I do not dispute that. What your explanation is not is an explanation as to why it inherently creates one. It also ignores the, in my view, rather significant fact that its platform is a real mixture of policies espoused by both parties, allowing it to pull from both liberals and conservatives, whereas most other third parties are just more extreme versions of the two major parties, which result in votes being pulled overwhelmingly from only one of the two parties.

 

[Anrakyr]

I do not dispute that. What your explanation is not is an explanation as to why it inherently creates one

Yes I did, Starts with four. As the outliers get disenfranchised they abandon A&D parties for the winning teams.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

I do not dispute that. What your explanation is not is an explanation as to why it inherently creates one

Yes I did, Starts with four. As the outliers get disenfranchised they abandon A&D parties for the winning teams.

Except it isn’t an explanation, for two reasons, both of which I noted in my post and I notice you did not make any response to.

First, some countries that are first past the post are not a two-party system. That by itself instantly disproves your entire claim and explanation. You can’t insist that your explanation explains why first past the post inherently creates a two-party system if it is possible to point to any country where it didn’t!

There is an additional flaw, which admittedly I did not go into much detail about but did nevertheless note. Here is that greater detail. The diagram you drew of four parties “from right wing to left politically” ignores that there isn’t actually a pure right/left line. The ASP is a lot more liberal than the Republicans on plenty of issues but a whole lot more conservative than the Democrats on plenty of issues. Thus it breaks that whole line as it doesn’t fit on it. I noted that simply going to the right of the Republicans or left of the Democrats results in the vote splitting you talked about, which is why so many past third parties have failed. But that is not the case here. So your diagram which relied on an overly simplistic right/left idea is inapplicable.

 

[Christianbook]

I am still on the main topic posted on here if Democrats can be Christian. That is what I am trying to discuss until others keep trying to turn this into something els. Im talking about the church pushing others towards whatever the priests believes or pope. The free will thing has nothing to do with the statment I am trying to make. Yes we have free will. Did you not read the rest of my paragraph? We do have it but that doesn’t mean we cannot pray for the lord to open our hearts to him and judge our political views towards what is right. Am I wrong?

 

[whatistrue]

you are not opposing it knowing your vote will support it

The key is that if a candidate holds positions on such positions as abortion, ABC, etc. that are contrary to Catholic positions, you cannot vote for them because of those positions, but you are allowed to vote for them in spite of those positions if, in your judgement, their other positions are at least as important as the “bad” ones. That is the clear statement you ignored in your analysis and why I said what I did regarding context.

 

[Anrakyr]

That by itself instantly disproves your entire claim and explanation.

We are talking about the American voting system. Other countries like the UK or Germany have different proportional representation.
So it’s not applicable here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

you are allowed to vote for them in spite of those positions if, in your judgement, their other positions are at least as important as the “bad” ones

A million children murdered each year. What “more important” issues do the Dems have than that?

 

[thistle]

I lifted this from an article from Pew Research I found and it seems Catholics pretty much are evenly divided between Democrat and Republican.

" Roughly equal shares of Catholic registered voters have identified with or leaned toward the Democratic and Republican parties in recent years (47% vs. 46%, respectively). And according to exit polls, nearly identical shares of Catholics voted for Democrats (50%) and Republicans (49%) in 2018 elections for the U.S. House of Representatives. White Catholics are more likely to vote Republican, while Hispanic Catholics overwhelmingly back Democrats. (Most American Catholics are either white or Hispanic. Black and Asian Americans each make up roughly 3% of the U.S. Catholic population, according to the Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study.) Collectively, however, Catholics essentially balance themselves out at the polls on the national level."

 

[whatistrue]

Not going to get into that discussion. That is an individual judgement.

 

[TheLittleLady]

As Scripture tells us “man ought always to pray and not to faint”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not going to get into that discussion. That is an individual judgement.

Not being a protestant, I go by Church teaching, not my own judgment of what’s right and what’s not.

 

[whatistrue]

The judgement I spoke of was about how to vote, not what is right or wrong. Please try to keep up.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A distinction without difference.

And your snide remark “try to keep up” was unnecessary and rude.

 

[whatistrue]

Sorry, what? It is a huge difference. If you want to be a single issue voter, more power to you. Just don’t try to make a blanket pronouncement that everyone else has to do as you do. Not your job and not your business.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you want to be a single issue voter, more power to you. Just don’t try to make a blanket pronouncement that everyone else has to do as you do. Not your job and not your business.

I believe the topic is “Can a Catholic be Democrat”. So perhaps your complaint is against the moderators who allowed this thread to exist, not with me.

Of course, if all Catholics refused to vote Dem in even one national election, the Dem party would have to change its ways. And there’s nothing wrong with voting the moral course in the most important issue of our time. A million murdered children versus what? “Medicare for all”?