Can Catholics be Democrats?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victorygirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
htorres11 said:
Look at the moral vacillations and ridiculous logical machinations they spout to justify the pedophilia of ROY MOORE
Click to expand...
Bob. Menedez.
htorres11 said:
Republican party, a political entity filled with hypocrisy, false moral equivalences, and possessing a central core devoid of any legitimate feelings of social justice and fairness for those born with traits that may compromise them in the ability to compete successfully with others in society i
Click to expand...
The GOP has done more for the poor than any other political party that has ever existed.
htorres11 said:
Trump is the preferred candidate of the GOP?
Click to expand...
Trump didn’t even win a majority in the primary. Hard to call that preferred.
htorres11 said:
The DEMOCRATIC party has a very large tent as they say and will accept those that the GOP tosses on the scrap heap of humanity.
Click to expand...
Speaking of heaps, which party is more okay with tossing the bodies of the unborn in the dumpster?
htorres11 said:
I just don’t see how it can be done.
Click to expand...
Then you need to stop ranting DNC talking points, close your mouth and listen.
 
htorres11 said:
Frankly, I truly believe that JESUS would have been a democrat.
Click to expand...
🤣

The only political party, as D’Souza notes, “to argue that slavery is just as good for the slave as it is for the master?”

Thanks for the laugh.
htorres11 said:
GEE, I wonder what SANCTUARY means??
Click to expand...
For some, it’s a buzz word to have a safe place to rape and practice female genital mutilation. The word is often used
to fool First World leftists including Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
40.png
upant:
Jesus was more libertarian.
Click to expand...
I dunno man. A conservative libertarian is just a republican that’s tired of the same ole brand-name.

Libertarians are socially liberal, by definition.
Click to expand...
I personally think Jesus was a spot-on Rooseveltian democrat.
 
pnewton said:
Their tent does not easily include those that oppose abortion or homosexual marital union. They might find their numbers swell if they would at least allow for moral candidates to have equal footing.
Click to expand...
They also don’t seem too big on straight white men.
htorres11 said:
Republicans had to be dragged kicking an screaming to the concept. It was part of Roosevelt’s NEW DEAL!!
Click to expand...
No it wasn’t. And you’ve got it backwards, the GOP drug the Democrats whining, kicking and screaming. Democrats opposed the women’s right to vote and minority rights to vote.
 
Last edited:
JoshuaIsLord said:
And this vote happened before the George C Wallace Shenanigans.

The Dems States that voted NO that are now Reps States are from the Southern States:

Alabama, Louisana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina.
Click to expand...
The South didn’t turn republican consistently until 1994.

Also, as D’Souza notes, as the GOP rose in the South, racism went down.

93% of the dixiecrat segregationist leaders went back to the Democratic Party.
 
SuperLuigi said:
The South didn’t turn republican consistently until 1994.
Click to expand...
The south has voted consistently republican since 1964 with the exception of Jimmy Carter in the post-Nixon nightmare when even a dog wouldn’t vote republican.
 
Last edited:
i noticed ole willy only got 43% of the vote. 56% voted against him.
so a third party vote…
 
pnewton said:
Here is a map of the 1992 vote showing the Southern states that voted for Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
Lets not stop.

My claim was that the south has consistently voted republican since 1964.
I think this pic shows it.

There seems to have been quite a big change sometime around the Civil Rights Act.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
josh987654321 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Voting “yes” on that plebiscite is not necessarily an heretical act.
Click to expand...
Please, you can’t fool me, it is absolutely heresy.
Click to expand...
If someone were to say that two people of the same sex can enter into a real marriage, that would be a heresy. If someone says a secular government can grant such a couple recognition as married as far as civil laws go, that may be a really bad idea, but it is not a heresy. There is no Catholic teaching that says what a civil government must do regarding marriage.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If someone were to say that two people of the same sex can enter into a real marriage, that would be a heresy.
Click to expand...
You have your foot half in the door and half out the door, you need to choose which side you are on, otherwise your indifference will lead you right out the door. Such distinctions are an absolute joke when we see the reality on the ground.

Maybe you should ask your so called “buddies” you vote yes with what they think of the Churches teachings on marriage and the family?

The government is asking for your opinion, if you say yes I agree with this, then your a heretic. If you vote yes to it you also pave the path for our persecution, as the teachings of the Church on marriage and family are considered hateful, homophobic and bigoted and will be taught to kids in schools and wider society as such. Good luck then.

They are currently drawing up draft legislation to try and protect our freedoms should the yes vote win, I know for a fact they are wasting their time, once a society accepts the premise, the rest logically follows.

And anyone who calls themselves ‘Catholic’ and votes yes is indeed a heretic and I consider them worse than a heretic, but traitors also, pretending to be Catholic and smiling to my face meanwhile uniting themselves with the enemies of the Church and laying the foundations for the persecution of myself and the Church.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading.
 
Last edited:
36. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the
conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not
voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate
deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other
authentic human goods.


For those who live in a state where they cannot write-in or in another way vote for the very rare pro-life candidate, our Bishops offer wise advice.
 
josh987654321 said:
The government is asking for your opinion, if you say yes I agree with this, then your a heretic.
Click to expand...
It is important to note exactly what the government is asking our opinion on. If the government were to ask you your opinion on whether two men found to be engaging in homosexual behavior should be placed in jail or chemically castrated, what must we say? The Church teaches that such acts are disordered and sinful. And they are. But the government is not asking whether the acts are sinful or disorders. The government is asking what the law should be toward such men. Saying they should be left alone is not a heresy.

Similarly, the government is not asking our opinion on whether a two men can really be married. It is asking whether two men can be treated as married by civil law.
If you vote yes to it you also pave the path for our persecution, as the teachings of the Church on marriage and family are considered hateful, homophobic and bigoted and will be taught to kids in schools and wider society as such. Good luck then.
Click to expand...
That is a good argument against same sex marriage, but not an argument that shows the vote would be a heresy. We should be careful not to apply that very specific term too freely.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If the government were to ask you your opinion on whether two men found to be engaging in homosexual behavior should be placed in jail or chemically castrated, what must we say?
Click to expand...
We say no, because we look to the scriptures specifically the woman caught in adultery.
LeafByNiggle said:
The government is asking what the law should be toward such men. Saying they should be left alone is not a heresy.
Click to expand...
No, no, no!

‘Same sex marriage’ is not being left alone. Same sex marriage does not legalize or criminalize a homosexual union. It puts it on par with a heterosexual union and argues that anyone who does not see it as equal (Which I don’t and never will) are unjustly discriminating, akin to the KKK.

This law places the Church and the faithful outside the law and opens us up for persecution. I’ll call such people who claim to be Catholic paving this path for me and the Church heretics and traitors while I still can.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”
 
Last edited:
josh987654321 said:
It puts [same sex marriage] on par with a heterosexual union and argues that anyone who does not see it as equal (Which I don’t and never will) are unjustly discriminating, akin to the KKK.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t.

A secular government gets to define it for their own purposes. If it was beholden to the Catholic understanding of marriage, then it wouldn’t be a secular government, would it?

“Marriage” per the US Code and “marriage” per the catechism are two different things in two different contexts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top