Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Jerurussia]

How’s this for an “AHA!” moment? Father Christopher Cuddy related in his homily today, August 19, 2014, as regards spiritual warfare that when preaching in a Washington, D.C. church, after Mass he was confronted by a man in the back dressed in a thousand-dollar suit and perfect haircut, as he said. Father Cuddy’s homily was on the Ten Commandments and he used the imagery of the cedars of Lebanon as a model for growing upward to Heaven. This man brusquely asked Father Cuddy, “Are you preaching against Obama?” Father explained he was teaching the Ten Commandments and asked if he was Catholic. The man said he was, and Father Cuddy explained that he was teaching Catholic teaching, and if he wasn’t in agreement with it, he wasn’t Catholic. The man said, “That’s OK. We’re going to have all your kind in jail in five years.” Father Cuddy got steamed and said, “Bring it. Before I became a priest I was a street kid. I’ve got plenty of friends in prison and they’ll take care of me.”

How would you Democrats put all those good priests and nuns in jail within a fixed time frame? Obamacare! Real Catholics will not pay for insurance covering abortion and abortifacients. Those who don’t pay their federal tax for Obamacare and are charged $100 a day fine and become first in line for IRS prosecution, well within the purview of the new, weaponized IRS. Then Democrats can establish gayted communities in all those convents and monasteries the IRS seizes. Can Catholics vote Democrat? Yep. :slapfight: And play Mortal Kombat for real and for eternity. Immaculate Heart of Mary, perfect us and protect us in the love of your divine Son, Jesus Christ and His Sacred Heart. AMEN

 

[ishii]

How’s this for an “AHA!” moment? Father Christopher Cuddy related in his homily today, August 19, 2014, as regards spiritual warfare that when preaching in a Washington, D.C. church, after Mass he was confronted by a man in the back dressed in a thousand-dollar suit and perfect haircut, as he said. Father Cuddy’s homily was on the Ten Commandments and he used the imagery of the cedars of Lebanon as a model for growing upward to Heaven. This man brusquely asked Father Cuddy, “Are you preaching against Obama?” Father explained he was teaching the Ten Commandments and asked if he was Catholic. The man said he was, and Father Cuddy explained that he was teaching Catholic teaching, and if he wasn’t in agreement with it, he wasn’t Catholic. The man said, “That’s OK. We’re going to have all your kind in jail in five years.” Father Cuddy got steamed and said, “Bring it. Before I became a priest I was a street kid. I’ve got plenty of friends in prison and they’ll take care of me.”

How would you Democrats put all those good priests and nuns in jail within a fixed time frame? Obamacare! Real Catholics will not pay for insurance covering abortion and abortifacients. Those who don’t pay their federal tax for Obamacare and are charged $100 a day fine and become first in line for IRS prosecution, well within the purview of the new, weaponized IRS. Then Democrats can establish gayted communities in all those convents and monasteries the IRS seizes. Can Catholics vote Democrat? Yep. :slapfight: And play Mortal Kombat for real and for eternity. Immaculate Heart of Mary, perfect us and protect us in the love of your divine Son, Jesus Christ and His Sacred Heart. AMEN

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Cardinal Francis George

Ishii

 

[zz912]

The question I would ask the bishop,

This is not new knowledge for you about the Democratic party platform. This has been the democratic party platform for decades. What took you so long to do something about your own position?

This is a question I would love to see asked for most bishops. The Democratic Party didn’t change that much in 2012. They’ve been that way for a long time now.

 

[ringil]

So the “hatred of the Democrat party” you speak of results in spelling a word differently. /QUOTE]

The point of my post was to point out a lack of objectivity in the discussions here. It’s not just about Catholic doctrine and people’s believes about that should affect voting.

There is an overarching disdain for the Left- and that excludes areas outside of abortion and same sex marriage.

The use of Democrat Party is a well known “wink and nod” at fellow Conservatives saying- “yes, I am with you- I also hate this party.” It’s a gang sign- and subtle insult.

And this continued use of a purposefully derogatory term- even when it has been pointed out- only further demonstrates non-objectivity in the discussion.

It’s not “spelling a word differently” it’s making a statement- and an illuminating one for those who know about its usage.

It’s fair to point that out.

 

[Lapey]

The point of my post was to point out a lack of objectivity in the discussions here. It’s not just about Catholic doctrine and people’s believes about that should affect voting.

There is an overarching disdain for the Left- and that excludes areas outside of abortion and same sex marriage.

The use of Democrat Party is a well known “wink and nod” at fellow Conservatives saying- “yes, I am with you- I also hate this party.” It’s a gang sign- and subtle insult.

And this continued use of a purposefully derogatory term- even when it has been pointed out- only further demonstrates non-objectivity in the discussion.

It’s not “spelling a word differently” it’s making a statement- and an illuminating one for those who know about its usage.

It’s fair to point that out.

WOW! Speaking of sensitivity and black helicopters…

So you know me well enough to understand when I type “democrat” as opposed to “democratic” it because of my hatred, “disdain” as you put it, for those who I disagree with? How can you see my heart and soul?

What is your definition of “lack of objectivity in the discussion here”? If we radicals would accept the D platform’s inclusion of several intrinsic evils as not that big a deal; would that make me objective? How about if I ignore the hateful rhetoric from the majority of the media and Democrats themselves; would that help me appear to be objective?

Please inform me/us, how and where is it “well known ‘wink and nod’” written or taught in the conservative schools for thinking and talking that this means ““yes, I am with you- I also hate this party” & “It’s a gang sign- and subtle insult.” Do you proofread these posts? Speaking of objectivity, please try to read your paranoia filled post with some resemblance of objectivity and you will see just how sad it appears.

When did calling a political party, a group of people, precisely what they are, “Democrats”, offensive and derogatory? When the group is addressed, the name is used as a noun, Democrat; in other words the name is Democrat Party. It’s not the Democratic Party and opposed to the non-democratic party. Your point makes absolutely no sense except to see it for what it is, playing victim. The term “Democrat” is a noun, but used as an adjective.

From Wiki -
Some grammarians believe that the use of the noun “Democrat” as an adjective is ungrammatical.[38] However, the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun is not grammatically incorrect in modern English in the formation of a compound noun, e.g., “shoe store,” “school bus,” “peace movement,” etc.[39] The use of nouns as adjectives is part of a broader linguistic trend, according to language expert Ruth Walker, who claims, “We’re losing our inflections—the special endings we use to distinguish between adjectives and nouns, for instance. There’s a tendency to modify a noun with another noun rather than an adjective. Some may speak of “the Ukraine election” rather than ‘the Ukrainian election’ or ‘the election in Ukraine,’ for instance. It’s ‘the Iraq war’ rather than ‘the Iraqi war,’ to give another example.”

I would concede this point, if you care to complain as Chris Mathews did maybe I can see your point; but all you are doing is making accusations of people’s character here on CAF and calling us hate mongers. Chris Mathews made the point that “the Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party so out of respect you should call them as they wish.” That I can agree with, but to accuse people of hatred for following societal evolution of use of grammar is silly.

Furthermore, the use of the term “democrat party” predates the 19th century. There goes your right winged conspiracy theory you’re pushing.

 

[estesbob]

ishii;12270964:

So the “hatred of the Democrat party” you speak of results in spelling a word differently. /QUOTE]

The point of my post was to point out a lack of objectivity in the discussions here. It’s not just about Catholic doctrine and people’s believes about that should affect voting.

There is an overarching disdain for the Left- and that excludes areas outside of abortion and same sex marriage.

The use of Democrat Party is a well known “wink and nod” at fellow Conservatives saying- “yes, I am with you- I also hate this party.” It’s a gang sign- and subtle insult.

And this continued use of a purposefully derogatory term- even when it has been pointed out- only further demonstrates non-objectivity in the discussion.

It’s not “spelling a word differently” it’s making a statement- and an illuminating one for those who know about its usage.

It’s fair to point that out.

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608018222341033191&pid=1.7

 

[ringil]

WOW! Speaking of sensitivity and black helicopters…

So you know me well enough to understand when I type “democrat” as opposed to “democratic” it because of my hatred, “disdain” as you put it, for those who I disagree with? How can you see my heart and soul?

What is your definition of “lack of objectivity in the discussion here”? If we radicals would accept the D platform’s inclusion of several intrinsic evils as not that big a deal; would that make me objective? How about if I ignore the hateful rhetoric from the majority of the media and Democrats themselves; would that help me appear to be objective?

Please inform me/us, how and where is it “well known ‘wink and nod’” written or taught in the conservative schools for thinking and talking that this means ““yes, I am with you- I also hate this party” & “It’s a gang sign- and subtle insult.” Do you proofread these posts? Speaking of objectivity, please try to read your paranoia filled post with some resemblance of objectivity and you will see just how sad it appears.

When did calling a political party, a group of people, precisely what they are, “Democrats”, offensive and derogatory? When the group is addressed, the name is used as a noun, Democrat; in other words the name is Democrat Party. It’s not the Democratic Party and opposed to the non-democratic party. Your point makes absolutely no sense except to see it for what it is, playing victim. The term “Democrat” is a noun, but used as an adjective.

From Wiki -
Some grammarians believe that the use of the noun “Democrat” as an adjective is ungrammatical.[38] However, the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun is not grammatically incorrect in modern English in the formation of a compound noun, e.g., “shoe store,” “school bus,” “peace movement,” etc.[39] The use of nouns as adjectives is part of a broader linguistic trend, according to language expert Ruth Walker, who claims, “We’re losing our inflections—the special endings we use to distinguish between adjectives and nouns, for instance. There’s a tendency to modify a noun with another noun rather than an adjective. Some may speak of “the Ukraine election” rather than ‘the Ukrainian election’ or ‘the election in Ukraine,’ for instance. It’s ‘the Iraq war’ rather than ‘the Iraqi war,’ to give another example.”

I would concede this point, if you care to complain as Chris Mathews did maybe I can see your point; but all you are doing is making accusations of people’s character here on CAF and calling us hate mongers. Chris Mathews made the point that “the Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party so out of respect you should call them as they wish.” That I can agree with, but to accuse people of hatred for following societal evolution of use of grammar is silly.

Furthermore, the use of the term “democrat party” predates the 19th century. There goes your right winged conspiracy theory you’re pushing.

Here is a citing from the silly wikipedia variant Conservapedia:

conservapedia.com/Democrat_Party

Democrat Party is the grammatically correct term for the Democratic Party. The Party is not “democratic”, and proper nouns like “Democrat” are not converted into adjectives by adding “ic” as a suffix. It is not the “Republicanic Party,” or the “Libertarianic Party”, or a “Smith-ic Wedding.” Predictably, many Democrats dislike the term “Democrat Party,” perhaps because the official name is the “Democratic Party of the United States” since 1844[1] and perhaps they prefer the false illusion that their party is somehow more “democratic” than other parties.

In recent decades, however, the Republican Party has made the phrase “Democrat Party” its preferred way of referring to its opposition. The Republican Party Web site makes extensive use of the term. [10] The White House since 2001 has often used the noun-as-adjective when referring to the opposition party, and President Bush has used it almost exclusively.[11] Likewise it is in common use by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay,[12] House Minority Leader John Boehner,[13] Senator Charles Grassley,[14] Congressman Steve Buyer[15] and others. George W. Bush spoke the phrase “Democrat majority” in his 2007 State of the Union Address

Complaints about the term “Democrat Party” can be found in the lamestream media. New Yorker Magazine commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. ‘Democrat Party’ is a slur, or intended to be - a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but ‘Democrat Party’ is jarring verging on ugly.”[35]

Here is another article about the usage of Democrat Party.

npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/03/since_when_did_it_become_the_d.html

It’s not paranoia. It is a WELL KNOWN slight aimed at the Democratic Party.

The fact that this line of discussion is going on for long long and the voluminous amount of information about this on the net surely indicates that folks have thought about this.

Not to mention that once corrected- people continue to use the term and are so defensive about it.

 

[estesbob]

WOW! Speaking of sensitivity and black helicopters…

So you know me well enough to understand when I type “democrat” as opposed to “democratic” it because of my hatred, “disdain” as you put it, for those who I disagree with? How can you see my heart and soul?

What is your definition of “lack of objectivity in the discussion here”? If we radicals would accept the D platform’s inclusion of several intrinsic evils as not that big a deal; would that make me objective? How about if I ignore the hateful rhetoric from the majority of the media and Democrats themselves; would that help me appear to be objective?

Please inform me/us, how and where is it “well known ‘wink and nod’” written or taught in the conservative schools for thinking and talking that this means ““yes, I am with you- I also hate this party” & “It’s a gang sign- and subtle insult.” Do you proofread these posts? Speaking of objectivity, please try to read your paranoia filled post with some resemblance of objectivity and you will see just how sad it appears.

When did calling a political party, a group of people, precisely what they are, “Democrats”, offensive and derogatory? When the group is addressed, the name is used as a noun, Democrat; in other words the name is Democrat Party. It’s not the Democratic Party and opposed to the non-democratic party. Your point makes absolutely no sense except to see it for what it is, playing victim. The term “Democrat” is a noun, but used as an adjective.

From Wiki -
Some grammarians believe that the use of the noun “Democrat” as an adjective is ungrammatical.[38] However, the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun is not grammatically incorrect in modern English in the formation of a compound noun, e.g., “shoe store,” “school bus,” “peace movement,” etc.[39] The use of nouns as adjectives is part of a broader linguistic trend, according to language expert Ruth Walker, who claims, “We’re losing our inflections—the special endings we use to distinguish between adjectives and nouns, for instance. There’s a tendency to modify a noun with another noun rather than an adjective. Some may speak of “the Ukraine election” rather than ‘the Ukrainian election’ or ‘the election in Ukraine,’ for instance. It’s ‘the Iraq war’ rather than ‘the Iraqi war,’ to give another example.”

I would concede this point, if you care to complain as Chris Mathews did maybe I can see your point; but all you are doing is making accusations of people’s character here on CAF and calling us hate mongers. Chris Mathews made the point that “the Democratic Party calls itself the Democratic Party so out of respect you should call them as they wish.” That I can agree with, but to accuse people of hatred for following societal evolution of use of grammar is silly.

Furthermore, the use of the term “democrat party” predates the 19th century. There goes your right winged conspiracy theory you’re pushing.

If you were a Democrat Catholic what would you prefer the thread discuss:

1. The support of the democrat Party of abject evil
   2, Vast right wing conspiracies concerning whether Democrat is a noun or an adjective?

 

[Path_Finder]

It seems to me if one goes with the explanation “Democratic Party” and I’ve corrected myself on this because I don’t care to be accused of being inflammatory when their is no intention, then it would seem politicians should then be called Democratics, the Democratic Senator or Representative. But yet, I don’t think we hear that.

 

[SMGS127]

It seems to me if one goes with the explanation “Democratic Party” and I’ve corrected myself on this because I don’t care to be accused of being inflammatory when their is no intention, then it would seem politicians should then be called Democratics, the Democratic Senator or Representative. But yet, I don’t think we hear that.

“Democratic” is the adjective; “Democrat” is the noun. You do, in fact, hear “Democratic Senator” or “Democratic Representative” all the time in most media sources. Using “Democratic” as a noun, however, is grammatically incorrect. “Republican,” on the contrary, is both a noun (“He’s a Republican”) and an adjective (“The republican style of government”). Attempting to use “democrat” as a lowercase adjective shows why it’s grammatically incorrect (e.g. “A democrat government” vs. “A democratic government”).

It’s rather telling that Conservapedia has to resort to asking why made-up words (“republicanic”) aren’t used when real words (“democratic”) are, in order to justify their usage of a known sign of contempt.

 

[Path_Finder]

“Democratic” is the adjective; “Democrat” is the noun. You do, in fact, hear “Democratic Senator” or “Democratic Representative” all the time in most media sources. Using “Democratic” as a noun, however, is grammatically incorrect. “Republican,” on the contrary, is both a noun (“He’s a Republican”) and an adjective (“The republican style of government”). Attempting to use “democrat” as a lowercase adjective shows why it’s grammatically incorrect (e.g. “A democrat government” vs. “A democratic government”).

It’s rather telling that Conservapedia has to resort to asking why made-up words (“republicanic”) aren’t used when real words (“democratic”) are, in order to justify their usage of a known sign of contempt.

Wikipedia is no better than Conservapedia and wikipedia has no more credibility. It’s rather telling that the main criticism of Conservapedia seems to be that they have a word indicating “conservative” in it so all the best that can be used against the information posted by Lapey is to attack the messenger “conservapedia” rather than the message, their article itself.

Once pointed out, I will always say “Democratic Party”, however at the same time, most forums on the net would laugh at someone asserting the use of the so-called bad words as something like an epithet and would want a post checked for the use of bad language.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Wikipedia is no better than Conservapedia and wikipedia has no more credibility.

:banghead::banghead:

 

[Dawnia]

“Democratic” is the adjective; “Democrat” is the noun. You do, in fact, hear “Democratic Senator” or “Democratic Representative” all the time in most media sources. Using “Democratic” as a noun, however, is grammatically incorrect. “Republican,” on the contrary, is both a noun (“He’s a Republican”) and an adjective (“The republican style of government”). Attempting to use “democrat” as a lowercase adjective shows why it’s grammatically incorrect (e.g. “A democrat government” vs. “A democratic government”).

It’s rather telling that Conservapedia has to resort to asking why made-up words (“republicanic”) aren’t used when real words (“democratic”) are, in order to justify their usage of a known sign of contempt.

I don’t think most people care. Democrat/Democratic has pretty well been interchangeable for as long as I can remember. Even Dems call it the Democrat Party.

The media have a style guide they refer to that spells out the terms. The average person uses lots of incorrect terms/phrases/grammar.

 

[Lapey]

Here is a citing from the silly wikipedia variant Conservapedia:

conservapedia.com/Democrat_Party

Democrat Party is the grammatically correct term for the Democratic Party. The Party is not “democratic”, and proper nouns like “Democrat” are not converted into adjectives by adding “ic” as a suffix. It is not the “Republicanic Party,” or the “Libertarianic Party”, or a “Smith-ic Wedding.” Predictably, many Democrats dislike the term “Democrat Party,” perhaps because the official name is the “Democratic Party of the United States” since 1844[1] and perhaps they prefer the false illusion that their party is somehow more “democratic” than other parties.

In recent decades, however, the Republican Party has made the phrase “Democrat Party” its preferred way of referring to its opposition. The Republican Party Web site makes extensive use of the term. [10] The White House since 2001 has often used the noun-as-adjective when referring to the opposition party, and President Bush has used it almost exclusively.[11] Likewise it is in common use by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay,[12] House Minority Leader John Boehner,[13] Senator Charles Grassley,[14] Congressman Steve Buyer[15] and others. George W. Bush spoke the phrase “Democrat majority” in his 2007 State of the Union Address

Complaints about the term “Democrat Party” can be found in the lamestream media. New Yorker Magazine commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. ‘Democrat Party’ is a slur, or intended to be - a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but ‘Democrat Party’ is jarring verging on ugly.”[35]

Here is another article about the usage of Democrat Party.

npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/03/since_when_did_it_become_the_d.html

It’s not paranoia. It is a WELL KNOWN slight aimed at the Democratic Party.

The fact that this line of discussion is going on for long long and the voluminous amount of information about this on the net surely indicates that folks have thought about this.

Not to mention that once corrected- people continue to use the term and are so defensive about it.

It is a party of democrats. Therefore it is the Democrat Party. You see hate, I see common sense.

Furthermore, lets speak of possible hatred; you will side with and protect the party’s beliefs and it’s platform by continuing to vote for its members instead of even considering the thought of voting for a Republican candidate. This is precisely what is meant by hating republicans more than they hate abortion. When this changes and Catholics vote their faith, then abortion will come to an end.

 

[estesbob]

One of the more sucessful thead derailments Ive seen in a long time.But then if I belonged to Party that supported so much evil Id want to change the subject also

 

[Path_Finder]

:banghead::banghead:

Attacking the messenger, Conservapedia but not the message. So noted again!

IOW, please source your assertion.

 

[Lapey]

I don’t think most people care. Democrat/Democratic has pretty well been interchangeable for as long as I can remember. Even Dems call it the Democrat Party.

The media have a style guide they refer to that spells out the terms. The average person uses lots of incorrect terms/phrases/grammar.

Exactly my point, it’s interchangeable and has been since long before today’s political atmosphere, so get over it and lets get back to the topic.

A Catholic in good standing with a properly and fully formed conscience, cannot vote for a Democratic candidate without in some level cooperating with intrinsic evil. If you care to argue what level of cooperation that is, be my guest; I will not cooperate with the evil even if it is considered remote material cooperation.

 

[Path_Finder]

One of the more sucessful thead derailments Ive seen in a long time.But then if I belonged to Party that supported so much evil Id want to change the subject also

Not only that, many of the DemocratIC party have shown their colors, you have an attractive candidate out there? Harrass them.

They sued Sarah Palin until it was a drag on the resources of the state of Alaska though I haven’t seen her responsible for any wrong doing.

They have harassed Governors Christie and Walker in the past, I hear I believe MRC.net shows the persecution of Governor Perry is in part funded by George Soros.

And the Democratic Party? The party that stood for slavery and segregation and had the Ku Klux Klan as their militia which in modern time stands for abortion, same sex marriage and was attempting to take God out of its platform??

Really, I can think of a lot of other descriptions to describe them.

 

[estesbob]

Exactly my point, it’s interchangeable and has been since long before today’s political atmosphere, so get over it and lets get back to the topic.

A Catholic in good standing with a properly and fully formed conscience, cannot vote for a Democratic candidate without in some level cooperating with intrinsic evil. If you care to argue what level of cooperation that is, be my guest; I will not cooperate with the evil even if it is considered remote material cooperation.

On our side we have posted comments from 3 Popes, 6 bishops, two cardinals and two encycliclicals In return we hsve gotten personal opinion and complaints of a vast right cospiracy to misuse nouns and adjectives

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is a question I would love to see asked for most bishops. The Democratic Party didn’t change that much in 2012. They’ve been that way for a long time now.

Maybe some people think there is a chance at reforming it and that the party isn’t based on social liberalism. The perception remains that Democrats are for the “little guy” and that is an idea rooted in Christianity. So some might think of the Democratic party as based on Christian principles with some issues (e.g abortion) that are wrong and ought to be discarded, but they don’t think they form the core of what it means to be a Democrat.