Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The family environment is indeed a big factor in educational success. I was in High School when a large number of Vietnamese were moved into our community. Even with having to learn English in addition to their other studies, they had a strong support structure and took advantage of the opportunities provided for them. Today they are Engineers, Doctors, and small business owners. They have done well.

DGB
Exactly! And if you go to Hawaii and look at the names of the doctors, lawyers and dentists over there, you’ll find lots of Yuen’s, Chang’s, Chun’s, Lee’s, Nakagawa’s, Morimoto’s, etc. Their parents and grandparents worked in the fields. Then a couple of generations later they are successful professionals. Perhaps this might shed light on what factors help a group of people get ahead and overcome obstacles. Hint for liberals: its not tons of govt. money thrown at the problem. Its strong families and a strong work ethic, and a lack of entitlement mentality. Btw, many of those professionals still speak the old pidgin English that their parents and grandparents spoke.

Ishii
 
This type of post doesn’t address the question at all. The question is, can (or ought) Catholics vote Democrat? The answer is, NO. That is, not if the Catholic is the least bit concerned about the sanctity of life. If you are uncomfortable with confronting what voting Democrat means (i.e. enabling butchers of babies) then all the better. This thread is useful in this way. But if it makes Democrat catholics defensive and in more denial than before, that is unfortunate.

Ishii
So what your saying is that Catholics should always vote for a Republican candidate?
 
So what your saying is that Catholics should always vote for a Republican candidate?
Catholics should vote values and there is one issue that should take precedence as a Catholic. That is the murder of lives. It is urgent.
One party has, by their own self admission, called itself the “pro-choice” party. While the other has “pro-choice” candidates in it, they do have others who still proclaim life.
So it is not party based but value based. One party as a whole has proclaim to be the party for abortion.
I make my choice based on values. And I have yet to find a democrat who is for life. Not in my area. It’s been so long that I can’t remember last time a democrat talked on behalf of the unborn.
 
Catholics should vote values and there is one issue that should take precedence as a Catholic. That is the murder of lives. It is urgent.
One party has, by their own self admission, called itself the “pro-choice” party. While the other has “pro-choice” candidates in it, they do have others who still proclaim life.
So it is not party based but value based. One party as a whole has proclaim to be the party for abortion.
I make my choice based on values. And I have yet to find a democrat who is for life. Not in my area. It’s been so long that I can’t remember last time a democrat talked on behalf of the unborn.
Interesting, I understand that we as Catholics should vote for those who are Pro-Life, but there are some values I do not agree with on the Republican side that make me not want to vote for them. So is it really just vote for the person who says their pro-life which would most likely be a Republican?
 
Interesting, I understand that we as Catholics should vote for those who are Pro-Life, but there are some values I do not agree with on the Republican side that make me not want to vote for them. So is it really just vote for the person who says their pro-life which would most likely be a Republican?
I would not vote for someone who will continue the abortion machinery industry for sure.
It is a battle. Some republicans say they are pro-life and don’t do anything, others say and do or try. I vote for those who try. We can look at actions. If we were fooled then we don’t vote for that person again. It’s that simple.

For me to even condone abortion is to spit on the face of God. We are created on His own image and every time we kill one of His creation is as if we are killing God…over and over and over.

I also truly believe that we will be held accountable for this. Whether we condoned it with our actions or our inaction. Whether we facilitated it or whether we helped save souls. And I mean the souls of those who are having the abortion primarily.

I also believe is a sin with such huge consequences that it is beyond our comprehension.

I don’t like republicans at all but I wouldn’t be able to stand in front of God and defend that I voted for someone who condoned such massive murder of His own creation.
 
So what your saying is that Catholics should always vote for a Republican candidate?
Is that what you want to think I said? Specifically, where in my post do I say that Catholics must vote for Republicans?

Ishii
 
Interesting, I understand that we as Catholics should vote for those who are Pro-Life, but there are some values I do not agree with on the Republican side that make me not want to vote for them. So is it really just vote for the person who says their pro-life which would most likely be a Republican?
Regarding your first point, on which issue that you disagree with the Republicans on rises to the level of moral gravity of the killing of nearly a million unborn every year?

On your second point, no - look at the voting record of the candidates and vote accordingly. If you look at the pro-life legislation passed in state legislatures for example, you will find that they were overwhelmingly supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. Democrats don’t just say they are pro-abortion rights. They vote that way. Republicans (mostly) don’t just say they are pro-life. They also vote that way. Understanding this is only difficult for liberal Catholics who have a great deal deep-seated animosity for Republicans which makes them not be able to think rationally or logically. Or conversely, they have a long love affair with the Democrat party which they think is the party of the little guy, the poor, the downtrodden, the workers, etc. Which it isn’t.

Wake up liberal Catholics.

Ishii
 
Understanding this is only difficult for liberal Catholics who have a great deal deep-seated animosity for Republicans which makes them not be able to think rationally or logically. Or conversely, they have a long love affair with the Democrat party which they think is the party of the little guy, the poor, the downtrodden, the workers, etc. Which it isn’t.

Wake up liberal Catholics.

Ishii
No, it certainly isn’t. My family was very active in local and state politics (all Democrats) for years and years (and those who weren’t in politics, worked in steelmills, so all union). It took a long time to realize how democrat politicians (in my opinion) pander to and patronize “the little guy”. I also heard the vitriol towards Republicans. The amazing thing is, on social issues, many (if not all) of their beliefs fall naturally in line with conservatism! But when you’re fed a constant stream of “the GOP is party of the evil rich”, what can you do?

Folks need to get off the Democrat plantation already.
 
So what your saying is that Catholics should always vote for a Republican candidate?
No.You can’t vote for some one who supports abortion or homosexual marriage regardless of their party.That pretty much eliminates most Democrats from consideration.We don’t have to vote for someone who is pro life.Wee just can’t vote for them if they are not.
 
=LeafByNiggle;12234523]Whenever I see this claim it always seems to be made in an unqualified fashion.
:rolleyes:
In fact I doubt that even those who make the claim actually believe it in this sense.
Belief is not required because it’s a FACT. But I also realize that Catholics won’t look :cool::cool: in front of their liberal/secular friends by sticking to facts and the Truth.
If it were true without qualification, then the benefit would continue to accrue right down to zero taxes. Does anyone really think that a society with zero taxation of any kind would be extremely prosperous?
I see I wasn’t clear.

First of all, NO ONE wants ZERO taxes. That is a myth perpetrated by the American left because they have no other countermeasure against fiscal conservatism that WORKS. It’s part of their divisive class warfare nonsense which is the only engine they have besides special political favors in DC to win elections.

BTW, that does mean people who sell out on their principles and vote Democrat or Labour clinging to the idea of “helping the poor” are actually HURTING the poor in the long term.

It’s true that a zero tax rate would mean ultimate disposable income, but we cannot have a stable free market in anarchy anymore than we can have the government interfering the free market.

What I was talking about was when Reagen dropped the marginal taxes by 50%. He doubled the revenue stream that the government was getting and increased spending on family programs by 18%.

Still think my argument is “unqualified”?
 
I do not agree with on the Republican side that make me not want to vote for them.
If this means helping poor people, the GOP policies will help them in the long run. :yup:
So is it really just vote for the person who says their pro-life which would most likely be a Republican?
Don’t push this on the GOP. If Democrats, namely Catholic Democrats, were so serious about pro-life issues as much as what their liberal/secular friends thought and looking good in public, I’d see more of a grassroots effort for them to change the DNC party platform on issues of abortion, so-called gay “marriage” and embryonic stem cell research.

But really how many Catholics who gripe about unions or “helping the poor” even pay any attention to those issues?
So is it really just vote for the person who says their pro-life which would most likely be a Republican?
Yes it is! There is no conspiracy here to support republicans just because they are republicans.

Read the title of this website. It’s a Catholic website.

Look at what the Democrats are doing to the Church: some of them think that the Little Sisters of the Poor should pay for Sandra Fluke’s contraception. They also openly support abortion, so-called gay “marriage”–even to the point of forcing businesses to do things they don’t want to in the free market, and embryonic stem research.

Can one maybe actually stop and think for a second or two why a Catholic might just be more inclined to vote for someone who is not a democrat?
 
Interesting, I understand that we as Catholics should vote for those who are Pro-Life, but there are some values I do not agree with on the Republican side that make me not want to vote for them. So is it really just vote for the person who says their pro-life which would most likely be a Republican?
It’s not a matter of adopting whatever one sees as “Republican values”. It’s a matter of opposing intrinsic evil.

The Dem party will never abandon its anti-life, anti-family positions until it is soundly and repeatedly defeated by people who are prolife and pro-family. Only then will it change its canoodling with evil.

Catholics alone could make that difference, but until Catholics vote against the pro-abortion, anti-family candidates, they are, themselves, the promoters of evil.
 
This type of post doesn’t address the question at all. The question is, can (or ought) Catholics vote Democrat? The answer is, NO. That is, not if the Catholic is the least bit concerned about the sanctity of life. If you are uncomfortable with confronting what voting Democrat means (i.e. enabling butchers of babies) then all the better. This thread is useful in this way. But if it makes Democrat catholics defensive and in more denial than before, that is unfortunate.

Ishii
In essence you are saying that ‘good Catholics’ vote Republican and ‘bad Catholics’ vote Democratic. :mad: Sorry, Catholicism is NOT defined by party affiliation.
 
I was wondering if it’s ok for Catholics to vote Democrat? I know that the Democrats are more in favor of abortion, but that doesn’t they don’t do other things that help our country. If anyone on here is Catholic and a Democrat what advice do you have?

I’m an Independent, but unfortunately third parties rarely get votes.
I was raised a Republican (Protestant) – my parents considered themselves small business Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Republicans. By the time I got to voting age I ended up voting against Nixon and have voted Democrat ever since (even tho it turns out Nixon was so much better than the Republicans that followed him…at the national presidential level).

My main issue has always been pro-life, with fighting racism next in importance, and then economic justice issues (these too can impact people’s life chances and dignity as human beings).

Because I was a young woman when abortions were illegal and many women I knew or knew of were getting illegal abortions, I honestly don’t think making abortion illegal will end abortion, tho it might reduce it. I tend to favor “carrot” approaches over “stick” approaches to this complex problem – helping women and their children, having a bigger safety net for them, so women can with confidence have their children, knowing they will not fall thru the cracks. The Republicans in our state (and elsewhere) are pretty much against helping in this way, and have even taken such help away from such women and children, pushing them from poverty into desperate destitution. This is not even good for the economy, if that’s what they think they are trying to beef up by making the poor poorer.

Now my pro-life stance is much broader than medical abortions, and includes being against killing and harming people in other ways as well. I am esp keen about ways in which I might be harming and killing others…such as thru environmental harms, so I have made it a point to study and investigate these. The more I find, the more I realize we are basically in process of “aborting the world,” including babies and the unborn.

And tho Nixon was excellent on environmental issues (I found out much later), the other Republicans at the national presidential level are pretty bad. McCain was fine…until he got Sarah Pallin as his running mate, who would be a heart-beat away from being prez.

Now most Dems are not very good on environmental issues either, at least the ones who have made it past the primaries. (I really campaigned heavily for Jerry Brown against Clinton in 1992). All I can say is they are much much better in general than the Republicans. (I’ve known of some Republicans at local levels who are really excellent.)

I think the real problem seems to me is the American people – those who deny there are any environmental problems, or consider them minor and not worthy of addressing. The candidates have to speak to their base, and the Republican base is on the whole (in my thinking) either lacking in knowledge or lacking in concern, favor greed over life, except for some lip-service re abortion, that just doesn’t ring true to me.

I’m now having to choose between Abbott (R) and Wendy Davis (D) for gov of Texas. Abbott has had a pathological hatred for the EPA for many years – his platform it to “rein in the EPA.” And Texas in general thumbs its nose at the EPA and allows its residents to drink unsafe water with high alpha radiation levels (telling them the water is safe) and fracking fluids, and breathe unsafe air, and allows contamination to invade people’s property and just stay there forever, without any thought to clean it up. The testing the TCEQ (= EPA at the state level) does is biased against finding any problems – they “randomly” sample areas where they are sure not to find anything and say “no problem.” Since the gov appoints the TCEQ administrator, the gov position is extremely important.

Bec of our Republican-run state people are dying, getting leukemia, etc. This is like the Wild West of contaminate and kill first and do fallacious, flawed studies later, and let global warming wreak havoc thru increased droughts, floods, hurricanes, and sea rise. Texas has so much wind and sun, it could probably go on 90% alt energy, if it put its mind to it. If Germany with much less sun and wind can go 75% alt energy, we certainly could go above that. But the whole thing boils down to oil and drill-baby-drill and frack the state to smithereens.

Now Wendy Davis is infamous for striving to prevent anti-abortion laws in Texas, and she doesn’t have much to say about environmental issues (I think she’s afraid of the anti-environmental Texans and losing their votes). Her platform is pro-education – but who isn’t pro-education.

I’ll probably be voting against Abbott, who would abort the world, and for “abortion Barbie” (one of the campaign ads against Davis). I would hope that Davis’s carrot approaches would more significantly reduce abortion than anything Abbott might do, and that she would appoint pro-environment (that is pro-life) people who would strive to reduce environmental harms and save lives.
 
Because I was a young woman when abortions were illegal and many women I knew or knew of were getting illegal abortions, I honestly don’t think making abortion illegal will end abortion, tho it might reduce it.
By this reasoning, we should not make murder illegal.
 
I was raised a Republican (Protestant) – my parents considered themselves small business Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt Republicans. By the time I got to voting age I ended up voting against Nixon and have voted Democrat ever since (even tho it turns out Nixon was so much better than the Republicans that followed him…at the national presidential level).

My main issue has always been pro-life, with fighting racism next in importance, and then economic justice issues (these too can impact people’s life chances and dignity as human beings).

Because I was a young woman when abortions were illegal and many women I knew or knew of were getting illegal abortions, I honestly don’t think making abortion illegal will end abortion, tho it might reduce it. I tend to favor “carrot” approaches over “stick” approaches to this complex problem – helping women and their children, having a bigger safety net for them, so women can with confidence have their children, knowing they will not fall thru the cracks. The Republicans in our state (and elsewhere) are pretty much against helping in this way, and have even taken such help away from such women and children, pushing them from poverty into desperate destitution. This is not even good for the economy, if that’s what they think they are trying to beef up by making the poor poorer.

Now my pro-life stance is much broader than medical abortions, and includes being against killing and harming people in other ways as well. I am esp keen about ways in which I might be harming and killing others…such as thru environmental harms, so I have made it a point to study and investigate these. The more I find, the more I realize we are basically in process of “aborting the world,” including babies and the unborn.

And tho Nixon was excellent on environmental issues (I found out much later), the other Republicans at the national presidential level are pretty bad. McCain was fine…until he got Sarah Pallin as his running mate, who would be a heart-beat away from being prez.

Now most Dems are not very good on environmental issues either, at least the ones who have made it past the primaries. (I really campaigned heavily for Jerry Brown against Clinton in 1992). All I can say is they are much much better in general than the Republicans. (I’ve known of some Republicans at local levels who are really excellent.)

I think the real problem seems to me is the American people – those who deny there are any environmental problems, or consider them minor and not worthy of addressing. The candidates have to speak to their base, and the Republican base is on the whole (in my thinking) either lacking in knowledge or lacking in concern, favor greed over life, except for some lip-service re abortion, that just doesn’t ring true to me.

I’m now having to choose between Abbott (R) and Wendy Davis (D) for gov of Texas. Abbott has had a pathological hatred for the EPA for many years – his platform it to “rein in the EPA.” And Texas in general thumbs its nose at the EPA and allows its residents to drink unsafe water with high alpha radiation levels (telling them the water is safe) and fracking fluids, and breathe unsafe air, and allows contamination to invade people’s property and just stay there forever, without any thought to clean it up. The testing the TCEQ (= EPA at the state level) does is biased against finding any problems – they “randomly” sample areas where they are sure not to find anything and say “no problem.” Since the gov appoints the TCEQ administrator, the gov position is extremely important.

Bec of our Republican-run state people are dying, getting leukemia, etc. This is like the Wild West of contaminate and kill first and do fallacious, flawed studies later, and let global warming wreak havoc thru increased droughts, floods, hurricanes, and sea rise. Texas has so much wind and sun, it could probably go on 90% alt energy, if it put its mind to it. If Germany with much less sun and wind can go 75% alt energy, we certainly could go above that. But the whole thing boils down to oil and drill-baby-drill and frack the state to smithereens.

Now Wendy Davis is infamous for striving to prevent anti-abortion laws in Texas, and she doesn’t have much to say about environmental issues (I think she’s afraid of the anti-environmental Texans and losing their votes). Her platform is pro-education – but who isn’t pro-education.

I’ll probably be voting against Abbott, who would abort the world, and for “abortion Barbie” (one of the campaign ads against Davis). I would hope that Davis’s carrot approaches would more significantly reduce abortion than anything Abbott might do, and that she would appoint pro-environment (that is pro-life) people who would strive to reduce environmental harms and save lives.
In other words, you would support abortion if it meant peoples’ utility bills will “skyrocket” for the sake of a bunch of computer models.

Truly, you should think this out again.

I have no doubt there are publications saying that Texas is poisoning everybody there because of oil. I have no doubt there are contrary opinions as well. Whenever I see these alarming reports of toxic results, I am always put to mind of the panic over Times Beach, Missouri. It was determined to be unimaginably deadly. Headlines screamed, and the government bought the whole town and made the people all leave. They even blocked off the exit ramp off I-44 to it. In time, better studies proved that it was all untrue. Now it’s a public park.
 
In essence you are saying that ‘good Catholics’ vote Republican and ‘bad Catholics’ vote Democratic. :mad: Sorry, Catholicism is NOT defined by party affiliation.
No, a good Catholic votes for candidates who are against:
  1. Abortion
  2. Euthanasia
  3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  4. Human Cloning
  5. Homosexual “Marriage”
Note: there are other evils too, but these are the top 5 NON-NEGOTIABLES that affect American Politics.

catholic.com/sites/default/files/voters_guide_for_serious_catholics.pdf

Anytime a Catholic votes for person who’s views are opposite to Catholic teaching according to the above guide, the Catholic is committing a grave sin. If you know its grave and vote anyway, then you commit a mortal sin.

For a practicing Catholic, these are not political opinions, they are evil. Voting for candidates who are in favor of these things is voting for the devil’s candidate.

Catholics must vote Catholic first. Party is not relevant. I know Catholics who are democrats and vote for pro life candidates in the primaries. Then, if the pro choice one wins, they vote pro life in the election, if if that means voting republican.

You should be Catholic first, a family person 2nd, an American third, and party last.

But too many people base their values off their party instead of their religion. The party should be influenced by the people, not the people by their party.
 
I’ll probably be voting against Abbott, who would abort the world, and for “abortion Barbie” (one of the campaign ads against Davis). I would hope that Davis’s carrot approaches would more significantly reduce abortion than anything Abbott might do, and that she would appoint pro-environment (that is pro-life) people who would strive to reduce environmental harms and save lives.
Guess its time to post “the list” again:

REASONS FOR VOTING FOR PRO-ABORTION POLITICIANS
  1. National Republicans aren’t “really” pro-life, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  2. Specific candidate isn’t “really” pro-life, or I don’t believe his supposed change of belief, so it’s okay if I vote for the virulently pro-abortion party.
  3. My deacon/priest/bishop/cardinal told me or wrote me a letter telling me it was okay to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  4. I’m not a one-issue voter, so I can ignore the Church’s teaching and vote for the virulently pro-abortion politician.
  5. Republicans (at any level) have not passed enough pro-life laws (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  6. Republicans (at any level) have not had enough success on pro-life issues (as decided by me), so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  7. Roe vs. Wade is still the law of the land even though most Supreme Court justices were appointed by the Republicans, therefore Republicans aren’t serious about abortion, so I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  8. I found a Church document that mentioned proportionate reasons in voting, so I personally judged support for a higher minimum wage (or other social justice cause) was on equal footing with abortion, and I can vote for the political party that is virulently pro-abortion.
  9. I personally believe that Democratic policies will reduce abortions, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  10. We can’t do anything about abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  11. You can’t legislate morality, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  12. People will still have abortions even if you make them illegal, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  13. We can’t end abortion until we address the root causes, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
  14. I can’t impose my beliefs on other people, so it is okay for me to vote for a virulently pro-abortion politician.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top