R
- Status
R
Richard_White
Guest
Now wait a minute here. If you think I mean any disrespect towards our service men and women then you are mistaken my friend. I value and respect all of our armed forces, and I am simply reiterating sentiments that I have heard from someone who is going into the Army that I felt were highly accurate. When people like the poster I replied to before go around sounding all pompous and insinuate that they’re too good to vote and that it’s not necessary for them to vote, I think of the sacrifice of people like you and feel like they are disrespecting that sacrifice. Military men and women are serving to ensure our freedom and to help the fight for freedom overseas, and so people who take that freedom for granted by not cashing in on their right and duty to vote I believe are acting highly inappropriately.
I also wanted to highlight that the Church teaches the moral right and duty of people to exercise their right to vote so as to promote the common good. Not voting and simply “leaving it up to God” is like the fable of the man in a precarious situation who trusts that God will save him, and who has a bunch of people offer their help, but denies it in favor of God’s direct assistance, and then dies. God then tells him that all the people that tried to help him were sent by Him. Thus, my point is that we have to cooperate with God in order to do His will…He is not merely going to take a flick of the wrist and give us the best candidate. If everyone acted like Robert Stock over there, then we would have no democracy.
Anyway, may God bless you all, and thank you Neofight for your service to this country. No hard feelings, my friend.
R
realtiger
Guest
Thanks to all who have responded. I am a public policy major so it is good for me to learn about politics but also about God.
In short, when we do not provide for others all of society is affected. I believe help should come from the government as well as individuals Unfortunately help from individuals is not enough and so we need help from the government to achieve this goal.
Gay marriage is now constitutional so does that mean that priests should marry gays? You cannot say the government cant help the poor because it is not in the constitution and then say gays shouldn’t get married even though it is in the constitution. Plus the constitution was written at a different time so we have to keep that in mind. We could disagree to agree on how much the government could help us but I personally feel the government has at least some responsibilities for taking care of society. If one does not believe that the government should help society then perhaps that person should not be using public roads or call the fire department when there is a fire in their house. These services are funded by tax money. Perhaps we should not have public sewage systems either. Would you like to have the smell of feces in your neighborhood? I sure would not. In London in the 1800s, there was a “great stench” in the Thames River. Even the wealthy were affected by the foul smell so the government had to step in. You mention charities that you choose would be ideal but who would want to bear all the costs of providing a public good like a road while others benefit and do not bear costs. This is where the government steps in and taxes society. Also as industrialization and urbanization happened, we knew that the government needed to play a bigger role. Public housing may not be great but it is still better than having shanty towns sprouting up. Imagine if New York City had a bunch of shantytowns, you would think you are in a developing country. It is even worse when public health is involved. Let us say someone who is poor cannot receive adequate health care. Let us hope that the person does not have a contagious disease otherwise someone else who may not even be poor is affected. When one segment of the population suffers we all suffer. If it were not for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (by the federal government) minorities would might still face even worse discrimination and businesses would still be able to refuse service to minorities.
In short, when we do not provide for others all of society is affected. I believe help should come from the government as well as individuals Unfortunately help from individuals is not enough and so we need help from the government to achieve this goal.
O
openmind77
Guest
I am not sure that not voting is a good idea (for you or for the OP) for two reasons:
- This is a very critical election for the US and maybe even for the world. The wrong person being elected could be catastrophic for the whole world and by not voting you would be almost as responsible as those who did. God will not determine the election results - it will be whoever the people vote for (otherwise you could say God chose to have the Iraq war happen).
- The Christ will be returning soon to the world. This is probably the last election you will be voting in without divine guidance. It is important to demonstrate that you understand what counts and what is important, that you know the difference between right and wrong, and to do so right now and not after the Christ returns when it will become obvious. Of course, after the Christ Returns many people will pretend that they always knew what was important (that they were always for universal healthcare, that they always supported programs for the poor and for increased foreign aid and for welcoming refugees/immigrants etc), but that will be too late, the separation of goats and sheep will have already taken place.
So definitely vote.
E
estesbob
Guest
So lets start by looking at Church teaching:
The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
Pope Benedict XVI
“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”
“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”
Cardinal Burke
In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. **The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. **“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).
Cardinal Burke
]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions
Bishop Joseph A. Galante
There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.
"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.
"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.
“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”
Bishop Rene Gracida
What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .
What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?
Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate
Archbishop John J. Myers
What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be
Cardinal Burke
R
realtiger
Guest
So if one politician is pro life (anti abortion) but wants genocide committed against those who are already born and another politician is pro choice but is not for genocide of those that are already born, I should still vote for the person who is anti abortion?
E
estesbob
Guest
I am not aware on any Candidate running on a Platform of Genocide?
R
realtiger
Guest
This is merely hypothetical but which one would I pick?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I am horrified by the post that you commented on and I thank you for what you wrote in response.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
You need to stop acting like human beings in the womb are not human.
That’s what you are doing by comparing genocide of born people verses unborn.
It’s no different than saying, "if one candidate wants genocide of all handicap people or of all (insert minority group) people which should I choose?
Of course the answer is neither.
You need to try and figure out why you hold children in the womb as second class citizens.
Of course they are vulnerable and out of sight and you can’t hear them scream when they are dismembered, but it is for those very reasons of just how vulnerable they are that one should vigorously advocate for them. Be a voice for the voiceless.
R
realtiger
Guest
I never said the unborn were less human or second class citizens. You are putting words in my mouth. I just think ALL life matters whether they are born or unborn. Someone who commits genocide against the living is the same as someone who commits genocide against the unborn. So why should I vote for someone who is anti abortion but commits genocide against those who are living? The quotes in the previous post argue that you should always vote for someone who is anti abortion. So it is okay to support someone who is anti abortion but supports genocide among the living? The unborn should have rights but should not have more rights than those that are living. That is unfair. Or what about a politician who supports war even if it kills hundreds of innocent people but is “pro life”? Are we no longer “pro life” when people are living human beings out of the womb?
R
RPRPsych
Guest
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I think everyone that’s posted, certainly myself, was operating in the real world. This is a complicated issue without making hypotheticals.
But let’s use your example.
Let’s say a candidate was hell bent on going to war. Let’s say that over a four year period 500,000 people were killed. That is pretty badas far as modern war goes.
During that same period, 4 million children would have been killed by abortion in the US alone…probably another 4-8 million worldwide often supported by our foreign aid.
So if you truly believe all the lives are equal…which do you choose?
R
realtiger
Guest
A life is a life so I would not choose either candidate.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Can you provide your rationale why the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” does not apply to nations helping each other? Look at all the military aid we provide to other nations! How can this type of aid be morally correct but helping those in poverty living in Third World countries be immoral?
G
GEddie
Guest
Doing charity does not generally mean sticking a gun in someone’s face and transferring their wealth to the poor. That’s Robin-Hoodism, and the morality of an action does not change just because someone with legal authority does it.
The commandments of our LORD will be enforced in the afterlife, but the nations as such will not be there to be judged.
More important, poverty is a bottomless hole. Simply pumping the wealth of the nonpoor into it, without changing the conditions leading to it, will end by making **everybody **poor.
ICXC NIKA
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
A fully valid opinion.
I am not aware of any candidates in the US advocating for war, genocide, or things like that, but of course there are many many advocating more and more abortions, so hopefully the decision is easier in reality.
There are some good third party candidates FYI.
E
estesbob
Guest
I’m sorry but Im not going to engage in this silliness.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
It’s not that it is immoral. It is moral of validly decided by the people of the nation, but it really is not ideal.
People see the government as the caretaker and this in general causes a decrease in charity among people.
There really is a fine balance, it’s not one or the other but both in proportionate ways that is ideal.
E
estesbob
Guest
Well if one candidate supported abortion but the other had a raygun that would turn everyone into turnips if they were elected I would probably vote for…
- Status