Catholic and Democrat in US

[signit]

I personally have never seen anything political on EWTN though one’s religious belief will affect their political choices or political decisions Also, some with certain political views will avoid Christians that disagree with their agenda…

I think it depends on how you define “political.”

My experience with EWTN is mainly the EWTN news and the Rosary. I don’t know that they do or don’t push for Republicans on other shows, but I haven’t noticed it.

In a thread last week I mentioned that EWTN has a unique perspective, a Catholic perspective. Some might use the word “bias.”

For example, last week, the night of the LGBT Supreme Court decision, the EWTN news had a commentator calling the decision “very discouraging” and “frustrating.” The host said something about “employers with religious objections to hiring LGBT” and the commentator said that it was “discouraging” that religious employers were going to be “embattled.”

But, on the PBS news that night, the reporter led off with the phrase “Equal rights for all!” and used the phrases “outlawing job discrimination” and “milestone for gay rights,” and was joined by two LGBT rights advocates for commentary.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think he stokes the fires of dissent in the Church oddly enough.

Maybe he should.

Some priests are afraid to tell the truth about the evil of abortion and about supporting it, notwithstanding the bishops’ statement that it’s the preeminent political issue.

Part of the reason they’re afraid is the opposition of Democrat Catholics who support abortion. I know of one who preached against abortion just once, and saw the collections drop by about 1/4 and had to listen to people condemning him for “being political”. The Dem party has, indeed, convinced a lot of Catholics that abortion is not a moral issue at all, even though the Church says it is., But then, the DNC supports dissident organizations like Catholics United too.

 

[farronwolf]

For example, last week, the night of the LGBT Supreme Court decision, the EWTN news had a commentator calling the decision “very discouraging” and “frustrating.” The host said something about “employers with religious objections to hiring LGBT” and the commentator said that it was “discouraging” that religious employers were going to be “embattled.”

But, on the PBS news that night, the reporter led off with the phrase “Equal rights for all!” and used the phrases “outlawing job discrimination” and “milestone for gay rights,” and was joined by two LGBT rights advocates for commentary.

Just for arguments sake, substitute adulterer for the lbgt or whatever the lettering is.

If an organization doesn’t want to hire an individual for one type of sinful behavior, must they extend that to all such behaviors? If not would that not be discrimination? Or are businesses allowed to pick and choose which behaviors they find most sinful when taking a righteous position?

 

[signit]

signit:

For example, last week, the night of the LGBT Supreme Court decision, the EWTN news had a commentator calling the decision “very discouraging” and “frustrating.” The host said something about “employers with religious objections to hiring LGBT” and the commentator said that it was “discouraging” that religious employers were going to be “embattled.”

But, on the PBS news that night, the reporter led off with the phrase “Equal rights for all!” and used the phrases “outlawing job discrimination” and “milestone for gay rights,” and was joined by two LGBT rights advocates for commentary.

Just for arguments sake, substitute adulterer for the lbgt or whatever the lettering is.

If an organization doesn’t want to hire an individual for one type of sinful behavior, must they extend that to all such behaviors? If not would that not be discrimination? Or are businesses allowed to pick and choose which behaviors they find most sinful when taking a righteous position?

(1) I wasn’t commenting on whether the decision is right, just that the EWTN slant on the news is going to be different than the mainstream media slant.

I also wasn’t implying that the EWTN slant is a bad thing. Obviously, they’re playing to a certain audience that’s concerned about religious employers being forced to hire LGBT. Somebody else might be concerned about the person who got fired for being LGBT and lost his medical insurance while he had cancer.

(2) Is your question about what an organization “should” do referring to a religious employer or another type of employer? The answer might depend on that.

The Supreme Court decision pertained to non-religious employers.

 

[farronwolf]

Are you certain it is just the Democrat Catholics who support abortion in some form. I am certain it isn’t restricted to that party.

This does bring up for discussion, what is the best approach to be used by those who oppose abortion in all instances when dealing with those who are in favor of some form or another.

Is the best approach, you/they must not do X or they will burn in hell (ok overplaying it a bit), or would it be better to find positive ways to approach the subject (not condoning it) and positive ways to help those who find themselves in the position of considering having an abortion?

 

[Elizabeth3]

From the USCCB voting guide-
"The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. … Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.”

Some read this paragraph as a green light to vote Democrat whose party platform supports the so-called right to abortion. The way I understand the voting guide is that it’s saying the right to life is fundamental and must always be opposed. No voting for pro-abortion candidates, period. But, where it says “The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity’” what it is against is ignoring those other issue and making abortion your only issue. It’s not a green light to support pro-abortion candidates although many read it that way as justification to do just that, claiming that those other issues are pro-life issues as well. They are pro-life issues but we must always oppose abortion while at the same time working for all these other things. So many see voting Republican means throwing the poor and marginalized under the bus. That is not so. No one is for that. The difference is in the approach and that is something we can debate about and work towards while holding up the abortion issue as the fundamental (but not the only )issue.

The thing is, when I look at the Democrat platform and they claim to be for the poor, the immigrant, the environment etc, etc, and then I look at the results of how their policies approach the issue which seems to worsen all those issues and keep the poor, poor, keep the illegal immigrant, poor and poorly paid, taking environmental issues to such extremes that the tax payer and regulatory burden becomes so onerous that it reduces the quality of life of those who live under it, I just cannot vote for that platform.

The way I read it, the Bishop’s are not saying it’s ok to vote for pro-abortion candidates if you think they do a better job with these other issues, it’s telling us that the right to life is the primary issue and not to forget or neglect working to solve these other issues after voting pro-life.

I just wanted to make a statement here in response to the OP. Not interested in debating other people’s opinions of my opinion.

 

[farronwolf]

So, hobby lobby comes to mind.

They won a case regarding the ACA and contraceptives some years back, basically that contraceptives went against the owners religious beliefs and they would not provide an insurance plan which provided them as the ACA mandated. I have forgotten the wording, but there was a workaround given in the decision.

So with this new ruling, hobby lobby can’t fire someone if they find out they are gay. If prior to this ruling they did use being gay as an excuse to fire someone, then they would also have had to fire someone who they found was committing adultery by my reasoning, if not they would be discriminating and choosing which sinful behavior is acceptable to them.

Religious organizations should never be required to go against their beliefs, assuming their beliefs are valid. By the same token, they should in good conscience live by their beliefs and self police within their organization based on their stated beliefs.

 

[farronwolf]

I read that statement differently.

In simple terms, one can not vote for a candidate because they are pro choice, not that one can not vote for a pro choice candidate.

Unfortunately the USCCB, will not come out and directly say anything.

Imagine if the put out a statement that said.

You can not vote for any candidate that:

is for abortion in an fashion
is for the death penalty
is against helping the poor
is against providing health care for those who can’t afford it
is against immigrants seeking asylum

the list could go on and on.

But this would make clear what they actually mean, but also take away our requirement to use our own conscience when making decisions about candidates.

 

[signit]

So, hobby lobby comes to mind.

They won a case regarding the ACA and contraceptives some years back, basically that contraceptives went against the owners religious beliefs and they would not provide an insurance plan which provided them as the ACA mandated. I have forgotten the wording, but there was a workaround given in the decision.

So with this new ruling, hobby lobby can’t fire someone if they find out they are gay. If prior to this ruling they did use being gay as an excuse to fire someone, then they would also have had to fire someone who they found was committing adultery by my reasoning, if not they would be discriminating and choosing which sinful behavior is acceptable to them.

The “religious freedom” implications of the recent decision remain to be seen.

I’m a little concerned about private employers claiming to have “religious freedom” because it could be abused. They could legally discriminate against anyone they wanted, whether it was for religious reasons or not, and use “religious freedom” as an excuse.

Religious organizations should never be required to go against their beliefs, assuming their beliefs are valid. By the same token, they should in good conscience live by their beliefs and self police within their organization based on their stated beliefs.

I agree, they should have considerable leeway.

But I’d still be concerned that “religious freedom” could be abused.

And I don’t think it’s very sincere on their part, when the LGBT person gets fired but not the lunch lady who’s divorced and living with somebody.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course not. Undoubtedly some Repubs support abortion. But in supporting the Dem party ALL Democrats do.

This does bring up for discussion, what is the best approach to be used by those who oppose abortion in all instances when dealing with those who are in favor of some form or another.

Seems to me, the best approach is “all of the above”

That would include other ways and, certainly for Catholics, to say straight up that it’s mortally sinful to support abortion in any way and to not oppose it when one can.

 

[nicholasG]

nicholasG:

goout:

So you are not willing to apply your moral framework to all people and situations.

What is that?
Selective morality? Racism? Age discrimination? Hypocrisy?
What?

Are you saying I have selective mortality based on Racism, Age discrimination and Hypocrisy?
That’s very unchristian of you.

Yes I am.
You (justly) advocate for the abolition of needlessly deadly weapons that are used in shootings (I agree with you).
While at the same time giving a pass for the tools used to kill human beings on a massive scale. That is either contradictory, selective, hypocritical…only you can answer why you have a blind spot there.

You also (justly) condemn Adam Lanza for choosing to kill other human beings, while on the other hand tolerating the choice of others to kill human beings on a massively larger scale.

Yes, I am pointing out hypocrisy. And that is not uncharitable, it’s observing the elephant in the room. Only you can answer why you apply moral principles in selective ways.

Equating military weapons with medical equipment is just pure nonsense. Absolutely nothing hypocritical. The blind spot is that you can’t see that.

Selective abortions in certain circumstances (as I’ve described) is not tolerating the killing of human beings on a massive scale. That’s just a gross misrepresentation of my remarks. It’s having empathy and understanding for all involved, including the baby. Again, nothing hypocritical.

Having a discussion (albeit heated) is one thing but resorting to name calling (racist, age discrimination?) is another. I haven’t attacked your moral character but you insist on attacking mine. We may disagree, but name calling will not further your position in the least. On the contrary, it only strengthens mine.
This is a Catholic forum and I suspect that all views are welcome and respected.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m a little concerned about private employers claiming to have “religious freedom” because it could be abused.

Employers who claim a religious exemption are going to be severely castigated by the pro-abortion people and a lot of customers. Nobody is going to claim it unless they mean it. It’s getting increasingly dangerous to be anything but “progressive”.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I’m not going to enter the debate, but I will offer a bit of perspective. I assume most of the posters here are much younger and have no immediate personal knowledge of the 60s and early 70s.

In high school I was a member of the Teen Republicans and a strong supporter of Goldwater in 1964. In college, I was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom. I suspect most of you don’t even have a clue what that is–look it up. Not only was I a member, I was on the executive committee.

Now, as has been pointed out by a host of people, the Republican Party has shifted so far to the right that it is unrecognizable. See books by, for example, David Stockman and “Conservatives without a Conscience” by John Dean. Dean, by the way, was a close friend of the Goldwater family, and I believe he was the roommate of Goldwater’s son in prep school. So we’re not talking Javits Republicans or Rockefeller Republicans or Lindsey Republicans. We’re talking Goldwater conservative Republicans.

I have not changed my views. But because of the huge shift to the right, my views now align with Bernie Sanders and the progressive Democrats. I suspect Goldwater would have been horrified with the Republican Party of today.

 

[JimG]

Unfortunately the USCCB, will not come out and directly say anything.

This is the problem with the USCCB voting guide.

 

[farronwolf]

Most people who haven’t done their homework think the republican party of today is the same party as it was during the civil war when they freed the slaves, or when old Teddy set aside and protected large areas of our country and busted up the trusts.

Gotta love the idea of unlimited knowledge at one’s fingertips and no desire to use it.

 

[farronwolf]

For a shorter read, here is a link to an interview with George Will on the current state of the Republican party. Not much more conservative guy than George.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/04/869282843/conservative-columnist-george-will-thinks-its-time-for-gop-reboot

 

[JimG]

Both parties have changed. I voted for LBJ, but at the time his party did not support abortion, same sex marriage, men becoming women, or persecuting the Little Sisters of the Poor.

 

[goout]

goout:

Yes, I am pointing out hypocrisy. And that is not uncharitable, it’s observing the elephant in the room. Only you can answer why you apply moral principles in selective ways.

Equating military weapons with medical equipment is just pure nonsense. Absolutely nothing hypocritical. The blind spot is that you can’t see that.

You mean like stethoscopes? Stethoscopes help save lives. Is that what you are talking about? Or ultrasound machines?
Hospital beds?
Gee, maybe I am confused.
Or maybe the observation of your inconsistencies is uncomfortable.

 

[NoelFitz]

Do you think, then, that a group of layman is more qualified to put out a voter’s guide?

FWIW, the bishops’ guide does not tell people for whom they should vote. But voting is a moral issue in most cases so it makes sense for the Church to offer some insight into weighing various moral topics when determining how to vote.

There s a difference between “a voter’s guide” and “some insight into weighing various moral topics when determining how to vote.”

 

[JohnStrachan]

Unfortunately the USCCB, will not come out and directly say anything.

Why? Because it would jeopardize their charitable status? If that’s the reason, it’s worth jeopardizing.