Catholic and Democrat in US

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cant help that. There certainly is no perfect answer to this question.
 
farronwolf said:
How are the Republicans doing on the debt, foreign policy, our standing in the world, on and on.
Click to expand...
How has any political party done with the debt, foreign policy and our standing in the world, on and on?

I am up there in age and have come to realize, there is nothing new under the sun. These are all issues that the U.S. has been dealing with for many years under both parties.

I believe we are to follow the things that are top priorities, the issues the Church says are the most important when voting. It’s not, there are many moral issues involved, but follow the Church even if it is just one great issue because that issue can cause many other issues to also line up with the Church.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
How has any political party done with the debt, foreign policy and our standing in the world, on and on?
Click to expand...
So you agree that party platform means nothing. We will tell you we are going to do x, y and z, but pay no attention to what we really do.

See why party affiliation means nothing and we need to look at the individual to see if they are worthy of the vote.

The Church will not end abortion, neither political party will end abortion. A Constitutional Amendment is the only thing that will stop legal abortions, but not end them, and the people will not vote for and pass that amendment.

Conclusion. Using abortion as a litmus test for a political candidate and basing your vote on that single issue is a pie in the sky.
 
farronwolf said:
So you agree that party platform means nothing.
Click to expand...
No, all I am saying is these are issues that have always been problems, for any government. Each party will handle it in their own way.
farronwolf said:
The Church will not end abortion, neither political party will end abortion. A Constitutional Amendment is the only thing that will stop legal abortions, but not end them, and the people will not vote for and pass that amendment.
Click to expand...
So, that means it is okay to support someone who encourages and promotes abortion? No.

https://www.ewtn.com/vote/general-moral-principles.asp
farronwolf said:
Using abortion as a litmus test for a political candidate and basing your vote on that single issue is a pie in the sky.
Click to expand...
Abortion is the greatest issue of our time but it is not the only issue and it is not a litmus test. It is about standing up for what is right and saying no to evil. If Catholics would vote with the Church on the non-negotiables and other moral issues they would send a clear message to politicians but many Catholics refuse and that is sad and dangerous to their souls.

https://smgparish.org/documents/2018/10/Catechism of the Catholic Church on Voting.pdf
 
Last edited:
If you can find any candidate that lines up wholly with Church teaching please point them out to us all.

I have yet to see one.
 
You’re right, there are not any that “wholly” line up with Church teaching but there are those that line up “closer” than others, especially on the top priority, non negotiable issues.
 
27lw said:
For people who focus on the good in the democratic party, are you concerned about someone like Kamala Harris criticizing the Knights of Columbus, and saying that judges are not fit if they are in the Knights? Or other issues where the Democrats seem not too friendly to religious people? People bitterly clinging to their religion?
Click to expand...
Imagine a religious organization called the Sons of St Francis that believes in pacifism, including outlawing guns. Would a member of such a group be an appropriate choice for judge? Can he fairly defend the Constitution while denying the 2nd amendment? Would opposition to him be religious persecution?

This is essentially the situation with Ms Harris and the KoC, except the constitutional principles are more deeply rooted than the 2nd amendment. The KoC are adamantly opposed to the right to privacy that is used to justify the right to choose abortion. Can a member of the KoC defend the Constitution while denying the right to privacy? Is that question religious prejudice? Or is it about commitment to the Constitution?

Are there other issues where Republicans seem not too friendly to religious people? Are any of them bitter about changes to society? Do they belong to religious groups that isolate them from society?
 
1ke said:
The literal survival of our republic comes to mind. I think that’s where we are at this point.
Click to expand...
I understand. I don’t think the Republic’s in danger (people were running around saying that in 2016 too and nothing happened. The US is still here.)
 
Last edited:
The only religion requiring members to vote Democrat is Pastafarianism.

However, all Christian religions require all members to vote Republican.

LOL…i jest, of course…it just seems that way here, sometimes!
 
farronwolf said:
If you can find any candidate that lines up wholly with Church teaching please point them out to us all.

I have yet to see one.
Click to expand...
No candidate can ever do a perfect alignment. Having accepted that, the voter is left with a whole range of issues that can get prioritized in some order. But, the “single issue voter” objection is a red herring IMO. If rhe issue is life (or death), how can there be any other consideration?
 
Dovekin said:
40.png
27lw:
For people who focus on the good in the democratic party, are you concerned about someone like Kamala Harris criticizing the Knights of Columbus, and saying that judges are not fit if they are in the Knights? Or other issues where the Democrats seem not too friendly to religious people? People bitterly clinging to their religion?
Click to expand...
Imagine a religious organization called the Sons of St Francis that believes in pacifism, including outlawing guns. Would a member of such a group be an appropriate choice for judge? Can he fairly defend the Constitution while denying the 2nd amendment? Would opposition to him be religious persecution?

This is essentially the situation with Ms Harris and the KoC, except the constitutional principles are more deeply rooted than the 2nd amendment. The KoC are adamantly opposed to the right to privacy that is used to justify the right to choose abortion. Can a member of the KoC defend the Constitution while denying the right to privacy? Is that question religious prejudice? Or is it about commitment to the Constitution?

Are there other issues where Republicans seem not too friendly to religious people? Are any of them bitter about changes to society? Do they belong to religious groups that isolate them from society?
Click to expand...
Oh yeah - the right to privacy. Where is that in the constitution again? Hmm, or maybe the right to an abortion. Maybe the right to an abortion is more “deeply rooted” in the Constitution than the first amendment? Strange, I don’t see that in the Constitution anywhere either!
 
Last edited:
ReaderT said:
40.png
1ke:
The literal survival of our republic comes to mind. I think that’s where we are at this point.
Click to expand...
I understand. I don’t think the Republic’s in danger (people were running around saying that in 2016 too and nothing happened. The US is still here.)
Click to expand...
I can’t/won’t speak for @1ke, but we’re not even remotely where we were as a nation in 2016.
 
Life or death at what point. From conception to natural death. And respect for all lives in between those two points.

All of it matters. And a politicans ability to affect all aspects matter. If a politician can not affect a particular portion of it should it be given as much weight as the others that they can affect.

This is why we are required to examine our conscience by the Church.

Again some choose not to bother with the examination.
 
Um no. Some may have a financial aspect but it certainly has to do with respect for life and respecting all lives.

Treating all people with respect doesnt necessarily take any financial commitment.

Based on your comment I can do what I please as long as I am not killing you. Certainly not what Christ meant by love your neighbor as yourself.
 
gracepoole said:
For refugees, for example, we’re most certainly speaking of life, not finances.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, we are talking about finances. They come because they think their life improves in the US. Fair enough. Everyone wants a better life.
On the other hand, there would be no poverty in the underdeveloped world if most of these people had been aborted. This, btw, is the population control project currently being financed by the Gates foundation, among others, and managed by WHO,
 
Last edited:
Adamek said:
40.png
gracepoole:
For refugees, for example, we’re most certainly speaking of life, not finances.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, we are talking about finances. They come because they think their life improves in the US. Fair enough. Everyone wants a better life.
On the other hand, there would be no poverty in the underdeveloped world if most of these people had been aborted. This, btw, is the population control project financed currently being financed by the Gates foundation, among others, and managed by WHO,
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is the same argument used by pro-abortion folks – it always comes back to who will pay for unplanned for or unwanted children. No, we are called as Christians to position human lives above financial considerations like these.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top