Catholic and Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nonie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mike182d:
So, in theory, let us suppose a candidate up for election believes in the following:
  1. Elimination of poverty
  2. Education for everyone
  3. Healthcare for everyone
but suppose he had one little flaw: he was a Nazi who supported the mass killing of Jews.

Are you justified in voting for him? If not, would that make you an “ignorant” one-issue voter?

Just curious…
Ok. I’ll bite. As a proud son of the South, I know candidates who ran on platforms that said:
  1. believe America is a Christian nation based on Christian theology
  2. believe in tax supported private schools
  3. oppose all taxes unless approved by 2/3 of the voters.
But don’t think African Americans should live in white neighborhoods or go to white schools. And the color of yr skin determines whether you have any rights a white person should respect. Including the right to live.

Are you justified in voting for him? If not, would that make you an “ignorant” one-issue voter?

Alot of good Christians voted for that platform.
 
40.png
mrs_abbott:
Looks like we’re still where we were since Roe v. Wade first happened in the 70s. The war in Iraq takes priority and if there wasn’t a war going on, the abortion issue always seems to be pushed to the back-burner, unfortunately. 😦
If you were President, how would *you *overturn Roe v. Wade?

edit: Or in other words, what would constitute effective, immediate action to overturn Roe v. Wade during this fiercely partison time in our political history in your mind?
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
Alot of good Christians voted for that platform.
Sadly that was true. Certainly there are “one-issue-voters” whose primary issue is as ludicrous as the race issue you mentioned above. However, with my example, I was really fishing to see if anyone would vote for my proposed candidate despite his being a Nazi. I believe common sense would dictate to most people that regardless of how many other “good” issues this theoretical man supports, the fact that he believes in the mass genocide of a group of people invalidates him as a legitimate choice.

If the above analogy is applicable to the killing of Jews, how is it not applicable to the killing of babies?

Curious that no Catholic Democrats I know seem to want to address this thought experiment.
 
“Curious that no Catholic Democrats I know seem to want to address this thought experiment”

I tried but I’m not a Catholic. However I know of a real life event where voters liked a solid conservative politician with one little flaw…

David Duke ran for governor in Louisiana in 1991. This neo-Nazi and Klansman won 670,000 votes – 55% of the white voters. These good folks liked his platform of no affirmative action, pro life, and other conservative values.

The Republican national party, to its credit, denounced Duke as a racist with conservative values window dressing.

I guess this is not a case of single issue voting. But rather, which issues have more importance. In this case, 670.000 voters – including many Christians – believed Duke’s conservative values were more important than his racial hatred of Jews and African Americans.
 
40.png
SAHmommy:
I’m a lifelong Democrat. I vote Democratic because of my Catholic upbringing. In my state, I see the first Republican govenor in 50 years, cutting funding to my childern’s public schools, raising tution at the state colleges, cutting funding for programs like WIC and food stamps. The Republican controlled congress has done the same thing. I also don’t support the wat in Iraq. I think it’s deplorable that the Republican controlled congress is cutting Veterans benefits. I find it deplorable that advisors to the President have suggested that most of the disgnoses of PTS disorder from returning soldiers are fraudualant and that veterans’ mental health care is an “extra frill” that we shouldn’t be paying for. As for Alito being pro-life, I guess it depends on your definition. Last week, I listened to the hearings on C-SPAN radio. He was asked if a person has a Constitution right to not be executed if new evidence could prove he was innocent. Alito wouldn’t answer the question. He was asked it a couple times and he finally replied that a prisoner has to follow the law and if procedure was followed in all his apeals, the execution order would stand. So, basically, he said that the governement had a right to execute an innocent man. How’s that for pro-life?
SAHmommy
its ok in your eyes for democrats to be proabortion, but you suddenly become prolife when a republican gets questionable. first of all the church does allow for the death penalty, so you cant use that as a life issue. second you are putting money issues infront of life issues, shame on you! As long as there are Catholics with attitudes like yours its open season on the unborn. Im proud to say irreguardless of other issues I have always voted aniabortion, and will vote that way. If every Catholic were to put politics asside and vote prolife-which means antiabortion we would end abortion with making it illegal in a heart beat. but as long as Catholics are jaded by economic issues it will stay open season on the unborn.
 
MikeinSD said:
“Curious that no Catholic Democrats I know seem to want to address this thought experiment”

I tried but I’m not a Catholic. However I know of a real life event where voters liked a solid conservative politician with one little flaw…

David Duke ran for governor in Louisiana in 1991. This neo-Nazi and Klansman won 670,000 votes – 55% of the white voters. These good folks liked his platform of no affirmative action, pro life, and other conservative values.

The Republican national party, to its credit, denounced Duke as a racist with conservative values window dressing.

I guess this is not a case of single issue voting. But rather, which issues have more importance. In this case, 670.000 voters – including many Christians – believed Duke’s conservative values were more important than his racial hatred of Jews and African Americans.

Yes, and I agree. In fact, it proves my point. Most Catholics who vote Democrat over Republican do so in spite of their pro-abortion stance because of financial issues - welfare, healthcare, education, etc. If hating Jews and blacks, or wanting to kill them for that matter, alone delegitimizes a prospective candidate, would not the support of the systematic killing of 143 million babies?

In this day and age, I find it curious that if a candidate said: “I hate black people” that no one would ever vote for him regardless of what his other positions were. But, if a candidate said: “It is ok for women to kill their children” they get a pass. Is racism worse than infanticide?
 
1/31/2006

Catholic Online

WASHINGTON (Catholic Online) – The recent budget reconciliation bill fails to “meet the needs of the most vulnerable among us,” said Bishop William S. Skylstad, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in a Jan. 24 letter to the House of Representatives, according to a statement from the bishops’ conference.

Bishop Skylstad said the greatest concerns were over

– Increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens

– Cuts to child support enforcement

– Changes in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs which underfund work programs and childcare

– Cuts to agriculture conservation programs.

“We urge you to reject the conference agreement and work for policies that put poor children and families first,” Bishop Skylstad said.

The text of the letter follows:

Jan. 24, 2006

United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Representative:

In December, as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I wrote to you expressing serious concerns about provisions in the budget reconciliation bill. The proposed changes in Medicaid, child support enforcement funding, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and agriculture conservation programs, in particular, could have a negative impact upon the most vulnerable in our nation.

Our bishops’ conference is deeply disappointed that the final budget reconciliation conference agreement coming once again before the House of Representatives includes provisions in these areas which we believe could prove harmful to many low-income children, families, elderly and people with disabilities who are least able to provide for themselves. Because of these concerns, we ask you to oppose the budget reconciliation conference agreement.

Among the areas of most concern to us are:

– Increased Medicaid cost-sharing burdens and eroding federal benefit standards which can result in low-income children, families, pregnant women, elderly and those with disabilities not getting the care they need.

– Cuts to child support enforcement, which will mean collecting billions less in child support for children and families than under current law.

– TANF-related provisions, including: immediate and significant changes in state TANF work rules (although additional proposals to increase hours worked per week were wisely abandoned) without providing sufficient additional funding needed to run work programs and provide child care. This will mean states may have to choose between cutting child care for low-income working families, reducing other services for low-income people, or cutting back on cash assistance for needy families; policies that could have the effect of disadvantaging two-parent families and married couples; and failure to restore TANF benefit eligibility to recently-arrived legal immigrants.

– Cuts to key agriculture conservation programs, which will undermine efforts to promote soil conservation, improve water quality, protect wildlife, and maintain biodiversity.

We recognize that the bill also includes positive elements, such as additional funding for victims of Hurricane Katrina and a program to promote marriage and healthy families. We are also grateful that cuts to the Food Stamps program were dropped from the package. However, we believe that, overall, the impact of this bill will be to fail to meet the needs of the most vulnerable among us. Therefore, we urge you to reject the conference agreement and work for policies that put poor children and families first.

There are many challenges and much tumult in Washington that demand the attention of our leaders. However, an essential priority of government is to provide for the general welfare of its people, especially “the least among us.”
 
40.png
mike182d:
Yes, and I agree. In fact, it proves my point. Most Catholics who vote Democrat over Republican do so in spite of their pro-abortion stance because of financial issues - welfare, healthcare, education, etc. If hating Jews and blacks, or wanting to kill them for that matter, alone delegitimizes a prospective candidate, would not the support of the systematic killing of 143 million babies?

In this day and age, I find it curious that if a candidate said: “I hate black people” that no one would ever vote for him regardless of what his other positions were. But, if a candidate said: “It is ok for women to kill their children” they get a pass. Is racism worse than infanticide?
I don’t think this election really proves your point. I think it shows that many voters liked David Duke’ stand on the conservative issues – which included pro-life. Good Christian voters, 55% of the white electorate, voted for this man as governor. I think it also shows many of his voters also liked his racial hate for African Americans and Jews. Sort of a win/win. Voters liked him. Race hate and all. The election did not delegitimize David Duke. It gave him a following. Of good Christian men and women.

What is the moral standing of a Christian opposing abortion. But also believes the Holocaust is a myth. And African Americans are genetically unfit to be US citizens?
 
I’m a Republican and, at present, rather disgusted with the GOP.
Therefore, I’m not going to criticize someone who is a Catholic and a registered Democrat.
 
Just lurking around on here. I admit that I have found this post quite interesting. 🙂
Let me introduce myself first before getting to my question. I’m a cradle Catholic from Oklahoma. Married with 2 children. Hi! 😃

Now for my question. Are they serious about Schwarzenegger running for President? Hmmmm, from what I remember from my government classes he can not legally run. Last I heard a person had to meet certain qualifications in order to run. One of them was being a natural born citizen of the United States which Schwarzenegger is not, to my knowledge anyway. Or did they change this sometime in the last 10 years? Apparently I’m missing something. All in all this has been very interesting to read. 😉
 
In my opinion, politics seem to be a tradition in families or with individuals almost as much as religion. Prior to the legalization of abortion, Catholics tended to be Democrats because of their support of low-income people and government subsidized welfare programs. Many Catholics haven’t made the connection abortion and the Democratic Party, yet. Pray to God that they will soon.

My grandmother was a die-hard Democrat and a devout Catholic. She died two years after Roe vs. Wade was passed. I wonder if she would make the connection if she were still alive. If she didn’t, she would after I was done with her.
 
40.png
Ryniev:
Well I used to be a Republican and this administration doesn’t reflect any of my values.

I don’t think either party speaks for me anymore! I’ve noticed that Ann Coulter is even increasingly disgusted with this administration and even that horrible Michael Savage.

One of the things that strongly attracts me to Catholicism is the sense of social justice and I just don’t see that from the Republicans.

OTOH, I don’t see much good in the Dems anymore either.
At one time I too was a Democrat. I switched to the Republicans in the Carter Adm. (his first move was to pardon all the youth that had fled to Canada to keep from being in the military) . A while back I joined the Veterans Party. This is not just for Vets but a registered political party that is trying to restore the old fashioned American way of life. It is a registered party in several states.

The opening words of the Preamble of the American Legion (55 Yr. member) are “For GOD and Country”. I strongly feel that phrase should be imbedded in the brains of all young Americans to restore the once great nation we to the America we once had.
 
I definately understand the position that abortion trumps all issues, however, I don’t think either party will abolish abortion any time soon. The country is mostly in favor of it by a slight majority, and I think there would be outrage if it were changed. The Republicans imply they don’t like abortion but never go out and say it should be illegal because they’d lose a lot of members, the Democrats do the opposite, its all party politics. One is slightly in one direction, one is slightly in the other, in an effort to gain abortion supporters without losing pro-lifers. While the Republicans do make some efforts, ex. Bush stopping some stem cell research, I highly doubt if somehow given the choice Bush would decide to stop abortion, it’s not his main issue or something that I think he’s vehemently against, he just as to say he is as a Republican. I bet John Kerry doesn’t love abortion, but must say he does also. If either party tries to overturn Roe v Wade it’s political suicide, and i doubt voting Republican will do much to stop abortion…it hasn’t so far.
 
40.png
siamesecat:
I definately understand the position that abortion trumps all issues, however, I don’t think either party will abolish abortion any time soon. The country is mostly in favor of it by a slight majority, and I think there would be outrage if it were changed.
While there would be an outrage if it was changed, it is highly misleading to say that even a slight majority is in favor of abortion. A large majority is very much against abortion on demand. Unfortunately, another large majority is also very confused and think exceptions are OK.
The surveys and statistics that cite X% in favor of abortion count every person who thinks that abortion is alright even in one isolated instance. Many people who call themselves pro-life, even ones who are active in pro-life activities, believe that certain situations call for an exception.
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
I don’t think this election really proves your point. I think it shows that many voters liked David Duke’ stand on the conservative issues – which included pro-life. Good Christian voters, 55% of the white electorate, voted for this man as governor. I think it also shows many of his voters also liked his racial hate for African Americans and Jews. Sort of a win/win. Voters liked him. Race hate and all. The election did not delegitimize David Duke. It gave him a following. Of good Christian men and women.

What is the moral standing of a Christian opposing abortion. But also believes the Holocaust is a myth. And African Americans are genetically unfit to be US citizens?
I’m not really sure we’re talking about the same thing as your explanation has little to do with the point I was making. I am not saying that a candidate being pro-life is sufficient grounds for voting for someone, I’m saying that a candidate being pro-choice delegitimizes him as a prospective candidate for office, just like being a Nazi, regardless of what other issues they are for.

Its not entirely clear to me what David Duke has to do with anything. Just because he’ pro-life doesn’t mean he was a legitimate choice and I never supposed as such.
 
ABORTION ALBATROSS PLAGUES CATHOLIC DEMS

A “Statement of Principles” has been released by 55 Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Commenting on this statement is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“The House Catholic Democrats who signed this statement—and 17 of them did not—are trying to convince the public, and especially Catholics, that one can be a good Catholic and differ with the Catholic Church on abortion. They agree with the Church about the ‘undesirability of abortion,’ adding that ‘we do not celebrate its practice.’ What gives them pause is not explained, but one thing is certain: there is not a word in the statement that commits these Catholics to work towards a change in the Democratic Party’s Platform on abortion. Thus, even the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion is not so undesirable that it must be opposed.

“The statement is driven by fear. The fear is the Abortion Albatross that is literally strangling them from getting their message out. Recall that in 2004, 48 Catholic members of Congress—all Democrats—signed a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington warning him that if some bishops were to deny Communion to abortion-rights advocates it would ‘revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome.’ Funny we never recall one of them joining with us to denounce the incestuous relationship that existed for years between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Catholics for a Free Choice, a notoriously anti-Catholic front group: a link with the bigoted group was posted on the DNC’s website for years.

“Perhaps the most convincing evidence that this statement is a sham is the fact that Rep. Rosa DeLauro is the point person for this effort. There has never been an abortion she couldn’t justify, including the killing of an innocent child who is 80-percent born. Indeed, she previously served as the executive director of EMILY’s List, the richest pro-abortion organization in the country. So with her at the helm, the ‘Statement of Principle’ is nothing more than a ‘Statement of Politics.’ Thus, the Abortion Albatross remains securely in place.”

catholicleague.org/06pre…1_albatross.htm

Abortion Albatross Plagues Catholic Dems

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1368316#post1368316
 
40.png
mike182d:
I’m not really sure we’re talking about the same thing as your explanation has little to do with the point I was making. I am not saying that a candidate being pro-life is sufficient grounds for voting for someone, I’m saying that a candidate being pro-choice delegitimizes him as a prospective candidate for office, just like being a Nazi, regardless of what other issues they are for.

Its not entirely clear to me what David Duke has to do with anything. Just because he’ pro-life doesn’t mean he was a legitimate choice and I never supposed as such.
I believe I was responding to yr thought experiment about Catholics voting Democrat despite the Democratic party’s pro-choice stance. I believe you said:

“In this day and age, I find it curious that if a candidate said: “I hate black people” that no one would ever vote for him regardless of what his other positions were. But, if a candidate said: “It is ok for women to kill their children” they get a pass. Is racism worse than infanticide?”

I pointed out the majority of decent, pro-life white Christians voted for David Duke. Despite the pleas of the national Republican Party. Despite Duke’s racial hatred for American citizens of black heritage. Despite Duke’s hatred of American Jewish citizens. Despite massive media coverage of Duke’s sordid Klan past

Majority of Lousiana’s white citizens voted for Duke even though he hated black people. This is life - not a thought experiment. Most white citizens did vote for the racist. Duke got a pass. What’s yr thoughts of the votes of the good white Christian voters? And yes, Duke ran on a pro-life platform.
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
Majority of Lousiana’s white citizens voted for Duke even though he hated black people. This is life - not a thought experiment. Most white citizens did vote for the racist. Duke got a pass. What’s yr thoughts of the votes of the good white Christian voters? And yes, Duke ran on a pro-life platform.
Once again, I am not entirely clear on what your point is.

I agree that it was wrong for Duke to get a pass on being racist for the very same reason I think its wrong for Democrats to get a pass on supporting infanticide.

I don’t see how this contradicts anyting I’ve been saying. Duke is a prime example of what *should not *happen, according to my thought experiment.

If a man promises a better economy, better healthcare, etc., but is a racist, we should not vote for him

If a man promises a better economy, better healthcare, etc., but supports infanticide, we should not vote for him.

Same thing.
 
I think you previously wrote:

"In this day and age, I find it curious that if a candidate said: “I hate black people” that no one would ever vote for him regardless of what his other positions were.

But in Louisiana, the majority of white voters did vote for a candidate who hated blacks. Media coverage of Duke’s history flooded the state’s media with his past Klan connections. The voters knew what they were doing.

In this day and age, a candidate did say he hated black people. And he won the majority of white Christian votes.

Perhaps a case of skin pigmentation was more important than religion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top