Catholic group’s voters guide urges church principles

[rlg94086]

We all need the courage and strength to do His will.

Which is better?

A - voting for a Democrat who will most likely work against pro-life causes

B - voting for a Republican who is somewhat pro-life (not the Catholic ideal, for instance) and will help with “baby steps.”

C - voting for a Third Party candidate who has zero chance of being elected and will therefore accomplish nothing for pro-life causes in the political sphere.

D - not voting for anyone because no one is perfect enough for my vote.

May the Lord grant us the intelligent use of our brains to make logical choices that actually accomplish His will.

God bless,

Robert

 

[bones_IV]

If you mean support, neither of them. If you mean vote, I would vote for the lesser of the evils. There’s a difference between supporting and voting for someone. Plus, it’s not our job to tell someone how to vote. Let ask you this. Has the Lord been an “incrementalist” in dealing with us and our sinfulness or is He always and in every case consistently merciful and loving? If he is consistently that way with us, what right do we have to choose which babies we will save and when we will do so? Republican Party operatives or those devoted to that party are not the ones to whom we owe our allegiance; it is the Church that comes first in our lives.

 

[rlg94086]

If you mean support, neither of them. If you mean vote, I would vote for the lesser of the evils. There’s a difference between supporting and voting for someone. Plus, it’s not our job to tell someone how to vote. Let ask you this. Has the Lord been an “incrementalist” in dealing with us and our sinfulness or is He always and in every case consistently merciful and loving? If he is consistently that way with us, what right do we have to choose which babies we will save and when we will do so? Republican Party operatives or those devoted to that party are not the ones to whom we owe our allegiance; it is the Church that comes first in our lives.

Do you believe it is possible to support a person based on some of what they do, but be critical of other things they do? Life is complex Bones, and you are trying to make it black and white. To paraphrase a famous politician, you are trying to say “you are either with Bush or against him.”

The Church does come first in my life, and I’m sure it does for most of the posters on this Forum. I am a Republican because they match up more than the Democrats with Church teaching, in my understanding. That doesn’t mean I think everything the party does is good.

The reason I gave you a multiple choice option was to show you that sometimes incrementalism is all we can choose, and you agreed that you would vote for the lesser of evils. So do I…I have no choice. God is not a choice in US elections. That doesn’t mean that voting is the only way I work for the pro-life cause.

God bless,

Robert

 

[bones_IV]

Do you believe it is possible to support a person based on some of what they do, but be critical of other things they do? Life is complex Bones, and you are trying to make it black and white. To paraphrase a famous politician, you are trying to say “you are either with Bush or against him.”

The Church does come first in my life, and I’m sure it does for most of the posters on this Forum. I am a Republican because they match up more than the Democrats with Church teaching, in my understanding. That doesn’t mean I think everything the party does is good.

The reason I gave you a multiple choice option was to show you that sometimes incrementalism is all we can choose, and you agreed that you would vote for the lesser of evils. So do I…I have no choice. God is not a choice in US elections. That doesn’t mean that voting is the only way I work for the pro-life cause.

God bless,

Robert

#1 President Bush has increased annually funding for Family Planning programs that siphon millions to Planned Parenthood.

#2 President Bush has paid lip service to pro-life principle but has yet to use his office as a bully pulpit to focus attention on the need this nation has to restore personhood to the preborn child.

#3 President Bush became a public advocate of the morning after abortion pill just days after he used his veto power to stop a bill that would have increased federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Let me point out that human embryonic stem cell research is going on all over this nation with private funding and in some states, state funding. President Bush has made no effort to call for a total ban on the destruction of human embryonic children.

#4 He signed the partial birth abortion bill which contains a life of the mother exception and in essence may not stop one abortion. That is, IF the U. S. Supreme Court does not strike it down as vague, which it is.

You said, “The reason I gave you a multiple choice option was to show you that sometimes incrementalism is all we can choose, and you agreed that you would vote for the lesser of evils.” This doesn’t legitimize supporting them does it. With one stroke of the pen Bush could have made abortion illegal.

 

[KathleenElsie]

#1 President Bush has increased annually funding for Family Planning programs that siphon millions to Planned Parenthood.

#2 President Bush has paid lip service to pro-life principle but has yet to use his office as a bully pulpit to focus attention on the need this nation has to restore personhood to the preborn child.

#3 President Bush became a public advocate of the morning after abortion pill just days after he used his veto power to stop a bill that would have increased federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Let me point out that human embryonic stem cell research is going on all over this nation with private funding and in some states, state funding. President Bush has made no effort to call for a total ban on the destruction of human embryonic children.

#4 He signed the partial birth abortion bill which contains a life of the mother exception and in essence may not stop one abortion. That is, IF the U. S. Supreme Court does not strike it down as vague, which it is.

You said, “The reason I gave you a multiple choice option was to show you that sometimes incrementalism is all we can choose, and you agreed that you would vote for the lesser of evils.” This doesn’t legitimize supporting them does it. With one stroke of the pen Bush could have made abortion illegal.

And who would you put in his place. I have said many theme the time to find where a person stands on these issues is when they run for their first office. (as far as I am concerned it could be dog catcher) Once someone is elected the “sheepel” keep electing them.

Maybe it seems like nothing is being done. I know it seems like that today since the bill for “Parental Notification” was not passed. I was in Church last night for Adoration last night. We dedicated the time to prayer for Life. From 1:30am to 4:30am we prayed there were a total of 10 people that came in and out in that three hours. Our parishes have (there were four parishes I believe) somewhere around 15,000 families. Most elected officials here are Democrats and strongly pro-choice. So do we blame the people elected or those doing the electing?

In my not so humble opinion the blame lied with those doing the electing. IMHO only when people change their hearts will abortion stop.

The buck stops at the voters hand. We get what is voted for.

 

[rlg94086]

Modern day pharisees and scribes like yourself need to listen to this.

Bones,

I think we are done. I can tolerate a lot, but calling me a hypocrite who isn’t faithful to God(post #38), pitying me because I can’t see the devil (post #40), accusing me of putting my party affiliation above God (post #42), and now calling me a modern day pharisee; tells me that you can not converse in a charitable manner.

I won’t put you on my “ignore list” because I know I’ll still probably open your blocked posts - it would be a form of penance, torturing myself…like I do when I listen to Air America.

God bless,

Robert

 

[bones_IV]

Bones,

I think we are done. I can tolerate a lot, but calling me a hypocrite who isn’t faithful to God(post #38), pitying me because I can’t see the devil (post #40), accusing me of putting my party affiliation above God (post #42), and now calling me a modern day pharisee; tells me that you can not converse in a charitable manner.

I won’t put you on my “ignore list” because I know I’ll still probably open your blocked posts - it would be a form of penance, torturing myself…like I do when I listen to Air America.

God bless,

Robert

God doesn’t ask us to win elections does He? Of course not. You say, “God isn’t a choice in elections.” LISTEN TO YOURSELF! That’s just stupid. I’m not asking for a perfect person, cause there’s only one and that’s Jesus Christ. How dare you mock God. Shame on you.

brainwashed
Question from Nick on 07-13-2006: Judie, I’m glad to defend you any day. I repeated exactly what you said to pro-lifer on 7/10/06
Dear Pro-Lifer
Whenever I hear someone in the pro-life movement talk or write about “timing,” I am convinced that the individual or group has chosen to apply man’s standards to God’s business. When is the proper “time” to do all we can to save God’s babies? Has the Lord been an “incrementalist” in dealing with us and our sinfulness or is He always and in every case consistently merciful and loving? If he is consistently that way with us, what right do we have to choose which babies we will save and when we will do so?
I have been involved in the pro-life movement for more than 30 years, and I have watched the political “experts” go from the mode of never allowing an exception to arguing in favor of them and explaining it is the best we can do. So, do I think they will ever go back to where they started? No!
Please pray for those who cannot see that the devil is enjoying these “baby steps” toward nowhere. May the Lord grant us the courage and strength to do His will and not man’s.
The guy who is a big Bush supporter said “you have been brain washed.”

Answer by Judie Brown on 07-14-2006: Dear NickI am proud to be brainwashed by Catholic teaching any day of the week.
Thanks,
Judie Brown

I think you’ve been brain washed by the Republican party and by PC agenda.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

WARNING

There is some most uncharitable conduct being exhibited on this thread by posters who have been around long enough to know better.

Please be forewarned that if the same conduct is exhibited after the thread is reopened, there will be a one week suspension for rules violations plus an additional two weeks for failure to follow moderator direction. The offending parties should know who they are, so 'nuff said.

Walt

 

[bones_IV]

Bones,

No one has suggested that politics is the only answer, so you are attacking a straw man. That said, politics is part of the answer. The Republican Party is doing more to support the pro-life side than the Democratic Party. Whom are you suggesting support for? A third party candidate who won’t get into office and therefore won’t accomplish anything?

The appointment of good SCOTUS judges will hopefully improve the court decisions. We need more pro-life congressmen in order to make abortion illegal. To do that, we need to change more minds in the voting populace.

People fail to see the Devil is enjoying this step by step process to nowhere. And that’s what the Republican party does. The democratic party is much worse than the Republican party. Are the Republicans really sincere in their pro-life stance? Consider Many Republicans openly lie about their intentions regarding cultural and moral issues, including abortion on demand, in order to secure votes from cultural conservatives.

 

[milimac]

People fail to see the Devil is enjoying this step by step process to nowhere. And that’s what the Republican party does. The democratic party is much worse than the Republican party. Are the Republicans really sincere in their pro-life stance? Consider Many Republicans openly lie about their intentions regarding cultural and moral issues, including abortion on demand, in order to secure votes from cultural conservatives.

I don’t think this assertion can be supported if you look at the voting records on life issues. They’re nearly split down party lines with Republican votes on the pro-life side of the issue and Democrat votes on the pro-death side. Yes, you can pick out individual exceptions on either side.

Also, the fact is that we still have mostly a two-party system. Look at any race and you’ll see that the vast majority come down to a race between a Democratic candidate and a Republican.

 

[bones_IV]

I don’t think this assertion can be supported if you look at the voting records on life issues. They’re nearly split down party lines with Republican votes on the pro-life side of the issue and Democrat votes on the pro-death side. Yes, you can pick out individual exceptions on either side.

Also, the fact is that we still have mostly a two-party system. Look at any race and you’ll see that the vast majority come down to a race between a Democratic candidate and a Republican.

Where do you base your assumptions on?

 

[milimac]

Where do you base your assumptions on?

Voting records on life issues – abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research. Our Sunday paper also lists congressional votes. I don’t think they list every issue that congress votes on, but of the ones they do list they are nearly always partisan votes, with Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. With more research I could find some recent online stats. Here’s some from a few years ago though, and things have not changed much since then:

nrlc.org/Federal/Scorecard/Scorecardexplaination.html

Notice this quote from that link:
A large majority of congressional Republicans vote consistently pro-life, while a large majority of congressional Democrats vote consistently pro-abortion. During 2000, for example, at least 81% of Republicans voted pro-life on every NRLC-scored vote, and that percentage rose to 96% on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Among House Democrats, the average percentage voting pro-life was 20%, rising to 37% on the partial-birth abortion bill.

You could also do an opposite analysis for groups like NARAL, NOW, and the Hemlock society and see that the majority of supporters for their key issues are Democrats, while the majority of Republicans are against.

Also, beware of so-called pro-life Democrats. As people are coming to realize the illogic of abortion rights, more Democrats are calling themselves pro-life, such as candidate for governor in Colorado, Bill Ritter. However, as Bill Ritter did, they also state that they have no plans to restrict abortion in any way. In other words, the tired old “personally opposed”, but publicly support a “necessary evil”. Those guys need to be slapped around.

 

[Richardols]

Also, beware of so-called pro-life Democrats.

I can’t agree. Go by the Democrats For Life website, and judge if these are just nominally pro-life.

I’ve never voted for a Republican for any national office, and where I can’t bring myself to vote for the Dem, I just won’t vote for either candidate.

 

[4HisChurch]

We all need the courage and strength to do His will.

Which is better?

A - voting for a Democrat who will most likely work against pro-life causes

B - voting for a Republican who is somewhat pro-life (not the Catholic ideal, for instance) and will help with “baby steps.”

C - voting for a Third Party candidate who has zero chance of being elected and will therefore accomplish nothing for pro-life causes in the political sphere.

D - not voting for anyone because no one is perfect enough for my vote.

May the Lord grant us the intelligent use of our brains to make logical choices that actually accomplish His will.

God bless,

Robert

Robert–this is my exact concern. I’ve voted Republican for years now, but I’m getting tired of the status quo. I’ve thought of voting third party, but I honestly don’t want the Dems in power as a result–especially in the president’s office.

 

[rlg94086]

Robert–this is my exact concern. I’ve voted Republican for years now, but I’m getting tired of the status quo. I’ve thought of voting third party, but I honestly don’t want the Dems in power as a result–especially in the president’s office.

It is a huge dilemma for a lot of Catholics. That is why our vote is split. I tend to favor personal responsibilty and charity over government assistance, so I go Republican and keep working within the party for what I believe in. Others, believe in government run social programs, so they go Democrat and try to elect pro-life candidates. I think either is an acceptable option, but for me, I think pro-life causes have a better chance with Republicans.

As I’ve said in other threads, we don’t have enough pro-life politicians in either part to truly make the changes we want. Regarding the presidnentcy, we are closer with the new Supreme Court judges to overturning Roe v. Wade and having a court that will not overturn pro-life legislation. The next presidency will probably see more liberal judges retiring (if they don’t in the next two years). I would hate to see pro-choice judges in those seats.

 

[milimac]

I can’t agree. Go by the Democrats For Life website, and judge if these are just nominally pro-life.

I’ve never voted for a Republican for any national office, and where I can’t bring myself to vote for the Dem, I just won’t vote for either candidate.

You can’t agree to beware? Just blindly accept their claim that they’re pro-life?

Perhaps this is more acceptable: Beware of ALL politicians who claim to be pro-life. Look at their voting records. Look at whether they truly support pro-life legislation and reject legislation that destroys life.

Notice this statement on the Democrats for Life website: (democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=172&Itemid=54):
Governor
There are currently 3 pro-life Democrat Governors, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana and Tim Kaine of Virginia. We hope that 2 more Bill Ritter from Colorado and Lucy Baxley from Alabama will join the ranks.

Now follow the link to Bill Ritter’s website and see what he’s going to do about abortion ( ritterforgovernor.com/issuesPR.cfm ):
Here are Bill Ritter’s so-called “pro-life” views:
BillRitter:

Based on my faith, I am personally opposed to abortion. But I recognize that people who disagree with me on this issue hold equally strong convictions.

we must:
Make a stronger commitment to family planning. I will restore the funding to Planned Parenthood and other agencies that Gov. Owens cut by executive order.

Ensure better access to health care for all women**, including birth control and emergency contraception**. I would have signed the bill that was passed by the legislature but vetoed by Gov. Owens that would have given pharmacists the ability to provide EC without a doctor’s prescription.

(regarding abortion)
I strongly oppose any effort that would seek to criminalize women or their doctors over this issue. I would strongly oppose legislation similar to the one recently passed by the South Dakota legislature. As governor, I would enforce existing laws, including Roe v. Wade. It’s not part of my agenda to change these laws…

It is these same beliefs and concerns that have made me an advocate of family planning and a strong supporter of government funding for agencies involved in family planning education, teen pregnancy prevention programs as well as responsible and age appropriate sex education in schools.

As I said, beware.

I truly thought I was going to have praise for Democrats for Life when I visited their website. Perhaps Bill Ritter was an oversight on their part, or perhaps they’re trying to deceive people and really don’t have life issues as a priority. Perhaps they don’t mean what I think they mean when they say Democrats for Life. Perhaps what they really mean is “put Democrats in office for life”.

As far as “pro-life” Bill Ritter, what a crock. Tell me, how does he differ from a pro-choice politician? How does his Catholic faith influence his public life? I don’t care about his personal beliefs, I care about what he’s going to do. If his personal beliefs have no affect on his actions then it’s absolutely worthless to me as a voter. Don’t even bother sharing them with us Bill. Of course, those who wish to find any excuse to vote Democrat will hear “pro-life” and Bill Ritter in the same sentence and fool their consciences. Time to wake up folks.

 

[Richardols]

Perhaps this is more acceptable: Beware of ALL politicians who claim to be pro-life.

This certainly is more acceptable.

 

[Richardols]

It is a huge dilemma for a lot of Catholics. That is why our vote is split. I tend to favor personal responsibilty and charity over government assistance, so I go Republican and keep working within the party for what I believe in. Others, believe in government run social programs, so they go Democrat and try to elect pro-life candidates. I think either is an acceptable option, but for me, I think pro-life causes have a better chance with Republicans.

Very nicely put. I too think personal responsibility and charity are best, but I don’t reject the role of government in providing social services, so I follow the latter course.

 

[rlg94086]

This certainly is more acceptable.

Yep. Pro-life really is a spectrum of beliefs, so you can’t just take a “pro-life” politician and assume they agree with you…consider…

• IVF - many pro-lifers support it, which is why they have difficulty when the embryonic stem cell issue comes up.
• Birth control - most pro-lifers are okay with birth control, even though most Catholic pro-lifers understand that it is a root cause of a lot of our life issues.
• Rape and Incest exclusions - some pro-lifers support this.
• Life of the mother exclusion - some pro-lifers support this.
• Death Penalty - many pro-lifers, including Catholics, support this in varying degrees, others firmly believe you have to reject it…in a way it is all over the map
• Euthenasia - believe it or not, some pro-lifers are okay with physician-assisted suicide because it involves an adult making a decision on their own life. They contrast that with abortion, where you are killing an unborn child.
  Did I miss any? I know we can look at one or two of those items and say “well they aren’t really pro-life, then!” So, what to do? Do we accept only the pro-lifers who are 100% Catholic view (let’s take the death penalty out of it, since we can’t even agree there )? I would submit that we accept any pro-lifer, to support the things we agree on, and help them to inform their conscience on the items where we disagree.

My :twocents:

 

[rlg94086]

I was thinking of you when I wrote it, although I guess I misrepresented you slightly. I have respect for anyone who takes their beliefs seriously and is making decisions based on those beliefs. It doesn’t mean I agree or that I won’t argue with you (well that’s obvious ), but I do respect your decisions.

Very nicely put. I too think personal responsibility and charity are best, but I don’t reject the role of government in providing social services, so I follow the latter course.