Catholic shift gives Democrats big boost

  • Thread starter Thread starter meno
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mary_bobo said:
Have you no knowledge of priests (and other Catholics) tell Catholics that it is allright to support those in favor of abortion, ot to practice birth control, etc.
Click to expand...
Nevedr heard a priest say such a thing, neither in this diocese (Little Rock) nor in any other I’ve lived in. I can’t imagine that any priest would actually tell anyone to support an abortionist. To be sure, things may be different in other dioceses.
I did not say the CHURCH was getting dumber, I said there is a dumbing down of the church. There is a big difference.
Click to expand...
Is there? I’ve heard the term used to describe “dumbing down” of an electorate, and of schools. That implied that voters were getting dumber regarding their choices, and that school kids were not as knowledgeable as those in decades past. So, the same should hold true about the Church in such a context.
 
dmelosi said:
I am not sure that I agree with all of your post. I certainly do that the most important issue is life, but that Casey was elected may send a message to the democrats that being pro life and sticking to your guns is a good thing, instead of selling your soul for power (as so many so called Catholic politicians have done). That may mean more in the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
I hope the party listens to Casey better than it did his father who was a principled Catholic, IMO.
 
Richardols said:
Nevedr heard a priest say such a thing, neither in this diocese (Little Rock) nor in any other I’ve lived in. I can’t imagine that any priest would actually tell anyone to support an abortionist. To be sure, things may be different in other dioceses.

Is there? I’ve heard the term used to describe “dumbing down” of an electorate, and of schools. That implied that voters were getting dumber regarding their choices, and that school kids were not as knowledgeable as those in decades past. So, the same should hold true about the Church in such a context.
Click to expand...
Define it as you wish.
 
dmelosi said:
The fact that cannot be disputed is the democrat politicians are mostly pro choice and republican politicians are mostly pro life. And I use mostly in a very loose way…a better word to replace it would overwhelmingly.
Click to expand...
True enough. But, I believe that mostly was the correct word. The Republican Party has its share of pro-choicers. There is even an organization, Republican Women For Choice. Though, as you say, the Dems are more likely to be pro-choice.

But, again, I think this election was a protest vote against Bush, against his war, and against how his administration was operating the country. It was not a vote on abortion. 37% of voters said that they were voting specifically against the war. The many negatives the Republicans represented could not be outweighed by what pro-life stance they might have had.
 
Richardols said:
True enough. But, I believe that mostly was the correct word. The Republican Party has its share of pro-choicers. There is even an organization, Republican Women For Choice. Though, as you say, the Dems are more likely to be pro-choice.

But, again, I think this election was a protest vote against Bush, against his war, and against how his administration was operating the country. It was not a vote on abortion. 37% of voters said that they were voting specifically against the war. The many negatives the Republicans represented could not be outweighed by what pro-life stance they might have had.
Click to expand...
Which means that the abortion issue is simply not that important to them.
 
dmelosi said:
Which means that the abortion issue is simply not that important to them.
Click to expand...
At this point in time, with all the other issues confronting us, I think you are correct. Look at South Dakota and Missouri. Even Catholic voters were tempering their anti-abortion stance with an examination of the other very serious problems we have. I know that the conduct of the war and Republican failures in other matters were issues too great for me personally to overlook. (Aside from my personal inclination to lean Democratic).
 
Richardols said:
At this point in time, with all the other issues confronting us, I think you are correct. Look at South Dakota and Missouri. Even Catholic voters were tempering their anti-abortion stance with an examination of the other very serious problems we have. I know that the conduct of the war and Republican failures in other matters were issues too great for me personally to overlook. (Aside from my personal inclination to lean Democratic).
Click to expand...
Have you ever voted as if the Pro Life issue was the most important? If you did was it for a Republican?
 
There has been a lot of false interpretation as to what the results of this election mean and it is important not to read too much into this - especially advocates of the pro-life movement.

One little known fact is that Congress has a lower approval rating than George W. Bush. Ironically, exit polls revealed that America’s perception of the Republican Party was the party of “big government” and “big spending.” In other words, the American public voted in Democrats on “conservative” issues. There hasn’t been a swing towards liberalism.

This election was nothing more than the American public being fed up with the Government and having no one else to turn to, given the constraints of a two-party system.

If the two-party system of government is a disease then a single party controlling all facets is the plague. It is ludicrous to keep voting in “pro-life” Republicans simply because they’re pro-life while the Government falls apart. This shift in power is healthy for the American Republic in the long term and by no means a “loss” for the pro-life movement.
 
Richardols said:
No, but I have voted for pro-life Democrats.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, given the shortcomings of the two-party system, the Government isn’t run by individuals but rather one of two political conglomerates - the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.

This holds especially true for individual politicians who disagree with a tenant of their respective party. Voting in a “pro-choice” Republican isn’t going to further the advancement of “women’s rights” as the Republican Party is against it. I would expect the converse to be true as well.

edit:

For example, if the election came down to Hillary versus Guliani, a strict pro-lifer can vote Guliani in good conscience - despite them both being pro-choice - because Guliani’s Party would prevent him from acting as such to any great degree.
 
Richardols said:
No, but I have voted for pro-life Democrats.
Click to expand...
At least you are honest that the Pro Life issue is down on the list. Sure indicates to me though you do not equate murder with abortion…that is the big problem.
 
The Democrats have elected one of the most openly out-spoken pro-choice woman as their leader. Not my place to say but I believe she still receives the Eucharist when attending Catholic Mass.

Has the leopard changed his/her spots or just the way it feeds.
 
mike182d said:
Unfortunately, given the shortcomings of the two-party system, the Government isn’t run by individuals but rather one of two political conglomerates - the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.

This holds especially true for individual politicians who disagree with a tenant of their respective party. Voting in a “pro-choice” Republican isn’t going to further the advancement of “women’s rights” as the Republican Party is against it. I would expect the converse to be true as well.

edit:

For example, if the election came down to Hillary versus Guliani, a strict pro-lifer can vote Guliani in good conscience - despite them both being pro-choice - because Guliani’s Party would prevent him from acting as such to any great degree.
Click to expand...
The scenario you paint about clinton vs guliani is only possible although realistic because so many Catholics do not think the pro life issue is that important. That is possible now, only proves that the pro life movement is eroding.
 
mike182d said:
There has been a lot of false interpretation as to what the results of this election mean and it is important not to read too much into this - especially advocates of the pro-life movement.

One little known fact is that Congress has a lower approval rating than George W. Bush. Ironically, exit polls revealed that America’s perception of the Republican Party was the party of “big government” and “big spending.” In other words, the American public voted in Democrats on “conservative” issues. There hasn’t been a swing towards liberalism.

This election was nothing more than the American public being fed up with the Government and having no one else to turn to, given the constraints of a two-party system.

If the two-party system of government is a disease then a single party controlling all facets is the plague. It is ludicrous to keep voting in “pro-life” Republicans simply because they’re pro-life while the Government falls apart. This shift in power is healthy for the American Republic in the long term and by no means a “loss” for the pro-life movement.
Click to expand...
This argument is ridiculous, the pro life movement is eroding because of people like you that “dumb down” the importance of life. If all Catholics truly believed that abortion was murder, there would be no argument at all. The democratic platform would also not be so pro abortion.
 
dmelosi said:
The scenario you paint about clinton vs guliani is only possible although realistic because so many Catholics do not think the pro life issue is that important. That is possible now, only proves that the pro life movement is eroding.
Click to expand...
I do understand your concern, but I do not think the situation is as dire as you believe. Guliani is an incredibly popular politician while Hillary is not. I do not think it coincidence that Hillary also flaunts her pro-choice while Guliani does not.

Guliani is perceived to be a great, strong, fiscally responsible leader - one that can return power to the Repulicans. This is not because people don’t care about pro-life issues, but rather people know that the Government is a vile cesspool of corruption that is milking their hard-earned money for all it’s worth.
 
mike182d said:
I do understand your concern, but I do not think the situation is as dire as you believe. Guliani is an incredibly popular politician while Hillary is not. I do not think it coincidence that Hillary also flaunts her pro-choice while Guliani does not.

Guliani is perceived to be a great, strong, fiscally responsible leader - one that can return power to the Repulicans. This is not because people don’t care about pro-life issues, but rather people know that the Government is a vile cesspool of corruption that is milking their hard-earned money for all it’s worth.
Click to expand...
Milking money, sure there is corruption? But that compared to killing? That real issue is the fact that abortion is murder has been so “dumbed down” it is scary
 
dmelosi said:
This argument is ridiculous, the pro life movement is eroding because of people like you that “dumb down” the importance of life. If all Catholics truly believed that abortion was murder, there would be no argument at all. The democratic platform would also not be so pro abortion.
Click to expand...
You know absolutely nothing about me, my ministry, my involvement in the Church or in politics and yet you have the audacity to judge me as the cause of the pro-life movement’s fall. Ironically, the pro-life movement’s fall has more to do with people like you: your sense of self-righteousness and your complete inability to see the forrest for the trees.

The two-party system of Government is not conducive to actually “solving” problems in America. The country is run by a duopoly - two political powers with virtually no accountability or fear of being broken up. In their perception, you, as a voter, have only two choices: them or us. Thus, unlike a business which must meet the demands of its shareholders and consumers, political parties need only to make themselves appear “better than the other guy.” How would Republicans get elected if abortion wasn’t an issue? How would Democrats get elected if social security wasn’t an issue? Political parties exist not to solve problems but to maintain their power by prolonging them.

It is terribly naive to think that keeping Republicans in power for all eternity would magically eradicate abortion. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

For your information, I am staunchly pro-life, but I am also a patriotic American who would die for the idea of an American Republic that our Founding Fathers fought and died for. America today is most certainly not that dream.
 
dmelosi said:
At least you are honest that the Pro Life issue is down on the list.
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of honesty over priorities. I believed that the Republican Party’s leadership and conduct of our nation’s affairs have become disasters that could only be overcome by voting against them.

I can put it no better than Mike did when he posted, “It is ludicrous to keep voting in “pro-life” Republicans simply because they’re pro-life while the Government falls apart.” That is IT in a nutshell as far as I’m concerned.
 
dmelosi said:
Milking money, sure there is corruption? But that compared to killing? That real issue is the fact that abortion is murder has been so “dumbed down” it is scary
Click to expand...
I am not talking about simply “milking money.” Your failure to see the trend America is headed in is mind-boggling. The Government has become far too powerful and far to pervasive and is slowly eradicating the free “republic” envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Your perceived willingness to concede all power to an emperor as long as he would outlaw abortion is frightening (or at least, that is what your logic leads me to deduce). Abortion isn’t caused by a piece of paper allowing it, nor is murder stopped by outlawing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top