Catholic shift gives Democrats big boost

[St_John]

I’ve been thinking about these elections. I’m one of the ones who was disgusted with the moral hypocrisy of the Republicans, and also I was against the war in Iraq from the start, and the way things went there confirmed my opinion.

However, the Democrats are making a fatal error of acting cocky, and taking, now, the support of those like me for granted. For instance, I’m reading that they are issueing warnings to Bush not to put up a pro-life nominee to the supreme court, and they are making a pretty big show of rewarding the homosexuals with laws in favor of legitizing their lifestyle more.

The Democrats are forgetting how easily swing voters like me can change our minds on a whim. Also, they are making big noises about how they want to get us out of Iraq, and I do think we have some sort of commitment there, so they had better have a coherent plan to convince me.

They claim to want to be courting the pro-family vote, so they’d better not keep acting cocky and getting us mad by acting as if Barbara Streisand is writing all their checks.

 

[CatholicGal1977]

I’m one of those Ctaholicss who gave the Democrats a big boost. Then again, I’ve always been a Democrat at heart — I don’t like the Republicans and their policies. Never have, never will.

There’s A LOT the Republican party has gotten wrong since Bush took office and, quite frankly, they got exactly what they deserved when they were booted out on their little tooshies during the Nov. 7th election.

Since Bush took office, we’ve invaded a country we SHOULDN’T have invaded, have nearly erradicated civil service by privatinzing to contractors (who could very well be terrorists looking for ways to destry us right from within since the contractors don’t really check their employees backgrounds), and have failed to find the mastermind of 9/11 — Osama Bin Laden. Boy, did Bush’s promise go down in smoke or what?

I’m sorry, but anyone who says they like the Bushman needs their head checked. He has the LOWEST approval ratings in history and has done more damage than good, especially when it comes to the environment (he really sucks in that department).

What really gets under my skin is the fact that Bush literally took back all the 9/11 Aide money he gave NYC following 9/11 so that he could funnel and pump more money into his pathetic private war. Iraq never had nor has no any WMDs and is of no threat to us. All we did was leave the rest of the world wondering “Who’s next?” in terms of invasion.

You see, I may be Catholic but when I walk into that voting booth I vote for me, NOT for the Church, andThe fact a candidate supports a position of the Church is completely IRRELEVANT to me. I look and see if the candidates support a position I support regardless if it’s in agreement or disagreement with the Church and that’s what everyone else should do. When you’re inside the booth the ONLY thing that should matter is who you fel in your heart of heart is the best choice. Voting for them simply because they agree with a Church position is not what’s in this country’s best interest. Besides, I don’t know of any one candidate that’s in agreement with everything the Church teaches. Boy, wouldn’t that be nice though? I’m sure many fo you fellow Catholics would just love the perfect, flawless candidate regsardless of his party affliliation. I’m even willing to bet that some of you would vote 3rd party or a candidate if they were in agreement with everything the Church taught simply because he or she were in agreement with everything the Church taught. Who cares about experience, how they match up to your positions, or what’s best for the country — I have no doubts some of you would vote for that person just because they were in agreement with everything the Church taught.

Anyhow,… As a former history major, history tells us that when we’re in dire straights with one party, we kick 'em out and vote the other in. It’s always held up so I can’t say that I’m really surprised with the recent outcome. History really does repeat itself.

 

[CatholicGal1977]

This topic was discussed in great detail on this forum especially during the 2004 elections and if you look at past threads, you’ll see supporting references that those who vote for those who support abortion are also guilty of the sin.

Oh really? You don’t say? So, if a candidate supports abortion only in cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy and I vote for that candidate - I’m sinning? Oh Please!!!

The Bible supports rape (Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -Numbers 31: 17-18 ) to which was commanded by God of the Jewish soldiers and yet I’m sinning if I vote for a candidate that supports abortion. WAIT A SECOND! Wasn’t God sinning when he ordered the Jewish soldiers to do what they did? So what’s wrong with THIS picture?

You do realize God is hypocrtical, don’t you? He commands us to love one anotehr yet couldn’t do that when he destroyed all those people in Sodom & Gomorrah. How can such a terrific being order us to love one another when he wipes out an entire community for being homosexual?

Oh, and please don’t tell anyone they’re sinning when they vote or a candidate who’s pro abortion after all the Bible teaches us (in Matthew) not to judge one another. I won’t judge you so please don’t judge me. Let me be the one to determine, if by my own moral and spiritual compass, if I’m sinning or not. Respectfully speaking, “Who are you sir to judge me?”

 

[dmelosi]

Oh really? You don’t say? So, if a candidate supports abortion only in cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy and I vote for that candidate - I’m sinning? Oh Please!!!

The Bible supports rape (Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -Numbers 31: 17-18 ) to which was commanded by God of the Jewish soldiers and yet I’m sinning if I vote for a candidate that supports abortion. WAIT A SECOND! Wasn’t God sinning when he ordered the Jewish soldiers to do what they did? So what’s wrong with THIS picture?

You do realize God is hypocrtical, don’t you? He commands us to love one anotehr yet couldn’t do that when he destroyed all those people in Sodom & Gomorrah. How can such a terrific being order us to love one another when he wipes out an entire community for being homosexual?

Oh, and please don’t tell anyone they’re sinning when they vote or a candidate who’s pro abortion after all the Bible teaches us (in Matthew) not to judge one another. I won’t judge you so please don’t judge me. Let me be the one to determine, if by my own moral and spiritual compass, if I’m sinning or not. Respectfully speaking, “Who are you sir to judge me?”

Thank you for your posts. You help the pro life movement by showing others who read your posts what selfishness leads to.

 

[mary_bobo]

I had a first cousin who had a “hurried” wedding back in the 1950s. She and her husband turned out to become fine parents of four who raised their kids as good Catholics. Decent Catholics though they were, they had jumped the gun on the first little one.

That’s before there was no shame in having children out of wedlock, or living together, or abortion, euthanasia, etc., etc. Back in those days people were embarrased when they did something that was frowned on by society. Now it is anything goes. I liked it better the old way.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I wonder when the Priests and Bishops will tell those in the pews the teachings from Rome. That those that support the right to choose are just as guilty as those that have the abortions. It is a Grave Matter.

 

[Fitz]

Certainly, but there were no guarantees even when the Church had more influence 50-60 years ago. There weren’t as many as now to be sure, but some Catholic boys still went to jail back then and some Catholic girls still got pregnant out of wedlock in the 50s.

Yes, and when Catholic girls in the 50’s got pregnant out of wedlock they put their babies up for adoption. Catholics will never be free of all sin, but it should be our goal to have everyone that is Catholic be aware that a pregnancy means there is a real baby growing. Abortion is murder and Catholics need to face that fact.

 

[Fitz]

Oh, and please don’t tell anyone they’re sinning when they vote or a candidate who’s pro abortion after all the Bible teaches us (in Matthew) not to judge one another. I won’t judge you so please don’t judge me. Let me be the one to determine, if by my own moral and spiritual compass, if I’m sinning or not. Respectfully speaking, “Who are you sir to judge me?”

People are sinning when they knowingly choose a candidate that is pro-choice when there is a candidate that is pro-life that is running against them. Life issues trump other issues. As far as judgement goes, that is left totally to God. I can love someone that is making wrong choices and I am commanded to treat all others with respect and love. Yet, I know the difference between right and wrong so God will judge me for allowing or voting for people that are endorsing abortion.

 

[Thekla]

People are sinning when they knowingly choose a candidate that is pro-choice when there is a candidate that is pro-life that is running against them…

I know that many Catholics would like to use the abortion card to get fellow Catholics to vote the way they want them to, but that is not the way we have been taught and it’s not the way that sin works.

There is nothing in the Bible about choosing “a candidate that is pro-choice when there is a candidate that is pro-life running against them.” There is also no command from the Catholic Church for us to do so.

 

[dmelosi]

I know that many Catholics would like to use the abortion card to get fellow Catholics to vote the way they want them to, but that is not the way we have been taught and it’s not the way that sin works.

There is nothing in the Bible about choosing “a candidate that is pro-choice when there is a candidate that is pro-life running against them.” There is also no command from the Catholic Church for us to do so.

Everyone has a responsibility to stop murder. If you really thought abortion was murder, would you feel the same about supporting a pro murder candidate?

---

 

[chicago]

People are sinning when they knowingly choose a candidate that is pro-choice when there is a candidate that is pro-life that is running against them. Life issues trump other issues. As far as judgement goes, that is left totally to God. I can love someone that is making wrong choices and I am commanded to treat all others with respect and love. Yet, I know the difference between right and wrong so God will judge me for allowing or voting for people that are endorsing abortion.

I think a legitimate consideration is what is practically accomplishable in urgency within certain concrete contexts. Those who don’t vote for the “pro-life candidate when there is a pro-choice candidate on the ballot” not because the pro-choicer is in favor of abortion rights but out of other immediate concerns which the voter forsees as having real potential for more immediate change may not be sinning by making that judgement, particularly if they consider the “pro-life issue” to be one which won’t be positively progressed quickly with the “pro-life candidate” in office.

This election may be a good example of that happenning on many levels. Abortion just wasn’t the most pressing concern among most voters, including people who are generally pro-life.

 

[Richardols]

I think a legitimate consideration is what is practically accomplishable in urgency within certain concrete contexts. Those who don’t vote for the “pro-life candidate when there is a pro-choice candidate on the ballot” not because the pro-choicer is in favor of abortion rights but out of other immediate concerns which the voter forsees as having real potential for more immediate change may not be sinning by making that judgement, particularly if they consider the “pro-life issue” to be one which won’t be positively progressed quickly with the “pro-life candidate” in office.

This election may be a good example of that happenning on many levels. Abortion just wasn’t the most pressing concern among most voters, including people who are generally pro-life.

Very well put. I know that abortion will still be with us for years to come, and its reversal will take time, but I was sure that the course of the disastrous War would change pretty quickly if Mr. Bush was faced with a rejection of his policies as would other “immediate concerns” like immigration reform, which could pass with Bush/Democratic cooperation. So, I had no problem voting for a passively pro-choice candidate over the pro-life guy. And, the vote seems to have borne out what I thought.

 

[dmelosi]

Very well put. I know that abortion will still be with us for years to come, and its reversal will take time, but I was sure that the course of the disastrous War would change pretty quickly if Mr. Bush was faced with a rejection of his policies as would other “immediate concerns” like immigration reform, which could pass with Bush/Democratic cooperation. So, I had no problem voting for a passively pro-choice candidate over the pro-life guy. And, the vote seems to have borne out what I thought.

Who was the passive Pro Choice candidate you voted for?

 

[HoppityRedux]

When folks talk of the Catholic vote, Jewish vote, black vote, or any other identifiable vote it’s usually because the group tends to vote in a predictable pattern. I’d say the Catholic vote no longer qualifies as a predictable vote.

Once it could be relied upon by the big city machines since those areas had high numbers and concentrations of immigrant Catholics. And the Church delivered those votes. In return, it had real political power.

However, nobody can deliver the Catholic vote today, and it is so split on so many issues it is no longer a block. Those voters have simply melted into the background of the total poputaltion.

 

[Richardols]

Who was the passive Pro Choice candidate you voted for?

Vic Snyder, D, 2nd Dist, Ark.

An ex-Marine, former physician, pro-veteran Congressman whom even the rather conservative (and pro-life) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette endorsed. The fellow the Republicans put up as a sacrificial offering against the popular incumbent was a total unknown.

 

[dmelosi]

When folks talk of the Catholic vote, Jewish vote, black vote, or any other identifiable vote it’s usually because the group tends to vote in a predictable pattern. I’d say the Catholic vote no longer qualifies as a predictable vote.

Once it could be relied upon by the big city machines since those areas had high numbers and concentrations of immigrant Catholics. And the Church delivered those votes. In return, it had real political power.

However, nobody can deliver the Catholic vote today, and it is so split on so many issues it is no longer a block. Those voters have simply melted into the background of the total poputaltion.

That is a good overview. Unfortunately you can say the same about the importance of pro life being the top priority.

 

[dmelosi]

Vic Snyder, D, 2nd Dist, Ark.

An ex-Marine, former physician, pro-veteran Congressman whom even the rather conservative (and pro-life) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette endorsed. The fellow the Republicans put up as a sacrificial offering against the popular incumbent was a total unknown.

What you conveniently fail to mention is that Andy Mayberry was endorsed by The Arkansas Right to Life and the Republican National Coalition for Life.

I quote:

“I believe life is a precious gift from God and that it begins at conception,” Mayberry said. “Protecting innocent life should be a priority for any humane, just and fair society. Each of these organizations have carefully studied my position on issues as well as those of other candidates for this office. As the only candidate in this race who will be proactive regarding pro-life issues in Congress, I am honored to receive these endorsements.”

The endorsement letter from the Arkansas Right to Life, dated May 1, states, “The endorsement reflects our appreciation for the strong stand you have taken on behalf of those members of our human family who are least able to protect themselves – unborn children and medically disabled or dependent persons whose lives are threatened by abortion or euthanasia.

As I have said…too many people simply do not view abortion as murder.

 

[Thekla]

Everyone has a responsibility to stop murder. If you really thought abortion was murder, would you feel the same about supporting a pro murder candidate?

---

Exactly. It is the inability of everyone to agree that abortion is murder that is the heart of the problem. There are actions that we have arrived at a legal concensus on, but the action of abortion as murder is not one of them.

People who believe that abortion is murder should absolutely work to convince their fellow citizens that they are right. They must also advocate for the legal punishment of women who have abortions and anyone facilitating abortions. They must advocate for the legal punishment of these people regardless of circumstances such as rape and life of the mother. And they must vote accordingly.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I regret that pro-death democrats were elected but I rejoice that pro-life democrats were elected.

Who says that it is impossible for pro-life democrats to be elected?.

I also rejoice at the pro-life republicans that were elected and regret that pro-death republicans were elected.

 

[HoppityRedux]

I notice a lot of single issue voters here. Enactment of their agenda demands a viable and well functioning government that can ensure the social, economic, and security environment necessary to uniformly implement that agenda. That same environment is necessary for the other issues termed non-negotiable.

Therefore, even for the single issue voter, one can make a good case that it is more important to vote to promote such an environment, since without it nobody’s agenda can be met.