Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[pnewton]

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama…

I keep expecting Satan or Hitler to enter into this discussion somewhere.

 

[estesbob]

Ishii says Ron Paul is unelectable. Therefore, if I vote for him, according to that post, I am not a Catholic who values the sancity of life, in his opinion.

I see no problem with voting for him in the primaries. If you write him in the general election i think you are helping elect Obama but i know of no church teaching that says we have to vote for the most viable pro life canidate-just that we cant vote for a pro-abortion one.

If I suggested that you were not all that pro-life or being a good Catholic in an area that you were following the Church 100%, how would you feel? I think we forget the Golden Rule here.

See above

 

[pnewton]

I see no problem with voting for him in the primaries. If you write him in the general election i think you are helping elect Obama but i know of no church teaching that says we have to vote for the most viable pro life canidate-just that we cant vote for a pro-abortion one.

I said earlier that we are still early in this race. Just wait until we get toward the end during the 2012 general election season. I bet the fur will fly with the third party voting issue again. It happened in 2008. I don’t remember it in 2004. I think political discussion was sort of verbotten then. It would take a lot for me to abandon the Republican nominee. I am not saying I will or won’t, just that I acknowledge the arguments for and against 3rd party voting.

 

[pnewton]

Dog gone it. I just read the paper and saw the Dr. Paul spoke at a luncheon in town yesterday and I missed it. Oh well, maybe next time. The only thing is that he really can’t gain much more from campaigning here.

 

[ishii]

I’ve given up on folks trying to coerce me into voting for the Republican candidate. Let them vote for their “serious” candidate. I, too, will vote for the man I consider to be serious.
.

A candidate who is seriously pro-abortion?

 

[ishii]

Ishii says Ron Paul is unelectable. Therefore, if I vote for him, according to that post, I am not a Catholic who values the sancity of life, in his opinion.

If I suggested that you were not all that pro-life or being a good Catholic in an area that you were following the Church 100%, how would you feel? I think we forget the Golden Rule here.

Like Estesbob said, support Ron Paul all you want in the primary, but in the general election, I think that Catholics who value Church teaching on the sanctity of life will vote for the pro-life candidate who has the best chance of winning. I would take my chances with a supreme court justice picked by Romney, Pawlenty, Bachmann or any other GOP nominee (save for the libertarian pro-choice guy from Arizona - who also has no chance). Pnewton, I have never questioned your status as a good Catholic, just your judgement.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama…

If Ron Paul ran as a 3rd party candidate in the general election then that would be true - just like Ralph Nader took away votes from Al Gore. There are “true-believer” type voters on the left, too, who are out of touch with reality. There not all Ron Paul voters.

Ishii

 

[Rence]

The Church says we can not vote for a pro-abortion canidate.

No, it does not. You say it does. There is a difference between what the Church put out, available to all, and what you say the Church says. The Church specifically says that being pro-choice may disqualify a voter from voting for that candidate. It also says that Catholics are not one issue voters. And it specifically lists issues that one should take into consideration when casting their vote. If the Church instructed Catholics to only vote according to the candidates stance on abortion, they would not have listed other areas to examine. They would also have not said, “may disqualify”, rather they would have outright forbidden it, just like they outright forbid other things. It does NOT say we can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Further, there aren’t any pro-abortion candidates running, though there are some pro-choice ones.

 

[ishii]

No, it does not. You say it does. There is a difference between what the Church put out, available to all, and what you say the Church says. The Church specifically says that being pro-choice may disqualify a voter from voting for that candidate. It also says that Catholics are not one issue voters. And it specifically lists issues that one should take into consideration when casting their vote. If the Church instructed Catholics to only vote according to the candidates stance on abortion, they would not have listed other areas to examine. They would also have not said, “may disqualify”, rather they would have outright forbidden it, just like they outright forbid other things. It does NOT say we can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Further, there aren’t any pro-abortion candidates running, though there are some pro-choice ones.

There are pro-abortion candidates running. Obama will be a pro-abortion candidate running in 2012. As will many Democrat catholics. Don’t believe me? Check out this statement by the USCCB:

“Most Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in certain limited circumstances; an overwhelming majority agrees that unmarried minors should not obtain abortions without parental knowledge or consent. Nonetheless, pro-abortion or so-called “pro-choice” groups have mounted a campaign to convince legislators and others that Americans want abortion on demand.”

Notice how they refer to pro-choice groups as ***“pro-abortion.” ***

Nuff said?

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If Ron Paul ran as a 3rd party candidate in the general election then that would be true - just like Ralph Nader took away votes from Al Gore. There are “true-believer” type voters on the left, too, who are out of touch with reality. There not all Ron Paul voters.

Ishii

I guess I’ll just vote my conscience and go to confession.

No wait. I discussed this with my confessor and he told me that all of your arguementation about “voting for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama” is a load of (insert your favorite explicative here). Since he is the one who has a moral duty to help me form my conscience to be in line with the Catholic Church, I’ll listen to him.

 

[ishii]

I guess I’ll just vote my conscience and go to confession.

No wait. I discussed this with my confessor and he told me that all of your arguementation about “voting for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama” is a load of (insert your favorite explicative here). Since he is the one who has a moral duty to help me form my conscience to be in line with the Catholic Church, I’ll listen to him.

If you vote right-wing 3rd party in the general, you’re helping Obama win. No getting around that - that is a political reality whether or not your confessor recognizes it. As for the moral ramifications of helping Obama win, I’ll definitely leave that up to you and your confessor of course.

Ishii

 

[Nominefili]

I’m not a Catholic, but you can have a Lutheran for Ron Paul if you’d like.

Also, Herman Cain is quickly moving up in my book. He’s fantastic.

 

[estesbob]

No, it does not. You say it does. There is a difference between what the Church put out, available to all, and what you say the Church says. The Church specifically says that being pro-choice may disqualify a voter from voting for that candidate. It also says that Catholics are not one issue voters. And it specifically lists issues that one should take into consideration when casting their vote. If the Church instructed Catholics to only vote according to the candidates stance on abortion, they would not have listed other areas to examine. They would also have not said, “may disqualify”, rather they would have outright forbidden it, just like they outright forbid other things. It does NOT say we can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Further, there aren’t any pro-abortion candidates running, though there are some pro-choice ones.

*No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion," he said.

Cardinal Raymond Burke*

 

[Urbano_Macchi]

Push the “Sanctity of Human Life ACt”, like he has done for 3 consecutive sessions of Congress, and then make it a very public issue as to why Congress will not guarantee personhood to the unborn. Roe even admitted in the ruling that it could not determine when personhood started and that duty rested on the Congress. The Sanctity of Human Life Act would upend Roe v. Wade without a SCOTUS challenge. The Democrats know this, which is why they keep killing the bill in committee.

I have addressed the Sanctity of Human Life Act before, but here it is again:

Without changing the composition of the Supreme Court, the Sanctity of Life Act is laughably inadequate. The bill purports to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, saying in effect that the Court can no longer rule on issues relating to abortion. Here is the relevant part of the Act:

the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–
‘(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
‘(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
‘(A) the performance of abortions; or
‘(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.

However, the Supreme Court has already ignored such attempts by Congress to strip its jurisdiction (see Boumediene v. Bush). That is to say, that if the Supreme Court sees abortion as a fundamental right (which is its current view), then no amount of purported jurisdiction-stripping will stop the Court from ruling on the validity of abortion laws. Again I must repeat that changing the composition of the Supreme Court is the only feasible way to extend human rights to the unborn.

 

[Urbano_Macchi]

Just because he does not believe that the federal governmnet should be in the “marriage” business does not make him “pro gay marriage”. Its an intentional misrepresentation of his position. Its a sophomoric argumentation. He believes that the federal government should only do those things that are enumerated in the Constitution, no more, no less.

The Constitution contains an amendment process. Ron Paul is arguing against an amendment to the Constitution. If such an amendment were to pass, then obviously the federal government would be doing something specifically enumerated in the Constitution by defining marriage.

I would also say that a federal marriage amendment is one of the best ways to ensure that marriage is protected nationwide. There is a very strong chance that the Supreme Court will soon rule that homosexual “marriage” is a fundamental human right. There is already a right to “sodomy” recognized by the Supreme Court, as well as a right to marriage. An amendment would be the only real way to take this issue out of the hands of the Supreme Court. In essence I am saying that if Ron Paul is not for a federal marriage amendment, he is in effect for homosexual “marriage.”

 

[Urbano_Macchi]

Unborn persons have been excluded from Constitutional protection by unfair reading of the text.

No, the most fair reading of the text does not include unborn children in the definition of “person.” You have stated that the 14th Amendment is not limited to black persons because black persons are not specifically mentioned. This is correct, however, you have offered no evidence that unborn children were actually intended to be protected by the 14th Amendment. In fact, I have offered historical, textual, and scientific evidence that unborn children were not included within the meaning of “person” in the 14th Amendment:

1. The text of the Constitution implies that “person” includes someone who has already been born. In every single other instance where person is mentioned in the Constitution, it can only refer to a person who has been born.
2. There is absolutely no reference recorded among the authors of the 14th Amendment suggesting that they understood the word “person” to include the unborn. Nor did anyone seriously interpret the 14th Amendment as applying to unborn children until the 1960s.
3. At the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment it was not even clear scientifically that unborn children WERE distinct human beings from the moment of conception, with a distinct genetic code. Obviously, the authors of the 14th Amendment could not have included unborn children as “persons” from the moment of conception when no one knew for certain that human life began at conception.

And far too many prolifers just accept it.

Pro-lifers accept the argument because it is honest and because it is correct. The Constitution is FLAWED in that it does not protect unborn children. Wishing it were otherwise will not help the pro-life cause. We must work to change the Court and to change State laws.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If you vote right-wing 3rd party in the general, you’re helping Obama win. No getting around that - that is a political reality whether or not your confessor recognizes it. As for the moral ramifications of helping Obama win, I’ll definitely leave that up to you and your confessor of course.

Ishii

My confessor is very well versed in politics (he is a Navy Chaplain) and the teachings of the Church.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I have addressed the Sanctity of Human Life Act before, but here it is again:

Without changing the composition of the Supreme Court, the Sanctity of Life Act is laughably inadequate. The bill purports to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, saying in effect that the Court can no longer rule on issues relating to abortion. Here is the relevant part of the Act:

However, the Supreme Court has already ignored such attempts by Congress to strip its jurisdiction (see Boumediene v. Bush). That is to say, that if the Supreme Court sees abortion as a fundamental right (which is its current view), then no amount of purported jurisdiction-stripping will stop the Court from ruling on the validity of abortion laws. Again I must repeat that changing the composition of the Supreme Court is the only feasible way to extend human rights to the unborn.

The salient point of the Act which overturns Roe is the part which ROe itself said it didn’t have the jurisdiction to decided and that Congress did, namely, the personhood of the unborn. THe Act gives personhood to the unborn, thereby automatically qualifying them for 14th Amendment protection. End of discussion. And “changing the character of the SC” is an election ploy that Republicans have been singing for 30+ years. It won’t work. So, like I said, I will vote my conscience and cast it for the person whom I’d most like to see as President, and it will most likely NOT be one of the “out of the box, canned, polished, and scripted” GOP nominees.

 

[ishii]

My confessor is very well versed in politics (he is a Navy Chaplain) and the teachings of the Church.

Not sure why being a Navy chaplain makes one well versed in politics…

When Nader ran in 2000 I was happy that he took away votes from Gore because I wanted Gore to lose. Nader got almost 100,000 votes in Florida. A 3rd party candidate can have an effect on the outcome of the election between the two major party candidates. Voting for Paul as a 3rd party candidate would help the Democrat, no doubt, and if the election was a close one like in 2000, the votes could actually help swing the election. That is political reality. One will indirectly help Obama with a vote for a right-wing 3rd party candidate. I wouldn’t want to help Obama, directly or indirectly.

Ishii

 

[jam070406]

Not sure why being a Navy chaplain makes one well versed in politics…

When Nader ran in 2000 I was happy that he took away votes from Gore because I wanted Gore to lose. Nader got almost 100,000 votes in Florida. A 3rd party candidate can have an effect on the outcome of the election between the two major party candidates. Voting for Paul as a 3rd party candidate would help the Democrat, no doubt, and if the election was a close one like in 2000, the votes could actually help swing the election. That is political reality. One will indirectly help Obama with a vote for a right-wing 3rd party candidate. I wouldn’t want to help Obama, directly or indirectly.

Ishii

So it would be Ron Paul supporter’s fault that other people actually voted for Obama?