Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[JMJSHJ]

I really feel compelled to speak here as this is something that is very important.

First off while Ron Paul has said he won’t run as a 3rd party candidate, that may not stop some Catholics here from “writing his name” on the ballot. Catholics who do this are helping to re-elect Barack Obama despite what they say as any vote that isn’t given to the Pro-Life Republican nominee helps Obama. Its basic math despite what others may say.

Paul apologists here have said that nominating a pro life supreme court justice won’t help at all in the abortion fight. I don’t believe this but I would like to know what a President Ron Paul would do in specific terms.

Also I would like to ask the Paul apologists what the economic consequences of Iran and nukes. If Iran attacks Israel first, then Israel would blow Iran to kingdom come but then I believe that Syria, Egypt, Lebanon etc would blow Israel to kingdom come. Once one country drops a nuke, then all bets are off and watch Pakistan and India nuke each other and then China gets involved. What happens to the price of Oil in all of these scenarios? We still need Oil now for the economy.

I have more to say but time precludes more posting for now.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A vote for Ron Paul does not in any way “promote abortion or those who promote it.” A vote for Obama would. And NO, the Church does not say we are able to be “free in conscience” and “exercise prudential (informed and thoughtful) judgment” about unjust war. And YES, unjust war is just as inherently evil as abortion. Innoncent life is innoncent life.

You are assuming your conclusion in your premise. That’s an invalid proposition, since both sides of it are identical. “UNJUST war=evil”. Of course it is.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Considering that my confessor is a Navy Chaplain assigned to the Marines, theologically dogmatic, and politically conservative, I don’t think he shares this perspective. He has chastized the entire parish, during the Easter homily, about how many Obama bumper stickers he saw in the church parking lot, and reminded us of what the man stood for. And yes, this is the same confessor who, quite literally, told me that anyone who says that I am wasting my vote by voting on principle is a hack and should be ignored. His words, not mine.

One wonders whether one interpreted his words to fit one’s predilections. Nevertheless, if he literally meant “waste your vote on some candidate that can’t win instead of actively opposing supporters of abortion” (and I have to wonder about that), then I will say it’s astonishing that a presumptive warrior (the chaplain) would espouse laying down one’s arms in the face of the enemy. This is like saying “I won’t fight Al Quaeda over there because I think VA benefits are paltry, and besides, MREs don’t really taste all that good.
So, if they kill all kinds of innocent people, I’m not responsible in any way because my reasons for not opposing them are sufficient to me, and I’m adamant about it. I’m putting my rifle down and walking away.”

My stars, what a wonder it is how the abortion-promoters have deceived so many into serving their cause! But then, evil can be very clever indeed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Let me reiterate lest anybody misunderstand. I have no problem with those who support Ron Paul in the primary. What I do have is a problem with those who will, if he’s not nominated, throw their votes away when they could oppose evil with them.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Let me reiterate lest anybody misunderstand. I have no problem with those who support Ron Paul in the primary. What I do have is a problem with those who will, if he’s not nominated, throw their votes away when they could oppose evil with them.

Let me reiterate. Barack Obama will be re-elected by people who vote for Barack Obama, not because other vote their conscience on someone other than the rubber-stamped Republican candidate.

 

[TMC]

And you base that on what?

Heres allI could find :

• Iraq: combat terror on their turf, not ours. (Nov 2010)
• Divest state funds from companies doing business in Sudan. (Feb 2007)
• Secure freedom for oppressed people in Iraq and Afghanistan. (May 2008)
• US should be strongest nation by insurmountable magnitude. (Nov 2010)
• Invest in defense to prepare for unpredictable threats. (Nov 2010)
• Unsettled policy on Guantanamo signals weakness to enemies. (Nov 2010)
• Always maintain a robust military capability. (May 2008)
• Deal with terrorism as a joint federal-state responsibility. (Feb 2001)
• Include states in anti-terrorism planning. (Sep 2001)
• Study terrorist threats against nuclear waste repositories. (Aug 2001)

Yes, those are the things that led me to that conclusion.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As a devoted Democrat, Rich, you would have an interest in people who oppose Obama throwing their votes away in the general election. I get that.

There is no such a thing as throwing away one’s vote, if one has a reason for voting for a particular candidate. I personally will not vote for President in '12 as things stand now.

But you’re right in a way. Mao Tse-Tung was “principled” in his own way. So was Pol Pot. But that does not mean that simply having “principles” means that it’s objectively moral to act in accordance with them no matter what they are.

Didn’t say that it was.

What I do have a problem with is Catholics failing to vote against an abortion-favoring candidate like Obama when there is even a reasonably likely prolife candidate for whom they could vote in the general if Paul doesn’t get the nomination, just because their primary candidate didn’t win.

If that is the Church’s position, that makes it one thing. If it’s your pro-GOP position, then it’s another.

Those prolifers who throw their votes away just because their candidate doesn’t win in the primaries are just as complicit with the pro-abortion agenda as if they had voted for Obama themselves. And in some ways it’s worse because they know better, or at least have enough knowledge to know better. Some pro-abortion diehards don’t.

Okay. That’s your story and you’re sticking to it.

It’s vanity, pure and simple, that motivates such a thing.

It’s unbecoming to make a false accusation that can’t be proven about fellow Catholics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s unbecoming to make a false accusation that can’t be proven about fellow Catholics.

The statement was that it’s vanity that compels prolife people to throw away their votes when they could use them to oppose abortion-promoting candidates, because their favored prolife candidate was not the opposing nominee.

I recognize there is such a thing as invincible ignorance. Likely I should have added the element of being rightly informed as to the position of the opposing candidate (Obama in this case) regarding abortion and that of a prolife candidate who gets the Republican nomination.

Now, speaking of making false accusations about fellow Catholics, you accused me of being “pro-Republican”. I am not a Republican and I never have been. I am even to the “left” of you in some ways. But I am prolife, and while someday the Democrat party might decide to abandon its pro-abortion devotion, it hasn’t yet and shows no signs of it, and the only prolife candidates seemingly likely to be opposing obama in the general and having any chance at all of winning are Republicans.

What I really am, Rich, as you know, and as we have discussed, is a lifelong Democrat who has become disaffected by the party’s near-total devotion to abortion. I gained that disaffection by bitter experience as a Democrat officeholder in the party when it was made crystal-clear to me by the party that Democrats who wish to actively promote a prolife stance are not welcome in the party.

Perhaps it was just as well. Frankly, (and as i have expressed many times on CAF) it has increasingly seemed to me that neither political party truly espouses policies that are consistent with the teachings of the Church, and that if one really adheres to those teachings oneself, one can only support those candidates of a viable party whose policies come closest in the most important respects to those teachings.

Since no issue currently before American voters is anywhere near as clear as the inherent evil of supporting abortion, a Catholic has an affirmative obligation to oppose those candidates whose policies promote it and support it. And if that means supporting an opposition candidate with whose other policies I do not agree, but which are not inherently evil as is supporting abortion, then that’s my moral obligation.

You know all of that. Please do not accuse me of being a Republican or "pro-Republican’ again.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I recognize there is such a thing as invincible ignorance.

A Catholic term of art, it refers to ignorance beyond the individual’s control and for which, therefore, he is not responsible before God. We tend to refer to Protestant belief with this term.

Now, speaking of making false accusations about fellow Catholics, you accused me of being “pro-Republican”.

Not a false accusation, just an incorrect judgment.

 

[ishii]

“nonviable” according to who? A media “poll”? Actually, Ron Paul is the most viable pro-life candidate when it comes to beating Obama in a general election. He will remain viable as long as Catholics vote for him, whether on the Republican ticket or as a write-in. We live a free society. We are not restricted to Republican or Democrat as long as we have the option to write-in a candidate.

Non viable in the political sense - in that if he ran in the general against Obama, Obama (and abortion rights) would easily win. The burden is on the starry-eyed Paul supporters to make the case that he is viable. It is a difficult case to make, imo.

Ishii

 

[Tigg]

The USCCB is the Moral Authority of The Bishops of the USA; It is The Moral and legal “Magesterium” in the USA in Agreement with the Vatican and Magesterium, to which every Catholic Bishop/Clergyman must abide, and every American Should.

For a proper understanding of the role of episcopal conferences, (an administrative and bureaucratic body) I recommend reading The Ratzinger Report, pgs 59-61, Apostolos Suos and Can. 455.

And remember Bishop Martino’s famous quote, “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me!”

 

[estesbob]

Non viable in the political sense - in that if he ran in the general against Obama, Obama (and abortion rights) would easily win. The burden is on the starry-eyed Paul supporters to make the case that he is viable. It is a difficult case to make, imo.

Ishii

We have to be careful not to assert that the Church teaches one cannot vote for non-viable pro-life candidate. It is my opinion that when a devout Catholic who is pro-life either does not vote or votes for a nonviable third-party candidate they are complicit in the election of a pro-abortion candidate should they win. Our church, however, takes no stance on this situation. One should note, however, how Obama supporters chortle with glee every time a pro-life adherent state they’re going to vote third party.

 

[ishii]

No. The people who vote for Barack Obama will help re-elect Barack Obama. No more, no less.

And the people who don’t effectively oppose him will help re-elect Obama and further his abortion agenda.

Ishii

 

[Tigg]

We have to be careful not to assert that the Church teaches one cannot vote for non-viable pro-life candidate. It is my opinion that when a devout Catholic who is pro-life either does not vote or votes for a nonviable third-party candidate they are complicit in the election of a pro-abortion candidate should they win. Our church, however, takes no stance on this situation. One should note, however, how Obama supporters chortle with glee every time a pro-life adherent state they’re going to vote third party.

You’re probably right and it makes me sick to think so, but neither they nor other Catholics can know, understand or judge the motivation that comes from prayerful discernment based upon our intellect, our life experience and our assent to our faith.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Non viable in the political sense - in that if he ran in the general against Obama, Obama (and abortion rights) would easily win. The burden is on the starry-eyed Paul supporters to make the case that he is viable. It is a difficult case to make, imo.

Ishii

He is viable because he is definitively pro-life, so that should sate the appetite of the GOP stallwarts. He is the only GOP candidate with cross-over appeal to pro-life Democrats and fiscally conservative independents who actually observe his record. He is also “Point Zero” of the Tea Party movement.

 

[gilliam]

He is viable because he is definitively pro-life, so that should sate the appetite of the GOP stallwarts. He is the only GOP candidate with cross-over appeal to pro-life Democrats and fiscally conservative independents who actually observe his record. He is also “Point Zero” of the Tea Party movement.

As long as he polls below 20% he isn’t a viable candidate (he is still polling nationally in the single digits). I still don’t see evidence of a majority of Independents flocking to him.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And the people who don’t effectively oppose him will help re-elect Obama and further his abortion agenda.

Ishii

No, they won’t. Make your case to the Obama supporters why they shouldn’t vote for him rather than to the people who are not going to vote for Obama in any circumstance. It is the people who vote for Obama that will put him into office, nothing else.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

As long as he polls below 20% he isn’t a viable candidate (he is still polling nationally in the single digits). I still don’t see evidence of a majority of Independents flocking to him.

Yes, he isn’t as dazzling as Perry. He does have a consistent track record of fiscal conservatism, pro-life, and limited government. Much unlike the talking heads that are representative of the other candidates.

 

[gilliam]

Yes, he isn’t as dazzling as Perry. He does have a consistent track record of fiscal conservatism, pro-life, and limited government. Much unlike the talking heads that are representative of the other candidates.

T-Paw was a nice guy too. But unless Paul can convince 51% of the national voting population that they have been wrong and his proposals are right, he is wasting all of our time and he is not viable. Just because he has enthusiastic supporters who are willing to finance his quixotic campaigns doesn’t make him a viable candidate.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

But unless Paul can convince 51% of the national voting population that they have been wrong and his proposals are right, he is wasting all of our time and he is not viable

This is true of any candidate. McCain/Palin didn’t convince 51% of us so did he and she not waste our time and show that they were not viable?

Just because he has enthusiastic supporters who are willing to finance his quixotic campaigns doesn’t make him a viable candidate.

True of all of them so far.