Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[kubark]

Ron Paul is not the most pro-life candidate running for the Republican nomination. . Several of the other candidates are every bit as pro-life as he is. His foreign-policy positions and the domestic policies he suggests are far outside the mainstream and are rejected by the overwhelming majorities of Americans on both sides of the aisle. . However that is just my opinion and a Catholic can in good conscience support Ron Paul for president.

Once Ron Paul loses the nomination, his supporters will have the options of either supporting the pro-life Republican nominee, the most pro-abortion president in history or sitting out the election either by not voting for writing an a nonviable candidates name … The third option is , in my opinion, just as egregious as voting for Barack Obama, . But again, that is my opinion, not the teaching of the Church.

. I will tell you that after the election is over, I will care little for the opinion of those who did not vote or wasted their vote on a nonviable candidate. . I prefer the opinions of people who made the tough decisions and voted for the best option for solving the problems of the country, not those who sat on the sidelines and want to then throw stones at everybody

A write-in is NOT a “no-vote.” Voting for Obama or not voting at all is a “no-vote.” If every Catholic wrote-in Ron Paul he could hardly be considered “unelectable.” Independents and swing-voters determine elections, not simply Democrats and Republicans. The Catholics are a powerful voting block. They have determined the course of the last two elections. Let’s hope that this time, they put principles ahead of utility. If not, they may win another battle but will eventually lose the war.

 

[ppeter]

Hey, you “unelectable” types:

PAUL BEATING PERRY IN TEXAS:extrahappy:

Sorry to ruin your day.

Other polls have shown that Paul is most effective head to head against Obama.

So, are these all just outliers that say nothing about the “reality” of which you claim to know so much?

 

[AntalKalnoky]

. It needs be noted that the Church has no opinion on whether GE should pay taxes or not, nor is there any church teaching that states a candidate’s opinion on whether or not GE should pay taxes would mitigate his support of abortion.

Christ had an opinion" “Pay the taxes unto Ceasar that are Ceasar’s” (even thought the Romans were highly unliked in the Holy Land.) The Church, Morality with IRS Laws, teach Moral Responsibility in Paying Taxes, but does not get involved in Specific instances. No Exception has been determind for the Ultra Richest, most Profitable. NONE. And Voting For Abortion would be a crazy Sin; few vote one-issue; the Church teaches not to.

 

[estesbob]

To our GOP boosters on the Forum, any vote for a candidate not anointed by the Republican Party is a vote for Obama. What amuses me is that if everyone who posts on this thread were all to vote for Obama or not vote for Obama, it wouldn’t make a difference in the election outcome. What are we? A few dozen posters?

There are two groups that are rabid in their support of voting for Ron Paul regardless of whether he gets the nomination or not. Ron Paul supporters and Obama supporters.

 

[estesbob]

Christ had an opinion" “Pay the taxes unto Ceasar that are Ceasar’s” even though Ceasar’s Occupation was highly unliked. And Voting For Abortion would be a crazy Sin; few vote one-issue; the Church teachers not to.

The Church was certainly does states that we obligation to pay taxes. . It does not, however, have any teaching as to what the proper level of taxation is or to one individuals or corporations should be taxed.

. The Church does not require us to vote on a single issue. However it does teac h that no issue or combination issues trumps abortion. They do not teach you have to support a candidate merely because he his pro-life, only that you cannot vote for him if he is not

 

[pnewton]

I always hold out hope that the diehard Ron Paul supporters will respond to reason more than diehard liberal catholic supporters of Obama. After participating in this thread, I am not so sure that’s the case.

Ishii

Begs the question of what is reason.

 

[kubark]

And you are more than welcome to consider a any war you want to be unjust. What you can’t do is declare that all Catholics have to share in your opinion that a war is unjust, nor can you use your judgment the war is unjust as an excuse to vote for pro-abortion candidate.

. Both the Iraq and Afghani wars were in full swing when Cardinal Ratzinger made his statement about Catholics be able to use their Prudential judgment to determine whether the support a war or not.

Wrong again. I am not in any way “welcome to consider any war I want to be unjust.” The Chuch has a specific set of criteria that MUST be used to determine that. It is NOT up to private opinion. A war either meets those criteria or it does not. If it does it is called a just war. And you are free to support it. You are also free to exercise your own judgement and NOT support a JUST war. What you cannot do is use your own judgment to determine whether or not a war is deemed just. What you cannot do is have a diversity of opinion regarding war in general.

 

[Tigg]

Don’t Catholic Clergy live in Community, 'socilist?

They are not at all the same. The Christians who choose to live in a community sharing all their goods do so in order to give up all they have in submission to God and practice virtue. Socialism is coerced. Do you think you are virtuous and charitable if an economic system is imposed upon you?

 

[estesbob]

Wrong again. I am not in any way “welcome to consider any war I want to be unjust.” The Chuch has a specific set of criteria that MUST be used to determine that. It is NOT up to private opinion. A war either meets those criteria or it does not. If it does it is called a just war. And you are free to support it. You are also free to exercise your own judgement and NOT support a JUST war. What you cannot do is use your own judgment to determine whether or not a war is deemed just. What you cannot do is have a diversity of opinion regarding war in general.

Pope Benendict said this is exactly what we are to do.I posted his statement -if you have a Church document backing up your opion please post it.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

The Church was certainly does states that we obligation to pay taxes. . It does not, however, have any teaching as to what the proper level of taxation is or to one individuals or corporations should be taxed.

. The Church does not require us to vote on a single issue. However it does teac h that no issue or combination issues trumps abortion. They do not teach you have to support a candidate merely because he his pro-life, only that you cannot vote for him if he is not

(1) Each governmental Unit determines It’s Tax Policies; the Church is Totally uninvolved. The Pope and Church and most agree that the Most Profitable paying Zero Taxes is Wrong, inherently wrong IMO. (2) The Church Only teaches it is Sin to Vote For Abortion Principally. Teaches Social Rwesponsibility and trying to vote against Moral Evils. I have not voted either party Last time or likelly to This Time: Faithful Citizen Inherently Berst Guidelines. Third Party Best gets my vote. We Should Never for a Second forget How we got where we and the world Are, and what Policies are available 2012. “Just my Opinion” bob.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Wrong again. I am not in any way “welcome to consider any war I want to be unjust.” The Chuch has a specific set of criteria that MUST be used to determine that. It is NOT up to private opinion. A war either meets those criteria or it does not. If it does it is called a just war. And you are free to support it. You are also free to exercise your own judgement and NOT support a JUST war. What you cannot do is use your own judgment to determine whether or not a war is deemed just. What you cannot do is have a diversity of opinion regarding war in general.

Show me with authentic Vatican sources that the Iraq war and the Afghanistan War is unjust.

 

[JMJSHJ]

A vote for Ron Paul in the General Election could be a Vote for Barack Obama if the election between Obama and the Republican nominee is close. If say Perry is the nominee and he doesn’t get as many votes because of the Ron Paul diehards vote for him instead of Perry and those votes would be enough to overtake Obama, then it helps Obama by having those who oppose him (Republicans and Paul supporters) split the vote between them. Its simple math really.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Pope Benendict said this is exactly what we are to do.I posted his statement -if you have a Church document backing up your opion please post it.

The last 2 Popes have Clearly indicated that none of our 2000’s wars are justifiable, as well as world opinion widelly. Our Opinions can be whatever Our Opinions take us, as long as we don’t activelly Work for an evil idea. That is what Pope Benedict wants us to do. Read his words carefully.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A write-in is NOT a “no-vote.” Voting for Obama or not voting at all is a “no-vote.” If every Catholic wrote-in Ron Paul he could hardly be considered “unelectable.” Independents and swing-voters determine elections, not simply Democrats and Republicans. The Catholics are a powerful voting block. They have determined the course of the last two elections. Let’s hope that this time, they put principles ahead of utility. If not, they may win another battle but will eventually lose the war.

Catholics are not a voting bloc at all. (and more’s the pity) In the 2008 election, some 52% or so of Catholics voted for Obama. However, among white, native born Catholics is was 46%. Hispanics made the difference. So, obviously, ethnicity made more difference in the ultimate outcome than religion.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Catholics are not a voting bloc at all. (and more’s the pity) In the 2008 election, some 52% or so of Catholics voted for Obama. However, among white, native born Catholics is was 46%. Hispanics made the difference. So, obviously, ethnicity made more difference in the ultimate outcome than religion.

Again, the USCCB Faithful Citizen Guidelines found major Inherent Evils in Each major Candidate. I voted Green Party!.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A vote for Ron Paul in the General Election could be a Vote for Barack Obama if the election between Obama and the Republican nominee is close. If say Perry is the nominee and he doesn’t get as many votes because of the Ron Paul diehards vote for him instead of Perry and those votes would be enough to overtake Obama, then it helps Obama by having those who oppose him (Republicans and Paul supporters) split the vote between them. Its simple math really.

It’s not only simple math, it’s simple Democrat strategy. This forum might represent a small number of people, but one notices that the Democrats encourage Republicans or other conservatives to throw their votes away on candidates that can’t win, just as they did leading up to the 2008 election.

In about a year, we’ll see the DNC people pour in here again, and that will be one of the songs they will be singing…again.

 

[ishii]

Independents and swing-voters determine elections, not simply Democrats and Republicans.

Exactly! That is why discontented Ron Paul voters could help re-elect Obama and his abortion policies. The votes (write-in or otherwise) for Ron Paul or another 3rd party candidate could help Obama win.

Ishii

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again, the USCCB Faithful Citizen Guidelines found major Inherent Evils in Each major Candidate. I voted Green Party!.

Oh? Can you post those for us? I have never seen those, either in the 2008 election, the 2010 election or now.

Now, what I have seen is individual bishops making it clear that one cannot conscientiously vote for abortion-promoting politicians like Obama. i have seen that. But “major inherent evils” specifically attributed to Paul, Perry, Bachman, Romney or Gingrich by the USCCB? Post them. I’ll check back later, but I’ll bet I won’t see them.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Wrong. I was simply making a distinction between a just war and “war” in general as it relates to official church statements regarding the “wars” in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. As far as I know, the Church has not yet spoken as to whether or not these wars are just. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that these wars (Iraq and Libya in particular) are unconstitutional and illegitimate and therefore could never be considered “prudential” (see the Catechism) or in the interests of the “maintenance of the peace” (Gaudium et spes, Vatican II). I was also making a comparison between the evil of abortion and the equally-wrong evil of unjust war. “Pro-life” is a comprehensive concept. Any politician who calls himself “pro-life” but supports a foreign policy that promotes UNJUST war IS NOT PRO-LIFE and defiinitely not worth a Catholic’s vote.

nor Torture of “Suspects” as a Policy, for the First Time. Some deaths resulted from our Tortures: Total Innocents: a Cab Driver for an NPR Reporter driving her to a new Bombing, 100% innocent, Beaten, Bones Broken to Death, by Our ‘interrogators’. She reported the Details and his name; was no comment by our guys. Pro-Life Includes All Life, including Adults.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Oh? Can you post those for us? I have never seen those, either in the 2008 election, the 2010 election or now.

Now, what I have seen is individual bishops making it clear that one cannot conscientiously vote for abortion-promoting politicians like Obama. i have seen that. But “major inherent evils” specifically attributed to Paul, Perry, Bachman, Romney or Gingrich by the USCCB? Post them. I’ll check back later, but I’ll bet I won’t see them.

They are In the USCCB Faithful Citizenship giudelines; and the Campaign ads, policies of each candidarte then. Remember one Candidate saying win the war in Afghan even if it takes a hundred years? It wasn’t our War to Win; It’s Their Country. Ditto now!. Of Course it is Inherent Evil to Vote for Any Candidate Because he Wants Abortions