Catholics who vote for those who kill the innocent are-

  • Thread starter Thread starter Divine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems that the Democrat Party has for at least the last four or five electiion cycles supported abortion with increasing fervor. But they are not a one issue party; they also promote same sex marriage and all conceivable varieties of sexual license, among other things. I suppose they no longer appeal to the old “moral majority.”
 
Will be interesting to see if roughly 50% of Catholics continue to vote Democratic in the Presidential race. This % has held for decades.
 
farronwolf said:
If immigrants are seeking asylum they are not breaking the law. Learn the law.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to result to ad hominem attacks.

I NEVER said one thing about seeking asylum. Asylum seekers should be helped.

However, I do have a MAJOR issue with people crossing the border illegally and then asking asylum. People from Central America SHOULD NOT be illegally traveling through Mexico (and perhaps even a few other countries in Central America) in order to request asylum at the US border (or after crossing it illegally too).

This not how asylum is supposed to work. Asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras should be seeking asylum in Mexico first. Then, if/when Mexico needs help, their govt requests help from the US.

We should NOT be seeing people illegally traveling through Mexico to the United States.

This article from NBC News is interesting, because discusses some people who travelled (illegally) from Chili and Brazil all the way to Mexico. He talks about how dangerous it was to illegally cross the border from Columbia to Panama.

Loading…

www.nbcnews.com

To me, this is a very major issue. I’m all for helping asylum seekers. But I don’t want human trafficking to continue and I want to see the illegal crossings of national stop.

I want it done correctly, humanely, and most importantly - safely.
 
farronwolf said:
Complete lie. But I guess if folks say it enough they think it is the truth. It isn’t.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...t-he-stopped-obamas-family-separation-policy/
Click to expand...
Again with the ad hominem attack. Are you calling me a liar or the Mexican? Let me get something straight… I am NOT in favor of separating children from their parents, unless the parents are going to jail - or if there is suspicion that the adults might not be who they say they are. However, Obama did create the “cages” that Democrats accuse him of doing. The AP Fact Checker agrees with Trump on that one thing

Loading…

apnews.com
 
farronwolf said:
And, why do you single out dems. You think maybe there are some reps. that don’t give to charity or have you looked at all of their tax returns?
Click to expand...
I would single out Republicans. I just haven’t had any lately to look at.

But I have seen Hillary’s and Biden’s.

But in general, Republicans (the people - not necessarily the politicians) donte more to charity than Democrats.

Loading…

www.realclearmarkets.com
 
I was pleased to learn recently that there are still some Democratic politicians holding out as pro-life, despite being in a party that doesn’t want them.

Loading…

www.nbcnews.com

The number of abortion rights opponents inside the Democratic Party has dwindled in recent years and those who remain say they feel like they’re being expelled from a party they support on almost every other issue.

But Edwards’ profile as a straight-talking, churchgoing, former Army Ranger has worked for him. His is of the last states with a significant presence of anti-abortion elected Democrats, thanks in part to Louisiana’s Catholic heritage and a substantial number of Catholic voters.

“That’s the way I was raised,” Edwards said during his monthly radio show last fall. “I know that for many in the national party … that’s not a good fit — but I’ll tell you here in Louisiana, I speak and meet with Democrats who are pro-life every single day. And so it comes pretty easy for me.”
 
So you agree that your post saying Obama started the separation policy was a lie that Trump repeats over and over to try to make it the truth. Your AP fact check article says the same thing.

Building cages for detention, and separating parents and children are two different things. One can not say Obama started the separation policy because he built cages. That math doesn’t add up.

Calling out a lie is not an ad hominem attack when the correct information is put in front of you to show what the false claim was.
 
Immigration is a major issue. We all agree on that point. One question for everyone is why hasn’t this issue been addressed since the 1980’s when Reagan gave amnesty to immigrants hoping congress would act. There have been multiple times when the Republicans and Democrats both have had control of gov. and could have done something or they could have worked together an compromised and found solutions to our current laws. They haven’t because it is a good political issue come campaign time.

Again, pointing out untruths is not an ad hominem attack. Whether someone presents themselves at a border crossing, or comes into the country first and then seeks asylum, based on the current law, they are not doing anything illegal.

Additionally, it is not a criminal act, it is a civil crime, so your argument about people here being separated from their children when being sent to jail is a bad one. We don’t lock up people for civil matters we lock them up for criminal ones. As I stated previously, learn the laws and what they really say.

On a side note. Does anyone think the number of border crossings, which were at low point at the end of the Obama administration, and then increased under Trump, has anything to do with the cutting of support funding to central american countries with Trump’s new policies?
 
Wonder why you haven’t seen the current presidents tax returns. How much you think he gives to charities?

I do know that he has benefited personally from the bogus charity he set up.
 
Cruciferi said:
The Holy Family were Roman Citizens who moved to the Roman Province of Aegyptus. It would be like moving from Ohio to California.
Click to expand...
Neither state has a king. There is no extradition. The differences here are vast.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
It’s reasonable that those who allow abortion have some guilt on their hands.
Click to expand...
Including those who embrace laws that allow for abortions when a fetus has genetic abnormalities, when the father of the child is a rapist, when the father of the child has committed the terrible crime of incest. Both major parties in the United States are pro abortion in some circumstances, they simply do not agree on all of the circumstances.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Doesn’t seem like God is giving guidance. When it comes to the issues I find impactful enough to vote on, I just happen to find climate change more imminently impactful than abortion.
Click to expand...
He speaks through the Magisterium. Have you explored all of the guidance given under the Faithful Citizenship program from the USCCB?
 
There is always a major disconnect in these circular arguments.
It is this:

There is a hierarchy of evils. Missing Mass is not a sin if a person is choking to death on the sidewalk.
Likewise there are legitimate and serious issues such as immigration, climate change, etc…that are of a lesser gravity than murder.

If you are going to do moral evaluations, you have to identify the objective good at hand. The objective good in all this is the sanctity of human life.

Everyone: human rights issues are meaningless without affirming the objective good of human existence.

Human rights are not for cats.
Or trees.
Or my dead gramma.
Human rights are for living human beings.
When a society does not acknowledge the objective good of human existence, all other claims to human rights are meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Also, the were not Roman Citizens, so I will decline to agree with your opinion on this, with three significant differences.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
40.png
steve-b:
One has to look first at how the party one belongs to, believes then look at the individual politician. It’s the party platform that controls the party, NOT the individual politician.
Click to expand...
The priest was talking about voting though. We do not vote for platforms or parties, but people, that is individuals, in the United States.
Click to expand...
Let’s apply that in actuality.

You have a chance to vote for life, and your particular candidate you vote for is pro life. So you vote for that candidate. So far so good…right?

However,

that person’s vote for life AND yours, goes nowhere, when considering that person’s party is submerged in pro death. The party’s position on death, rules…NOT that individual you vote for
 
Last edited:
In the United States, each representative votes individually, not as a party. The platform is a guideline of unity that is voted on and represented as a whole. I am not satisfied with the Democratic Party platform and would like to see their rigidity loosened in regard to abortion, especially with the Republican Party becoming less in line with my morality as well. This will not happen in an election, but takes place over a generation or two.

I do not vote for my vote to “go somewhere.” I vote my conscience for the best person, even sometimes when that person is a long shot.
 
Last edited:
I would have loved to have heard that homily because I have never been able to see how one part of the garment could be more valuable than another. These are all life issues. How is one life more precious than another?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top