Catholics who vote for those who kill the innocent are-

[JSRG]

Jimbo:

It is completely within your rights to do so. However, I’d suggest that there is another way; vote for a third party like the American Solidarity party.

I’ve largely given up on the Republican party. But for all the things that they do that disgust me (regulatory capture, selling out to most industries, alot of climate change denial) the Democrats have just as many things (Their own issues with industry and finance, selling out completely on free trade, things like the ‘Dear Colleague’ letters that enforced bathroom bills and made the sexual assault proceedings on college campuses draconian, wanting to limit carbon but ignoring options like nuclear power) and like icing on top of the cake… they are going full force even harder into abortion. The direct killing of innocent human beings.

Sorry. I don’t like the Reps and won’t vote for them. But I find arguments saying the Dems are better extremely spurious.

@Jimbo

I feel much the same way, minus your total dismissal, and I did vote 3rd party once in awhile, around 40 yrs ago, but I had a guilty conscience because my vote merely registered that I was another of the dissatisfieds whose vote went no place in determining the election.

By this logic, anyone who votes for the person who didn’t win had a vote that went no place in determining the election.

In fact, let’s take it to its logical extreme. Unless the candidate you voted for won by one vote, your vote went no place in determining the election. Did the candidate win by 2 votes or not win at all? Then your vote went no place in determining the election.

So I do not think your argument is particularly logical.

In fact, this comes to a problem I have. People complain about how they don’t like Democrats or Republicans, but what do they do about it? They wait until election day and then cast a vote for another candidate. By that time, the winner is effectively set–it’s the events that go up until the election that determine the winner. If people want change, they should try to take some actions prior to the election. Join up with a third party and get involved! Campaign for them or their candidates! (remember that contrary to what the media often depicts, third parties do run for elections other than the president) Or if you don’t want to put forward that kind of effort, at least make a small donation to them so they can build themselves up. A donation of $1 will probably be more useful to a third party than a vote for their presidential candidate would be.

 

[John10]

Something very important to consider during elections.

God Bless

 

[Minks]

JSRG: “By this logic, anyone who votes for the person who didn’t win had a vote that went no place in determining the election.In fact, let’s take it to its logical extreme. Unless the candidate you voted for won by one vote, your vote went no place in determining the election. Did the candidate win by 2 votes or not win at all? Then your vote went no place in determining the election.So I do not think your argument is particularly logical.In fact, this comes to a problem I have. People complain about how they don’t like Democrats or Republicans, but what do they do about it? They wait until election day and then cast a vote for another candidate. By that time, the winner is effectively set–it’s the events that go up until the election that determine the winner. If people want change, they should try to take some actions prior to the election. Join up with a third party and get involved! Campaign for them or their candidates! (remember that contrary to what the media often depicts, third parties do run for elections other than the president) Or if you don’t want to put forward that kind of effort, at least make a small donation to them so they can build themselves up. A donation of $1 will probably be more useful to a third party than a vote for their presidential candidate would be.”

@JSRG
I DO see what you’re saying, but I respectfully disagree with you. Let’s say that we have the Eagles & the Owls. I have serious misgivings about not just the paths they’ll both take to accomplish their stated goals, but also their goals, as both parties seem to be straying from US principles. We also have a struggling third party, the Roadrunners, a group more closely aligned with my beliefs, but they have no chance of winning. I can write letters to editors of newspapers and magazines across the country, and encourage others to join me. I can give money and volunteer my time, even spearhead supportive organizations in towns around me.

What happens to my voice at election time? I have serious reservations for both parties, but think, in my heart of hearts, that the pro-life Owls will better protect us,. I’d love to vote for the Roadrunners and see enough of my fellowmen across the country do the same, so that we could win and show those Eagles and Owls that Little Guy Taxpayer is fed up with their posturing, pandering, and squandering. However, it would take a miracle for that to happen and the Eagles and Owls keep trading places as the front-runners.

If I vote for the Roadrunners, and the party that keeps me from sleeping wins, what have I, and other Roadrunner supporters, done to the future of this country if the ones we perceive to be the greater crooks win across the board?

In such a situation, I feel that it’s imperative to vote for the Owls, the lesser of what I consider to be two evils, but keep pumping up support for the Roadrunners until they become as formidable in votegetting as either the Eagles or Owls. In a year where there’s no hope for the Owls, and it’s a foregone conclusion that the Eagles are going to win, THEN I’d vote for the Roadrunners because our widespread not voting for the Owls wouldn’t have changed the result. Truce?

 

[Divine3]

Loading…

www.archstl.org

 

[Divine3]

And All.org

 

[goout]

goout:

“bible thumping xenophobe”?
Is that the mother of all stereotypes?

Stereotypes exist for a reason.

Yea, the children of enlightened reason are not very…reasonable.

I’d rather be known unreasonable then dispassionate about say Gaza, Syrian refugees, our own poor, police violence.

To name a few.

How about we solve poverty and systematic racism. Make a world worth living in. Make abortion irrelevant as an option.

Then talk.

Here’s what is unreasoned about your position:
You want to talk about human rights, but at the same are unwilling to affirm the right of all human beings to live.
This makes no sense.

The second error you make is to assume that the pro-life community is not concerned with a wide scope of human rights. This is an unfounded stereotype.
In fact…the pro life community is doing the hard work of adopting unwanted children, supporting homeless, hungry, immigrant, oppressed peoples everywhere.
In fact, the Catholic Church along with the wider Christian churches, is the largest NGO charitable organization in the world.

I would like to see your position have a well reasoned foundation, rather than:

Stereotypes exist for a reason.

Stereotypes exist when positions have no basis, and because they have no basis one must reach for an easy non-factual or quasi factual “arguments”.

 

[pnewton]

Of course it can, but I have done all I can to inform it, so it is the best guide I can have. This idea that one’s conscience can be misinformed is too often used as an excuse to accuse others of having such a problem based solely on the lack of agreement with their own.

To say that one is concerned about the deaths caused by war but not so much about feticide when more deaths have occurred by feticide than all wars combined is, to be extremely charitable, illogical.

I think the key phrase in your logic is the insertion, “but not so much.” I would agree that if anyone has a lower concern about abortion then it is illogical, as you say. However, I have not often seen that, at least among Catholics. The inclusion of other life issues is usually just that, an inclusion, not some demotion of the cause of abortion. Unfortunately, we may soon be in a situation where the only question is which of these life issues can we actually do something about through the government. Republican president, Congress, and Supreme Court nominees is the best possible Republican situation. Yet we still have legalized abortion and the right to abortion has not been overturned. If nothing is done by the end of next year, it is fairly good evidence that nothing can happen through government and other means of stopping abortion may need to be given more serious consideration.

Interesting that it is Republicans that look to the government to solve all the problems.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You want to talk about human rights, but at the same are unwilling to affirm the right of all human beings to live.

I don’t think anyone is unwilling to affirm the right of all human beings to live. What we can say is that all humans have this right, and sometimes that right is unfairly infringed, as are many other rights. That does not put this one right in a class by itself, so that none of the other rights can be attended to until this one is universally defended.

If this one right - to be born - is so supreme that nothing else can compete, then we would not mind paying extra taxes to provide free pre-natal services and delivery services to all, rich and poor alike, regardless of complications, just to remove one possible excuse some women use for seeking an abortion.

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

Abortion is not an “issue.” It is intentional homicide. It can only be legitimately compared with other forms of intentional homicide.
‘Nuff said.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Read what the Bishops have taught us:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ciences-for-faithful-citizenship-document.cfm

The whole document is worth your time, but, here is a key excerpt:

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position
   even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that
   candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly
   grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a
   fundamental moral evil.
2. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the
   conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not
   voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate
   deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other
   authentic human goods.
3. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed
   conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral
   obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our
   consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s
   commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a
   decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

 

[F_Marturana]

Thanks.

If I had a nickel for every time I saw that we were bound as Catholics to pick the lesser evil, I’d have enough for a nice dinner out with friends. Including wine, dessert and coffee.

Last presidential election I wrote someone in. Many in my district did.

Thanks also for posting the part about character.

 

[Alphard]

Another ideology not based on reality that leads to degrow and depopulation and to see man as absolutely evil. Almost anything coming from the left is wrong and dangerous, and use some truths (in this case real chemical pollution and natural climate change) to build a big lie to push an agenda

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I have never heard of Joe.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

No man is absolutely right or wrong on everything. To paint liberals wrong on all issues is a bit absurd.
I am a middle of the roader. Conservatives and liberals try to pull us their way. I follow my own path. Thanks be to God Almighty!

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

I only learned about him a couple months ago. He’s interesting and seems like a genuinely good guy.

 

[steve-b]

Of course it can, but I have done all I can to inform it, so it is the best guide I can have. This idea that one’s conscience can be misinformed is too often used as an excuse to accuse others of having such a problem based solely on the lack of agreement with their own.

It’s not used as an excuse. A Person’s conscience isn’t always dependable if it is based on their poor or misinformed formation. THAT’S the point being made.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Another ideology not based on reality that leads to degrow and depopulation and to see man as absolutely evil… (climate change)

It is important to separate the scientific belief in man-made climate change from the ideologies (held by a very few) that say the solution is depopulation. I don’t think the poster you responded you was promoting depopulation - just a concern over climate change and its deleterious effects. That is not an ideology. But a firm belief that man could not possibly affect the climate - that is an ideology - and not a Catholic one.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not used as an excuse.

I have seen it used, even if you haven’t, against me, by people less informed, simply because they do not agree with me. It most definitely can be an excuse, as well as an insult.

 

[goout]

goout:

You want to talk about human rights, but at the same are unwilling to affirm the right of all human beings to live.

I don’t think anyone is unwilling to affirm the right of all human beings to live. What we can say is that all humans have this right, and sometimes that right is unfairly infringed, as are many other rights. That does not put this one right in a class by itself, so that none of the other rights can be attended to until this one is universally defended.

The right to live is primary. In other words, all other talk about human rights is nonsensical without affirming the right to live. Because human rights assume living human beings.
You say you

don’t think anyone is unwilling to affirm the right of all human beings to live.

and the evidence says otherwise. Their is a loud and unreasoned sector of the population that is pro-death.

If this one right - to be born - is so supreme that nothing else can compete, then we would not mind paying extra taxes to provide free pre-natal services and delivery services to all, rich and poor alike, regardless of complications, just to remove one possible excuse some women use for seeking an abortion.

Of course. We should pay taxes to fund social programs. The Catholic Church has a huge social justice movement that advocates for poor, homeless, oppressed, families in distress, immigrants.
Why do you bring this up?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It’s not used as an excuse.

I have seen it used, even if you haven’t, against me, by people less informed, simply because they do not agree with me. It most definitely can be an excuse, as well as an insult.

Re: less informed, and or ignorance to some degree

All I’m saying is what the CCC teaches. I’m not pointing to some excuse, one thinks they can use

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.