Confusing political diocese

  • Thread starter Thread starter lcalise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lcalise

Guest
Perhaps it is only in Pittsburgh and Pensacola-Tallahassee, but when diocesan newspapers print out “voting guides”, does it seem like they never put emphasis on the things that are the non-negotiable, like abortion and euthanasia?

To me, it always seem like they put a myriad of “social-justice” issues (with leftist-leaning solutions, mind you) mixed in with life issues. They are always greater in number, though obviously not in importance. They never specify the difference. Conspiracy? Anyone else feel that way?
 
When you say “non-negotiable like abortion and euthanasia”, do you mean like the supreme court has ruled on the issue once, re-ruled and will never again go the other direction without the entire country going far out of whack to the point where states would be seceding from the union and people would be saying “I can’t kill you I’m too busy killing myself” or are you saying it’s always wrong and sinful to kill anything with the breath of life in it?

How about a pamphlet on how young teenage Mary has an abortion because no one would accept her sexuality and everyone said her boyfriend was no good because he couldn’t get a job that could support his family and the abortion clinics were all too eager to suck up her healthcare dollar now while she was still under 18 and there weren’t any teachers at their school the could go to because they lived in a poor neighborhood with children who refused to take stanardized tests and the social services that might have made adoption an option were never integrated into a cohesive system and they wouldn’t dare go to a church because religious people are all fanatics who try and shove their adgenda down your throat and wouldn’t ever dare get near anyone under 18 without going through the parents because thats the best way to deal with these things and everybodies parents know whats best anyhow.

I know that sounds scary but I bet I’d get more votes if I ran around sticking abortion implements in your face saying, in the thick accent of my mother tongue “vote for me – ah ah ah ah.” Oh, no wait did you hear: they have a new medical cure for amputees out now where they fertilize a woman and then in the beginning stages the slough off the fetus head, reimpregnate her with it and the use the extra parts to cure diabetes, breast cancer and heart disease! But don’t tell the democrats or the French (not until next October). Don’t worry we’ve already made sure that theres no way health insurance will ever have to pay for this. I have to go. Tommy Barnett here with the stuff. Don’t worry we’ll make him illegal too, just to save the starving children in Africa (as if).
 
vampares said:
When you say “non-negotiable like abortion and euthanasia”, do you mean like the supreme court has ruled on the issue once, re-ruled and will never again go the other direction without the entire country going far out of whack to the point where states would be seceding from the union and people would be saying “I can’t kill you I’m too busy killing myself” or are you saying it’s always wrong and sinful to kill anything with the breath of life in it?

How about a pamphlet on how young teenage Mary has an abortion because no one would accept her sexuality and everyone said her boyfriend was no good because he couldn’t get a job that could support his family and the abortion clinics were all too eager to suck up her healthcare dollar now while she was still under 18 and there weren’t any teachers at their school the could go to because they lived in a poor neighborhood with children who refused to take stanardized tests and the social services that might have made adoption an option were never integrated into a cohesive system and they wouldn’t dare go to a church because religious people are all fanatics who try and shove their adgenda down your throat and wouldn’t ever dare get near anyone under 18 without going through the parents because thats the best way to deal with these things and everybodies parents know whats best anyhow.

I know that sounds scary but I bet I’d get more votes if I ran around sticking abortion implements in your face saying, in the thick accent of my mother tongue “vote for me – ah ah ah ah.” Oh, no wait did you hear: they have a new medical cure for amputees out now where they fertilize a woman and then in the beginning stages the slough off the fetus head, reimpregnate her with it and the use the extra parts to cure diabetes, breast cancer and heart disease! But don’t tell the democrats or the French (not until next October). Don’t worry we’ve already made sure that theres no way health insurance will ever have to pay for this. I have to go. Tommy Barnett here with the stuff. Don’t worry we’ll make him illegal too, just to save the starving children in Africa (as if).
Click to expand...
Wow. If you want to be understood, try using more than one sentence:confused:
 
Stem cell research requires funding to go forward because it is so difficult to patent that drug companies are not interested. Believe it or not the excess research funds they make don’t all go into rigorous research programs anyways. Government funding of the research is likely to lead to very little since the use of stem cell therapy is limited in the practical sense and has a hefty procedures requirements that add error liabilities to a treatment sensitive to biological instabilities which means hospitals are not going to be receptive to it.

It almost borders on quack medicine that promises to “treat everything” that anyone may have failed to prevent or was a genetic destiny. Unfortunately it has become a partisan issue. Democrats merely take opposing side, as voters also take one side or another.

I myself am opposed to it because it begs for a lions share of research funding that really should be private investment. My sister is a doctor. I wouldn’t let her near me with a tongue depressor but she is not a bad doctor. Patients she sees are very advanced stage diseases, to old, to many other health issues, etc. Stem cell research occurs in controlled lab environments which these people are not. She does seem to think that stem cell therapy is the thing of the future. This is a falsified hope in my opinion. The origins or causes of the diseases that stem cells are said to treat often times are not known. There is also something of a void necessary for the cells to fill which surrounding tissue is in competition to fill with scar tissue. Medicine can be blase in creating problems to fix others. One this is for sure, my sister did not go into medicine with helping people on her mind.
 
topic of OP is voter’s guides put out by Catholic dioceses. Two are cited but no links are given (as per forum rules) so that we may comment intelligently on their contents. The next 2 posts are about political issues but not about voter’s guides. Anybody interested in OP topic and discussing actual voter’s guides, with links? If not, why not shut down the thread.
 
lcalise said:
Perhaps it is only in Pittsburgh and Pensacola-Tallahassee, but when diocesan newspapers print out “voting guides”, does it seem like they never put emphasis on the things that are the non-negotiable, like abortion and euthanasia?

To me, it always seem like they put a myriad of “social-justice” issues (with leftist-leaning solutions, mind you) mixed in with life issues. They are always greater in number, though obviously not in importance. They never specify the difference. Conspiracy? Anyone else feel that way?
Click to expand...
To be charitable (I don’t know those particular dioceses or the newspapers) perhaps because the issue is non-negotiable they feel that it there is no point to discuss it further. After all what more can you add to “non-negotiable”?
The social issues are by implication somewhat negotiable which is why they need to be discussed.
 
Code: 
6. If a person’s conduct, voting record,
   or public comments are contrary to
   the teachings of the Church, he or
   she should not be given any Church
   award or honor.
This seems to be a little ambiguous. While I see where not allowing Sociologists to lead the church is obligatory – I really don’t see that happening anyways. The trouble is that when voting, it is very rarely the case that the vote is for an issue but for a person. And while I see where not allowing Sociologists to lead the country is obligatory there are not many politicians who do run on the teachings-of-the-Catholic-church approach to governing. I cannot name one.

Conformance to the teachings is usually loose at best. Not making a distinction between voting for the better of two or not voting at all needs to be made. Otherwise which issues to vote on can become vague at best.

Of course this does seem to be directed at general property issues – to keep the focus away from politics. In this case it is just to keep riftraft out of church functions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top