Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do understand that some desire, fervently, to justify supporting politicians who support the 'grave evil" of abortion by putting it on the same par with some social policy one feels strongly about, but about which we are free, in conscience, to exercise prudential judgment. It just doesn’t work within the context of Catholicism. It just isn’t Catholic at all. It’s defying the Magesterium in favor of one’s political inclinations and claiming they’re on equal footing.

The Magesterium was not defied. The bishops were not united on the document in question. In that instance, it would seem appropriate to have the source of the document speak on the necessity of a correction, if a correction was necessary. What has taken place instead is people have chosen bishops of the same opinion and condemned anyone who disagrees with their own ‘political inclinations’.

 

[Ender]

Without a definition of ‘proportionate reasons’, as used by the author of this particular writing, it is subject to interpretation.

Of course it is subject to interpretation and there will undoubtedly disagreement at the margins, but that doesn’t mean that all disagreements are valid.

There is no dancing around an issue. If there is a dance, it comes equally from both sides of an argument between two who have no authority in the Church.

I have asked you to give an example of an issue you think is of proportionate severity with abortion. You have avoided answering that question. All of your other generalizations are irrelevant because if you can’t find something that you think is proportionate it’s probably because nothing exists.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course it is subject to interpretation and there will undoubtedly disagreement at the margins, but that doesn’t mean that all disagreements are valid.

Agreed. Now, which side of the disagreement is not valid?

I have asked you to give an example of an issue you think is of proportionate severity with abortion. You have avoided answering that question. All of your other generalizations are irrelevant because if you can’t find something that you think is proportionate it’s probably because nothing exists.

Ender

I cannot speak for each individual’s conscience. My example for last election was not finding the republican candidate as sincere and more as pandering. I could be wrong, but that’s what I ‘felt’ in my conscience. This election, I find the same candidate as trustworthy, but he’s running roughly third place in the polls. I cannot say the same for the other candidates. I do however find others pushing some of the candidates I do not trust or find to be off base on other reasons. They seem to be favored by others specifically for those other reasons I find to be off base. Weighing all the reasons does not rest entirely on the general election, in my opinion. They are important in their own way and I find it hypocritical to place all importance on the general, while weighing according to the secular in the primary. If it’s truly that way, I cannot see being wrong in casting a vote for the candidate that I weigh against Church teachings and voting accordingly, no matter what people say his chances are.

Just because a candidate is pro-life is no reason not to weigh all the issues. If a candidate is pro-life and way off base, according to my faith formed conscience, they will not get my vote based on a single issue. If they manipulate other issues, I cannot trust them on all issues, including what we view as most important. That would be, in my opinion, to vote for proportionate reasons, even if a candidate doesn’t have a chance. It would be voting in good conscience, avoiding what some call the lesser of two evils even though we cannot truly choose the lesser because all are sinners and evil to that extent which is in each of us.

Just because there’s a majority does not make something right according to what His truth is. I see a majority on these forums calling for things that I find against His teachings. They use many ‘secular’ reasons to justify their position, or they pick and choose between a divided Magisterium to support their view as superior over the other those they disagree with. Seeing, what I view to be, a misuse of teachings helps form a conscience, whether people realize it or not. That’s where following our conscience is right, if we truly seek the fullness of His truth and I try very hard. Rather than follow a part of a divided Magisterium I cannot see it wrong to follow the one voice of our Church, in the light of His message to us all. To do otherwise is trying to follow a house divided.

Common sense, and a well formed conscience, says the lack of correction on such an important event, as we all recognize it to be, means a correction may not be needed. Others believe the absence of correction is an invitation to assume an authority upon themselves and start correcting according to their own understanding and support from a ‘part’ of the Magisterium under the one voice. The second makes no sense to me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have asked you to give an example of an issue you think is of proportionate severity with abortion. You have avoided answering that question. All of your other generalizations are irrelevant because if you can’t find something that you think is proportionate it’s probably because nothing exists.

Ender

Until then, let’s put this on the table. “Proportionate reason” for supporting an abortion-promoting politician is that his opponent supports an even more murderous policy.

So, if Obama, for example, supports policies (and their institutionalization and continuation) that have led to the direct and deliberate murder of 50 million innocent children, then a “proportionate reason” for not opposing him would be that his opponent espouses (and is equally likely to carry out) the institutionalization of policies that will result in the direct and deliberate murder of 60 million innocent people, whether by that method or some other.

Anything else is akin to approving and supporting a Mafia hit man because he always stops at red traffic lights.

But let’s be honest here. People who believe Obama and his like are going to promote policies that they think will either benefit them personally or make them feel virtuous, will swallow the murders just the same as some minion of Stalin’s accepted his murders because Stalin benefitted him or inflated his sense of revolutionary virtue. Positing non-proportionate “proportionality” is only a means to one or both of those ends.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Agreed. Now, which side of the disagreement is not valid?

I cannot speak for each individual’s conscience. My example for last election was not finding the republican candidate as sincere and more as pandering. I could be wrong, but that’s what I ‘felt’ in my conscience.

A rightly formed conscience is not a matter of “how one feels”. “Feelings” are nothing but emotional reactions, and are neither moral nor immoral in themselves. But they are certainly not judgment. A rightly formed conscience is formed in the brain, not the gut. It’s comparing the best objective information against the laws of God and the Church, utilizing right reason in doing so.

So, for example, in looking at a candidate’s bona fides on the question of abortion, one has an obligation to look at his voting record; what reasonably authoritative prolife sources say about their assessment, what he says himself, and perhaps most indicative of all, what abortion-promoting sources say about him.

In the last presidential election, objective information about McCain’s views on abortion was not picture-perfect, but it was awfully close to it. Possibly most indicative was NARAL’s absolute opposition to him and its announced opinion that he was a serious threat to “choice”. Obama, on the other hand, had a totally consistent pro-abortion record and the endorsement of pro-abortion forces, and plainly said he is pro-abortion.

Against that informational background, one ought not to have failed to oppose Obama because of what one felt in his gut, because doing so defied all reason from a prolife standpoint.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Until then, let’s put this on the table. “Proportionate reason” for supporting an abortion-promoting politician is that his opponent supports an even more murderous policy.

So, if Obama, for example, supports policies (and their institutionalization and continuation) that have led to the direct and deliberate murder of 50 million innocent children, then a “proportionate reason” for not opposing him would be that his opponent espouses (and is equally likely to carry out) the institutionalization of policies that will result in the direct and deliberate murder of 60 million innocent people, whether by that method or some other.

Anything else is akin to approving and supporting a Mafia hit man because he always stops at red traffic lights.

But let’s be honest here. People who believe Obama and his like are going to promote policies that they think will either benefit them personally or make them feel virtuous, will swallow the murders just the same as some minion of Stalin’s accepted his murders because Stalin benefitted him or inflated his sense of revolutionary virtue. Positing non-proportionate “proportionality” is only a means to one or both of those ends.

Let’s be honest, the majority of people who push the republican party are pushing for, the most part, to support a candidate that will benefit them personally through issues that I have a difficult time seeing as being a true part of Christ’s teachings because of a legalism of liberty to disagree, prudential judgements/opinions of select people in the Church, or more apparent reasons. See these type statements are speculative and assume someone is lying. There is no need of these type statements in these discussions if we are honest with our approach to such discussions.

This is not all about Obama, as some make it out to be. We have an opportunity to choose a candidate that is not so far in one direction of the political spectrum to assure support from all directions and place someone new in the administration. We can take advantage of this opportunity, or continue to alienate people and spread the support around endangering any plans to make changes.

As I’ve tried to convey repeatedly, we shouldn’t be trying to define something that only the one voice can define. Without definition, or correction, it appears he gives the instructions and believes Catholics follow his instructions.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A rightly formed conscience is not a matter of “how one feels”. “Feelings” are nothing but emotional reactions, and are neither moral nor immoral in themselves. But they are certainly not judgment. A rightly formed conscience is formed in the brain, not the gut. It’s comparing the best objective information against the laws of God and the Church, utilizing right reason in doing so.

Semantics, pure and simple, feelings or thoughts is the same. It’s acting upon a rightly formed conscience.

So, for example, in looking at a candidate’s bona fides on the question of abortion, one has an obligation to look at his voting record; what reasonably authoritative prolife sources say about their assessment, what he says himself, and perhaps most indicative of all, what abortion-promoting sources say about him.

One has no obligation to support another person’s view of trustworthiness. That’s what our consciences are for. What seems to be proposed is take the one I say is the best, even if that candidate is at odds with what your conscience is telling you is not of Christ’s teachings.

In the last presidential election, objective information about McCain’s views on abortion was not picture-perfect, but it was awfully close to it. Possibly most indicative was NARAL’s absolute opposition to him and its announced opinion that he was a serious threat to “choice”. Obama, on the other hand, had a totally consistent pro-abortion record and the endorsement of pro-abortion forces, and plainly said he is pro-abortion.

Against that informational background, one ought not to have failed to oppose Obama because of what one felt in his gut, because doing so defied all reason from a prolife standpoint.

How many candidates in the last 50 years have had opportunities, yet done so little? But we’re to believe them and take the chance, even at the risk of transgressions of what our consciences tell us is not right?

The problem is, everyone will go so far to the end of a political spectrum that a candidate cannot get a majority of support. Weighing now is as important as all the weighing to do. Everyone has a share in the ‘blame game’ through decisions made throughout the entire political process of the elections coming up.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…whether supporting something the Church leaves in the realm of “prudential judgment” should be elevated to the same level as supporting something the Church declares to be “inherently evil”…

You are deliberately equating two issues for the benefit of your argument. One is the issue of abortion itself. The other is the issue of voting. Clearly these issues are closely related. But they are not identical. While abortion itself is “inherently evil”, voting for someone who has the weaker position on abortion may not be. So by declaring that some voting decision is in the realm of “prudential judgment”, that is not exactly the same thing as declaring that the issue of abortion is up for “prudential judgment”. I can demonstrate that by considering something other than abortion that is also “inherently evil”.

Consider that homosexual acts are inherently evil. That is not open to prudential judgment or extenuating circumstances. Now suppose you have an election where candidate A favors severe punishment for anyone caught in the act of homosexual behavior, even in private. Candidate B favors making this act not a crime at all, unless it is done in public. Neither candidate favors gay marriage or any other recognition of homosexual relationships. Their only difference on this issue is over the question of punishments. But suppose there is also some prudential judgment reason that you have to personally prefer candidate B for other reasons. In every other respect (including abortion) these two candidates have exactly the same position.

If it were really true that voting for someone with a position on an inherent evil is the same thing as choosing that evil directly, then one could not vote for candidate B in this election, even though both candidates have positions that by today’s standards sound very conservative. If you still think that candidate A must be preferred over candidate B, just consider sliding their positions on homosexuality more and more to the extreme side, but always keeping candidate A’s position a little more strict than candidate B’s (like A prefers 30 years in prison while B prefers only 25 years for homosexual behavior). If prudential judgment may never play any role in the voting decision, then you would have to always vote for the candidate with the stricter position, no matter how unreasonably strict it was! That is the unavoidable consequence of declaring as a firm principle that voting is exactly the same thing as doing. Prudential judgment obviously is legitimate in voting, if only to the extent of deciding what level of strictness is strict enough.

Similarly, Ender wrote:

…I have asked you to give an example of an issue you think is of proportionate severity with abortion…

This is not really the question. By claiming that there are proportionate reasons to vote for a candidate with the weaker position on abortion, that is not equivalent to claiming that the issue of abortion itself is proportionate to the other issue for which you base your vote. An example can be constructed similar to the one above. Suppose two candidates both oppose abortion and want to make it illegal, but one favors a slightly harsher punishment for it. It is easy to see that if the difference between the candidates is small enough, one could justify voting for the one with the weaker position just because he also favors improving public parks that you like to visit. This does not mean that abortion is proportionate to public parks. It just means that when the difference is small enough, other factors may be considered.

Of course most elections today are not about such small differences on abortion policy. The elections are usually between a candidate who favors continued legalization, and maybe even subsidization of abortion, while the other candidate favors making it illegal. But the fact that the example exists shows that some judgment is needed to decide when a difference is great enough to make abortion the dominate issue. And all of this happens without any claim of equivalence between the severity of abortion and any other issues.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is not all about Obama, as some make it out to be. We have an opportunity to choose a candidate that is not so far in one direction of the political spectrum to assure support from all directions and place someone new in the administration. We can take advantage of this opportunity, or continue to alienate people and spread the support around endangering any plans to make changes.

After the Republican primary is over, it will be precisely about Obama. Secondarily, it is about abortion-promoting candidates for other offices.

Personally, when it comes to the Repub primary, I have a mild preference. But since all likely contenders (and I don’t think Giuliani is “likely”) have prolife records and have so announced themselves, I expect to support whoever wins that primary against Obama and the pro-abortion crowd he brought into the government, along with all other abortion candidates down the pole from him.

At present, it appears the likelihood of any Democrat primary contender even filing against Obama, let alone having any chance against him is about as close to zero as one can imagine.

And that Democrat argument that “Repubs have not ended abortion” is just phony for some and a rationalization for others. Never since Roe vs Wade have Repubs had the political strength to do it, but certainly during the Bush administration, he did what was possible to do in limiting it and laying the groundwork for a better-constituted Supreme Court. There is a very long list of the Bush administration’s anti-abortion efforts and you have seen it in other threads. You were there and so was I.

The answer to that inability is NOT to support abortion candidates, but to continue in the effort. Despair is also a moral wrong.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are deliberately equating two issues for the benefit of your argument. One is the issue of abortion itself. The other is the issue of voting. Clearly these issues are closely related. But they are not identical. While abortion itself is “inherently evil”, voting for someone who has the weaker position on abortion may not be. So by declaring that some voting decision is in the realm of “prudential judgment”, that is not exactly the same thing as declaring that the issue of abortion is up for “prudential judgment”. I can demonstrate that by considering something other than abortion that is also “inherently evil”.

Consider that homosexual acts are inherently evil. That is not open to prudential judgment or extenuating circumstances. Now suppose you have an election where candidate A favors severe punishment for anyone caught in the act of homosexual behavior, even in private. Candidate B favors making this act not a crime at all, unless it is done in public. Neither candidate favors gay marriage or any other recognition of homosexual relationships. Their only difference on this issue is over the question of punishments. But suppose there is also some prudential judgment reason that you have to personally prefer candidate B for other reasons. In every other respect (including abortion) these two candidates have exactly the same position.

If it were really true that voting for someone with a position on an inherent evil is the same thing as choosing that evil directly, then one could not vote for candidate B in this election, even though both candidates have positions that by today’s standards sound very conservative. If you still think that candidate A must be preferred over candidate B, just consider sliding their positions on homosexuality more and more to the extreme side, but always keeping candidate A’s position a little more strict than candidate B’s (like A prefers 30 years in prison while B prefers only 25 years for homosexual behavior). If prudential judgment may never play any role in the voting decision, then you would have to always vote for the candidate with the stricter position, no matter how unreasonably strict it was! That is the unavoidable consequence of declaring as a firm principle that voting is exactly the same thing as doing. Prudential judgment obviously is legitimate in voting, if only to the extent of deciding what level of strictness is strict enough.

Similarly, Ender wrote:

This is not really the question. By claiming that there are proportionate reasons to vote for a candidate with the weaker position on abortion, that is not equivalent to claiming that the issue of abortion itself is proportionate to the other issue for which you base your vote. An example can be constructed similar to the one above. Suppose two candidates both oppose abortion and want to make it illegal, but one favors a slightly harsher punishment for it. It is easy to see that if the difference between the candidates is small enough, one could justify voting for the one with the weaker position just because he also favors improving public parks that you like to visit. This does not mean that abortion is proportionate to public parks. It just means that when the difference is small enough, other factors may be considered.

Of course most elections today are not about such small differences on abortion policy. The elections are usually between a candidate who favors continued legalization, and maybe even subsidization of abortion, while the other candidate favors making it illegal. But the fact that the example exists shows that some judgment is needed to decide when a difference is great enough to make abortion the dominate issue. And all of this happens without any claim of equivalence between the severity of abortion and any other issues.

You really answered the present debate in your last paragraph. The upcoming general presidential election is not about subtle differences. The difference, or so it appears at this time, is stark.

I agree we could go on, perhaps for weeks, in posing this theoretical scenario or that. But, notwithstanding that it keeps getting fuzzed over and evaded in this thread, what it really is all about is whether to oppose clearly abortion-promoting candidates or not, when the other side of the equation is a “feeling” that the abortion candidate might be more likely to support social programs which one favors, but for which there may well be reasonable alternatives.

In short, am i justified in failing to oppose Obama in the general because I “feel” he is more likely than some Republican or other to enhance social welfare programs, and “feel” that maybe prolife opponents are disingenuous without having adequate reason to think it?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You really answered the present debate in your last paragraph. The upcoming general presidential election is not about subtle differences. The difference, or so it appears at this time, is stark.

I agree we could go on, perhaps for weeks, in posing this theoretical scenario or that. But, notwithstanding that it keeps getting fuzzed over and evaded in this thread, what it really is all about is whether to oppose clearly abortion-promoting candidates or not, when the other side of the equation is a “feeling” that the abortion candidate might be more likely to support social programs which one favors, but for which there may well be reasonable alternatives.

In short, am i justified in failing to oppose Obama in the general because I “feel” he is more likely than some Republican or other to enhance social welfare programs, and “feel” that maybe prolife opponents are disingenuous without having adequate reason to think it?

I would not go so far as to say that.

I am not actually disagreeing with you on any specific election decision. I am only opposed to the basis on which that decision is supported. Sure, the principle that “you must always vote for the most pro-life candidate” is not likely to get you in trouble today. But when such faulty principles are left to stand as generalities, then there is nothing to prevent them from being applied in scenarios not much different from the ones I proposed. And if you don’t think that could ever happen, just take a look at extremes of Shiria Law that are practiced in some places today.

And let me say a few words in support of prudential judgment. This term has been given a bad rap for being an excuse for ignoring Church teaching, when in fact it offers no such excuse when properly applied. For example, the degree of support for the Church and for charitable endeavors is a matter of prudential judgment. The Church does not set exact amounts. However if someone with the riches of Bill Gates were to claim that by his prudential judgment his obligation to all charities combined is only $5 per year, then he would be clearly in violation of Church teaching on the need for generosity to the poor. Prudential judgment does not mean free-for-all judgment. It must be prudent and informed by Church teaching. Someone who claims to be using prudential judgment to say that it is OK to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because that candidate makes the trains run on time is clearly not using prudential judgment. So rather than remove the decision making process from the realm of prudential judgment in these debates, it would be better if the concept of prudential judgment were examined more critically. Don’t abandon prudential judgment - improve it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And that Democrat argument that “Repubs have not ended abortion” is just phony for some and a rationalization for others. Never since Roe vs Wade have Repubs had the political strength to do it, but certainly during the Bush administration, he did what was possible to do in limiting it and laying the groundwork for a better-constituted Supreme Court. There is a very long list of the Bush administration’s anti-abortion efforts and you have seen it in other threads. You were there and so was I.

The answer to that inability is NOT to support abortion candidates, but to continue in the effort. Despair is also a moral wrong.

Prior to the last two supreme court justice appointments, 7 were appointed by republicans and 2 were appointed by democrats. Even then, it was ‘just one more appointment’.

With that stated, it appears that accusations of ‘lip service’ have sunk in and things are heading in the right direction on the state level. It is the state level the pro-life justices believe it should be anyways as a few have spoken on it not being constitutional one way or the other, and they are the Catholic justices.

The GOP does not stand for ‘God’s Own Party’. I will not support a candidate based on a single issue. I will vote for the candidate I feel best represents all the teachings of Christ, and His Church and that will be a pro-life candidate. If the nominee is not that person, then I’ll have to say that other issues prevented his nomination. I don’t believe in voting for someone for one issue and will not listen to those who say ‘you have to make the sacrifice and vote for so and so’. If it was a true statement, then those who use that type argument need to make the sacrifice now and put up a candidate that will draw the moderates. In this type situation, actions speak louder than words.

 

[Ender]

I will not support a candidate based on a single issue.

Just so you understand: you are essentially saying to your preferred politicians “I will give you abortion if you will give me what I want on issues like immigration, health care…” Is that really the trade you want to make?

I will vote for the candidate I feel best represents all the teachings of Christ, and His Church and that will be a pro-life candidate.

I’m confused, but perhaps we have a different understanding of what it means to be pro-life. We certainly have a different understanding of where Church teaching overlaps into politics. There are actually very few issues that are both political and moral and about which the Church has taken an unambiguous position. For most issues - immigration, social programs, the environment - the Church only specifies objectives (which are non-political) and not the means to obtain them (the political part).

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…There are actually very few issues that are both political and moral and about which the Church has taken an unambiguous position…

That is true. But an unambiguous position on abortion is not the same thing as an unambiguous position on voting where abortion might be involved. No one (here) is claiming that abortion itself is up for prudential judgment.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Prior to the last two supreme court justice appointments, 7 were appointed by republicans and 2 were appointed by democrats. Even then, it was ‘just one more appointment’. Yes, yes, yes. And of the pro-abortion justices, ALL were appointed by Democrats, except Kennedy, and of the prolife justices, ALL were appointed by Republicans. Even Kennedy voted to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions, while not a single Democrat appointee did.

The GOP does not stand for ‘God’s Own Party’. I will not support a candidate based on a single issue. I will vote for the candidate I feel best represents all the teachings of Christ, and His Church and that will be a pro-life candidate. If the nominee is not that person, then I’ll have to say that other issues prevented his nomination. I don’t believe in voting for someone for one issue and will not listen to those who say ‘you have to make the sacrifice and vote for so and so’. If it was a true statement, then those who use that type argument need to make the sacrifice now and put up a candidate that will draw the moderates. In this type situation, actions speak louder than words.

In other words, you’ll support Obama, and want to justify doing so. 'Nuff said.

I don’t think anybody says GOP stands for “God’s Own Party”, but at least it doesn’t stand against God on the abortion issue, which the Democrat party does.

And the Democrat party could have passed absolutely anything it wanted when Obama took office. Anything. The Repubs couldn’t even successfully filibuster. And yet, what did they do for the “poor”. Nothing whatever. Of course, neither do Republicans when they have the power, but equating the Democrats with the teachings of Jesus is just hogwash on every front.

And the moderates? What was it that Jesus said about the moral “moderates”? That he would spit them from his mouth? Or was the word “vomit”? I have read it both ways.

 

[1holycatholic]

And the Democrat party could have passed absolutely anything it wanted when Obama took office. Anything. The Repubs couldn’t even successfully filibuster. And yet, what did they do for the “poor”. Nothing whatever.

That’s not true. The Democrats kicked the killing machine of abortion into overdrive. Voting for candidates that support the Democratic party platform is little more than abortion by-proxy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s not true. The Democrats kicked the killing machine of abortion into overdrive. Voting for candidates that support the Democratic party platform is little more than abortion by-proxy.

You have a point. They did fund abortions. That “helps” the poor in a way. Keeps the overcrowding down anyway.

 

[1holycatholic]

You have a point. They did fund abortions. That “helps” the poor in a way. Keeps the overcrowding down anyway.

Isn’t that what the Democratic Party’s concept of social justice boils down to?

The Democratic Party: Eliminating poverty by eliminating the poor through abortion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just so you understand: you are essentially saying to your preferred politicians “I will give you abortion if you will give me what I want on issues like immigration, health care…” Is that really the trade you want to make?

It’s not a ‘trade’, it’s food for thought. Everyone that accuses others that did not vote for their particulate choice of candidate needs to realize, that’s how elections work and it’s just as much their own fault. What you say can simply be reversed as, ‘you’re not willing to consider other issues so that we can all agree in the general election?’ It’s the same difference.

I’m confused, but perhaps we have a different understanding of what it means to be pro-life. We certainly have a different understanding of where Church teaching overlaps into politics. There are actually very few issues that are both political and moral and about which the Church has taken an unambiguous position. For most issues - immigration, social programs, the environment - the Church only specifies objectives (which are non-political) and not the means to obtain them (the political part).

Ender

Being pro-life doesn’t mean we can make a pact with the devil to achieve the greater goal. You rely on ‘ambiguous positions’ so that you can choose the candidate of your choice, but expect everyone else to go against their consciences, even if they want to vote for a pro-life candidate themselves. Is that really for the single issue, or for your view on those ‘ambiguous positions’? That’s what it has appearances of being. Everyone else must make the sacrifice, but I don’t?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In other words, you’ll support Obama, and want to justify doing so. 'Nuff said.

Spin, spin, spin, there goes the honesty of this discussion. Where did I say I support Obama? Because many want to choose a candidate at the far end of the spectrum, without compromise themselves, they are free to make false accusations if someone says they are voting pro-life, but not the one at the far end of the spectrum?

I don’t think anybody says GOP stands for “God’s Own Party”, but at least it doesn’t stand against God on the abortion issue, which the Democrat party does.

While it might be a majority, it’s not all. It seems the generalization is made for other reasons.

And the Democrat party could have passed absolutely anything it wanted when Obama took office. Anything. The Repubs couldn’t even successfully filibuster. And yet, what did they do for the “poor”. Nothing whatever. Of course, neither do Republicans when they have the power, but equating the Democrats with the teachings of Jesus is just hogwash on every front.

Yes, the most recent negotiations on the deficit gives good example that the republicans didn’t politicize ‘social programs’ vs. ‘closing tax loopholes and subsidies for the wealthy’.

And the moderates? What was it that Jesus said about the moral “moderates”? That he would spit them from his mouth? Or was the word “vomit”? I have read it both ways.

So, we should only support one of Christ’s teachings and be less than warm? He didn’t say ‘feed the hungry OR clothe the naked OR give shelter to the homeless OR care for the sick OR…’ I think lukewarm is the other way around…