Democrats excluding Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter commenter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The discord some Catholics see is because they are faced with the choice of electing a candidate who supports what is immoral as a trade off for his support for prudential policies they mistakenly see as moral. Abortion is a moral question. Choosing the best environmental policy is not. It is a very valid concern, it is just not a moral one.
Hits the nail on the head very, very well. Thank you.
 
State and local Govt should fund those school lunch programs, it’s called subsidiarity and they are directly responsible for the welfare of their citizens. It’s not anti Catholic for the GOP not to fund it from the fed budget.
My recollection was inaccurate, and I confused the after-school program with the school lunch program - which btw also gets federal subsidies at the very least in the form of commodities.

The fact remains that many federally subsidized educational program are subject to budget cuts by the Trump administration:

 
Second, I reject the trade-off you perceive. I was very careful in my previous post to distinguish moral political issues from prudential ones. “Protection of the environment” is one of the latter, where the trade-off between what is necessary and what is overkill is a judgment. This does not involve a moral choice. It is purely a political, prudential preference.
http://earthministry.org/advocacy/pope-francis-encyclical-on-the-environment/

“What is new is that Pope Francis is moving environmental protection to the fore. He says that all life depends on clean air and water, and a stable and reliable climate. As a chemist by background and with a team of scientists and an observatory at the Vatican, the Pope is clear that climate change is the greatest threat life our Earth has ever seen – and that it is caused by humans. And as a priest, he stands in protection and care for his flock, 1.2 billion Catholics world-wide, and for all God’s children, especially the poorest.”
 
“What is new is that Pope Francis is moving environmental protection to the fore. He says that all life depends on clean air and water, and a stable and reliable climate. As a chemist by background and with a team of scientists and an observatory at the Vatican, the Pope is clear that climate change is the greatest threat life our Earth has ever seen – and that it is caused by humans. And as a priest, he stands in protection and care for his flock, 1.2 billion Catholics world-wide, and for all God’s children, especially the poorest.”
This actually changes nothing at all. There is no morally mandated action with regard to the environment. Nor, the pope’s comments notwithstanding, is there any moral obligation to accept his judgment on global warming.

This is a judgment, an opinion, and while you are free to accept it, I am equally free to reject it. It is a scientific question no different than the question of geocentrism, which, it hardly needs to be said, didn’t turn out all that well before.
 
The bargain was that in exchange for Catholic votes the Republican Party would oppose abortion availability and there would be no need for the GOP to support any other ethical policies either small or large - for example the school lunch program for the needy or the protection of the environment.

First, this denigrates Republicans by asserting they really don’t oppose abortion, but are willing to appear to do so in exchange for votes.
Obviously, some Republicans do honestly support the sanctity of life and some do not as demonstrated by their confuct. There are many examples but I will cite one of the most egregious:


This is so not the discussion that I want to have, but it does demonstrate what happens between us when we take matters of faith into the political arena.
 
Last edited:
The fact remains that many federally subsidized educational program are subject to budget cuts by the Trump administration:
I see nothing wrong with that, this is a local responsibility and they will be much better at it than the feds
 
40.png
Ender:
The bargain was that in exchange for Catholic votes the Republican Party would oppose abortion availability and there would be no need for the GOP to support any other ethical policies either small or large - for example the school lunch program for the needy or the protection of the environment.

First, this denigrates Republicans by asserting they really don’t oppose abortion, but are willing to appear to do so in exchange for votes.
Obviously, some Republicans do honestly support the sanctity of life and some do not as demonstrated by their confuct. There are many examples but I will cite one of the most egregious:

Embattled GOP Rep. Tim Murphy to retire - POLITICO

This is so not the discussion that I want to have, but it does demonstrate what happens between us when we take matters of faith into the political arena.
Yes we are certainly all sinners neither me, you, nor Tim Murphy are exceptions. So what is your point. A republican politician who is a disagrees with legalized murder, turns from his convictions like a hypocrite. Not sure how this destroys Enders point that Republicans are trying to make legislation why pretty much all dems are trying to stop legislation.

If you want to use this logic. would you say a Republican legislator that keeps a child born out of wedlock under scandal that could have been aborted, negates Tim Murphy’s great error. How would that work?
 
40.png
HCTC:
The fact remains that many federally subsidized educational program are subject to budget cuts by the Trump administration:
I see nothing wrong with that, this is a local responsibility and they will be much better at it than the feds
They will be better at and both the state and the dept that recieves this money will be more accountable for the funds.
 
In response to my last article, “ 10 Things You Can’t Do While Following Jesus,” I was accused multiple times of being political. All I was trying to do was follow Jesus. So, I thought it’d be interesting (and generate tons more hate mail) to show what a list would actually look like if I were being political intentionally. Like the first list, this is not a complete list, but it’s a pretty good place to start.
There will be those who comment and send me messages berating me for “making Jesus political.” It’s OK. Fire away. Jesus didn’t worry much about stepping on political toes, and the Bible insists that governments be just toward the least of these (the books of the prophets alone make this point very clear). Frequently, people who are the most vocal about not making Jesus political are the same people who want prayer in school and laws based on their own religious perspectives. By a happy little circumstance that brings us to my list:
1) Force your religious beliefs and practices on others.
One of the strengths of the faith Jesus taught was in its meekness. The faith he taught valued free will over compulsion – because that’s how love works. Compelling people to follow any religion, more or less your personal religion, stands over and against the way Jesus practiced his faith. If you are using the government to compel people to practice your spiritual beliefs, you might be the reason baby Jesus is crying. This does get tricky. There is a difference in letting your beliefs inform your political choices and letting your politics enforce your religion. This article is about the first part.

2) Advocate for war.
There’s a reason why he was called the Prince of Peace. Sure, you can quote, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” and even two or three other verses, but they don’t hold a candle to the more than fifty-some verses where Jesus speaks about peace and peacemaking. It’s funny how things keep coming back to love but it needs to be said, it is way far away from loving a person to kill them. I guess there’s a reason why we say, “God is love.” In the end, love wins.

3) Favor the rich over the poor.
This is actually related to #7. Favoring the rich over the poor is a slap in the face of Jesus, his life, and his teachings. In terms of the teachings of Jesus, it is bad enough when we allow the rich to take advantage of the poor, but when we create laws that not only encourage the behavior but also protect it? Well, let’s just say it becomes crystal clear how ironic it is that we print, “In God We Trust,” on our money.
 
4) Cut funding that hurts the least of these.
To some degree, this is the inverse of #3. Favoring the rich is despicable. We Jesus minions should avoid it. Hurting the poor? Well, that’s just … just … um, something a whole lot worse than despicable. Despicabler? Über-despicable? When Jesus said, “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do it to me,” he meant it. When you cut funding and it hurts people, according to Jesus, you are hurting him.

5) Let people go hungry.
Well, well, well. What have we here? Is this an item from the original top ten list which I claimed was not politically motivated? Looks like I’ve stepped into my own clever trap! Muh wah ha ha! Seriously though, of course it’s on both lists. It is a spiritual issue and it is a political issue. Spiritually, Gandhi said, “There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.” Politically, hunger causes problems with education, production, and civil behavior that are all necessary for a successful nation. More importantly for Christians, Jesus said when we feed the hungry, we are feeding him. So, yes, this item is on both lists – and I’m going to do it again.

6) Withhold healthcare from people.
This time I’m not only repeating an item, I’m repeating a lot of what I said. Did you ever play the game “Follow the Leader?" If you don’t do what the leader does, you are out. Following means you should imitate as closely as possible. When people who were sick needed care, Jesus gave it to them. If we are following Jesus, we will imitate him as closely as possible. No, the government can’t repeat the miracles he did but I’ve seen modern medicine do things that are about as close to a miracle as I expect to get. While the government can’t do miracles, it can supply modern medicine. Every year, 45,000 people die in the U.S. because of the lack of healthcare . We Christians like to talk about “saving” people. Well, I know of about 45,000 people who’d love for us to do it and we should – because that’s how love works.
 
7) Limit the rights of a select group of people.
Jesus loves everybody – but he loves me best. Kind of sits the wrong way with you, doesn’t it? Well, it should and with good reason. If you spend any time reading the Bible you know that we all were made in God’s image. Exactly which part of us is in God’s image is less clear, but what is clear is that we were equally made in the image of God. Any law that doesn’t treat people equally is as good as thumbing your nose at God. Even worse? Doing it in the name of God or based on religious beliefs (see #1).

8) Turn away immigrants.
Christian heritage runs through Judaism. We are an immigrant people. Even our religion began somewhere else. Our spiritual ancestors, Abraham and Sarah, were told by God to pick up what they had and start traveling. Moses, Miriam, and Aaron led a nation out of Egypt, into the desert and ultimately to new lands. Even Jesus spent part of his childhood as a foreigner in a foreign land. As Exodus says, we know how it feels to be foreigners in a foreign land. If you don’t think being foreigners in a foreign land is still our story, ask the Native Americans. At best, turning away immigrants makes us hypocrites; at worst, it makes us betrayers of our ancestors and our God.

9) Devalue education.
We learn in Proverbs that wisdom is something in which God delights daily. As a matter of fact, according to Proverbs, wisdom is better than gold. When you look at the percentage of our budget that goes to education and at what Congress is trying to do to student loans, it’s pretty clear that delighting in wisdom is something our government no longer does.

10) Support capital punishment — execution.
Jesus died by execution. He was an innocent man. Every year, innocent people die by execution in our nation. It’s time to be a shining city on a hill. It’s time to express the fullness of love, to express the value of life. It’s time to stop the government-sanctioned

11) Abortion - Self Explanatory

11 Distinct Issue.
 
Last edited:
I am sadden about the bad bargain that the Church made by subjecting the sanctity of life to the political process so that now we are at each other’s throats discussing political party platforms instead of ways that we can help mothers choose life because it is the right thing to do and because we are there to do the right thing by helping with the care of a new life.
A huge subject.

I do think the parties would be at each others’ throats no matter what, though. Abortion is, from a prolifer’s point of view, extremely serious; as serious as killing two-year-olds would be. Those who support abortion are equally invested in the killing; probably because they want to free to do it or be complicit in it, like Obama who wanted his daughters to be free to have abortions if they wanted them.

I do think the Church in the U.S. has not so much “made a bad bargain” politically, as that it “stayed too long at the fair”. For decades, the Dem party really did promote those things that were important to a largely-recent-immigrant group that was working hard to live and prosper in this society. The Repub party was considered the party of “nativists” and “the rich”.

But the Dem party has now become the party of abortion and little else, and a lot of churchmen don’t really know how to deal with that. Like lots of union or former union folks, they don’t really have a home anymore, politically, but think it’s still the Dem party out of default.

Add to all of it that the Church in America has run scared of the IRS, and in order not to lose tax exempt status, churchmen often don’t properly instruct on Church teaching.
 
Christian heritage runs through Judaism. We are an immigrant people. Even our religion began somewhere else. Our spiritual ancestors, Abraham and Sarah, were told by God to pick up what they had and start traveling. Moses, Miriam, and Aaron led a nation out of Egypt, into the desert and ultimately to new lands. Even Jesus spent part of his childhood as a foreigner in a foreign land. As Exodus says, we know how it feels to be foreigners in a foreign land. If you don’t think being foreigners in a foreign land is still our story, ask the Native Americans. At best, turning away immigrants makes us hypocrites; at worst, it makes us betrayers of our ancestors and our God.
Not at all. I am perfectly free to sponsor immigrants to this country. It’s risky, but I can do it. But too many of us promote open immigration in the reasonable insurance that “someone else” is going to do the sponsoring. It’s not virtuous at all to bring people to this country at no personal risk or sacrifice while insisting that our neighbor take all the risk.

I say that anyone who talks big about his support of open immigration but has never sponsored an immigrant is a hypocrite of the first order and owes his countrymen an apology for dumping the responsibility on them.
 
Nice try, out of all those 11 points you just made only one has a clear mandate of how to correct the problem. Only Abortion is the one that has no subjective argument on how best to accomplish Christs mission.

-No Christian I know of forces their religion on others please give an example? Certainly muslims do.
-War is sometimes necessary.
-There are many different ways to help the poor, your way is not the best way!
-Jesus said their will always be hungry, poor, disadvantaged. Your way of doing things is not necessarily the best way.
-There is nothing intrinscally evil about COntrolling your borders and limiting the number of people allowed into the country. The church teaches the opposite of what you are saying so I will side with the church and not your fantasy world.
-what you think is a devaluation of education others believe is a better way to do education. Who is correct? you? not likely!
The Curch teaches that capital punishment can be allowed under certain circumstances. Why do you ignore Church teaching.
Murder is wrong. Murder of anyone is wrong. Please explain how we are to deal with abortion so that it can be seen as moral?
 
Last edited:
No Christian I know of forces their religion on others please give an example?
Really? Read your own words
Please explain how we are to deal with abortion so that it can be seen as moral?
You want to force a Catholic belief on others. Yes or Yes.

Christians and Muslims alike are trying to force anti-gay laws on non-Christians/non-Muslims.

Examples are ample.

Forcing the Christian belief that marriage is between a man and woman only is another example.

Should I continue?
 
Last edited:
Jesus said their will always be hungry, poor, disadvantaged.
That is always the lame cop out.

We are the riches nation on the face of this earth. There should not be one child starving to death or mal-nutrition within our borders.
 
There is nothing intrinscally evil about COntrolling your borders and limiting the number of people allowed into the country. The church teaches the opposite of what you are saying so I will side with the church and not your fantasy world.
Tell our Pope that. He is one that spoke out against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top