Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

Interesting.

You somehow managed to only selectively quote what I gave and then tell me what I have already told you: this is my opinion.

Yes, I apologize. I didn’t read your entire posting through before starting to comment on it. That is why, when I did realize what you wrote, I said “which I now see”.

The popes have been clear about abortion being gravely sinful - and do you dispute this? The US Catholic Bishops have been clear about abortion being gravely sinful - do you dispute this?

No, I do not dispute that the Church, the popes, and the US Catholic bishops teach that abortion is gravely sinful. And I agree with that teaching. But two people can agree that abortion is gravely sinful yet still disagree about the proper action to take to oppose this grave sin. When we vote we are choosing how best to put into practice the principles that the Church teaches. Similarly when I decide to take down my anti-abortion yard sign I am making a decision on the extent to which I will go to oppose abortion - i.e. What price I am willing to pay to exercise this opposition. I don’t think even you believe that no price is too high to oppose abortion. So this is a matter for personal judgement.

So, tell me, just where do you get the idea that this is just some vague opinion of mine that has no bearing on what is going on and can be dismissed with the flick of a wrist and replaced with an opinon more in agreement with what you want?

I don’t consider your opinion to be vague at all. In fact it seems very explicit. And it is certainly relevant. I don’t dismiss it lightly.

Ultimately, we are all going to be held responsible for how we vote. The issue is not ‘Did you vote Republican or Democrat?’ but rather, ‘Did you vote your conscience?’

I agree.

Naturally, if your conscious tells you that abortion and those who promote it are acceptable and the teachings of the Catholic Church are just a bunch of opinions without weight…

Again you are trying to equate your interpretation of Church teaching with Church teaching itself. I am not convinced that they are the same. There is no document that says we must pay any price to combat abortion.

After reading this you may decide to do something more then just dance around the issue. So, here is what you need to do: present a logical argument that would allow a Catholic to vote for Obama in good conscious. If I may be so bold … use the example I gave you in quoting Chruch documents and statements to support your position. I honestly would be interested in reading such a presentation.

“Faithful Citizenship” by the USSCB says we need not be one issue voters.

Now, concerning your question - there is a section on CAF ‘Ask an Apologist’ where such an issue may be appropriately brought…

I don’t need to do that because I know it is not a sin to take down a yard sign. The only reason I asked it of you specifically is to illustrate that when there is a clear cost associated with combatting abortion you will have to admit that some cost is just too high, and we are not obligated to combat abortion in that particular way.

 

[epan]

I’m with you, I won’t be voting for either candidate.

Obama supports abortion and Ryan is too close to the presidency for comfort.

Unfortunately, for Romney, I was probably going to vote for him, before his choice in a running mate.

Jim

I wonder why so many presidential candidates choose toxic running mates? Palin, Biden, Ryan…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I wonder why so many presidential candidates choose toxic running mates? Palin, Biden, Ryan…

Well Palin was a political blunder by McCain. I have no idea why he went with her, other than that his campaign staff thought putting a woman on the ticket would offset Obama being the first African American President. It didn’t work and it became more of a joke.

Biden, has lots of clout in the Senate, between both Republicans and Democrats.

Ryan, I can’t figure out why Romney chose him, other than his staff was thinking Wisconsin was a swing state they needed. However, by choosing Ryan, I believe he’s lost Florida, Ohio and definitely his own state of Massachusetts.

I think it was a dumb move.

However, I’ve noticed since Romney kissing Netanyahu with promises, the NYT’s is writing more negative on Obama than I’ve ever seen.

Jim

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

Maybe my posting was a bit involved - I will try for more clarity…

This post of yours was a unique experience for me as I marveled at this rhetorical slight of hand! Let me just work with part of your post.

Yes, I apologize. I didn’t read your entire posting through before starting to comment on it. That is why, when I did realize what you wrote, I said “which I now see”.

No, I do not dispute that the Church, the popes, and the US Catholic bishops teach that abortion is gravely sinful. And I agree with that teaching. But two people can agree that abortion is gravely sinful yet still disagree about the proper action to take to oppose this grave sin. When we vote we are choosing how best to put into practice the principles that the Church teaches. Similarly when I decide to take down my anti-abortion yard sign I am making a decision on the extent to which I will go to oppose abortion - i.e. What price I am willing to pay to exercise this opposition. I don’t think even you believe that no price is too high to oppose abortion. So this is a matter for personal judgement.

I am glad you are not in dispute with the Church, the popes and the US Bishops that abortion is gravely sinful. But, here is where you appear to pull the rabbit out of the hat - “But two people can agree that abortion is gravely sinful yet still disagree about the proper action to take to oppose this grave sin. When we vote we are choosing how best to put into practice the principles that the Church teaches.” Given your conclusion, it seems to me that you are saying that reasonable people can disagree without doing violence to the Chruch’s teachings - yet you imply that voting for Obama is acceptable. You can’t embrace a principle so you can stand it on its head - and then claim to be following it.

Voting for the re-election of the most abortion seeking, funding and abortion promoting individual - is supporting the on-going slaughter of innocent life. You really can not have it both ways. Obama has made it quite clear - from his first act in Office - to his tax payer funding of abortions when he claimed - and signed an executive order stating he would not - support abortion with tax dollars. The US Bishops have gone to great lengths to identify the positon of this US President is directly counter to Catholic Church teachings.

Now, it cold be that I have this all wrong - that you really do not support - and will not vote for Obama because of his promotion of abortion. If this is what you are saying, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. If I am correct, then be advised, you have not demonstrated a congruent argument that aligns what you claim with Catholic teachings.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ishii,

I think you made an excellent point and it will not be side-traced.

Goodness, I am sure Chairman Volker would be mortified to learn he was put in the same group as abortion promoting attorneys who want to be Federal Judges.

God bless

I think Bork advising Romney on justices is way different than Paul Volcker advising Obama on financial committees. I mean come on, its the supreme court.

Ishii

 

[tqualey]

I just received this item in this evening’s mail - and I think that there is more evil to consider.

God bless

Home Sales Tax becomes effective Jan. 1, 2013

The National Association of Realtors is not pleased with this new tax and hopes this information is forwarded to every voter prior to the election in November. It doesn’t matter which side of the political fence you sit on - it will affect ALL of us.

When does your home become part of your health care? After 2012! Your vote counts big time in 2012, make sure you and all your friends and family know about this!

HOME SALES TAX I thought you might find this interesting, – maybe even SICKENING! The

NationalAssociation of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, --before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren’t the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in 2012? Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it?

That’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It’s in the health carebill, – and it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn’t come to light until after the 2012 elections? So, this is ‘change you can believe in’?

Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% salestax. If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation, – who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important? Oh, you weren’t aware that this was in the Obama Health Care bill? Guess what? you aren’t alone! There are more than a few members of Congress that weren’t aware of it either. You can check this out for yourself at:
gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book.

VOTERS NEED TO KNOW… and VOTE!!!

 

[ProVobis]

I think Bork advising Romney on justices is way different than Paul Volcker advising Obama on financial committees. I mean come on, its the supreme court.

How can I disagree with you there?

Let’s hope Romney listens to his advisor more than Obama did to his advisor.

 

[ProVobis]

Goodness, I am sure Chairman Volker would be mortified to learn he was put in the same group as abortion promoting attorneys who want to be Federal Judges.

I’m sure he knows he’s affiliated with the same party who brought us Roe vs Wade. But why should he care? After all, as Rothschild once said, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”

That said, I thought Volcker was a great Chairman of the Fed and Reagan displacing him with Greenspan was IMO the biggest blunder of his presidency. Stock market crashed 22% in ONE day right after that. And coincidentally Bork was denied the Supreme Court appointment almost at the same time (check out the history) so maybe there is a connection between the two after all. Don’t you just like conspiracy theories?

 

[ProVobis]

Home Sales Tax becomes effective Jan. 1, 2013

Thanks for the heads up. Really.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I just received this item in this evening’s mail - and I think that there is more evil to consider.

Home Sales Tax becomes effective Jan. 1, 2013
…

This misrepresentation of the facts has been going around the Internet for a long time. Read the truth about this so-called sales tax on home sales here at factcheck.org. In particular if you sell a house for $100,000 you will pay zero of this new tax.

 

[PTL]

Who is factcheck.org or snope? Why would we trust them? It is the most ridiculous thing that a so-called healthcare bill contains numerous non health related rules and laws. And no one really knows what are in the 2700 pages but they will rule everyone’s life. If this is not tyranny, what is?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,…
Given your conclusion, it seems to me that you are saying that reasonable people can disagree without doing violence to the Church’s teachings - yet you imply that voting for Obama is acceptable.

Not exactly. What I meant was a person might find it acceptable or unacceptable after assessing the facts and applying their prudential judgement to them. And to illustrate this point I presented a dilemma involving yard signs which you have conveniently ignored. I assume you believe it may be moral to take down your anti-abortion yard signs in order to generate more sales for your house. So this idea that “nothing is more important than abortion” is obviously not true in its most general context. Yet when it comes to voting you and others seem to believe that it is. There may be a price to pay in voting too. And I’m not taking about a poll tax either. I am talking about the sacrifice of ones chance to vote on other issues I which one may find Obama preferable. Why is it that we are asked to sacrifice all interest in “lesser” issues when it comes to voting, yet we are not asked to sacrifice a small monetary loss in the case of the yard sign scenario? One would think that the murder of innocent babies is infinitely more important than getting top dollar for your house.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Who is factcheck.org or snope? Why would we trust them? It is the most ridiculous thing that a so-called healthcare bill contains numerous non health related rules and laws. And no one really knows what are in the 2700 pages but they will rule everyone’s life. If this is not tyranny, what is?

Factcheck.org is a lot more trustworthy than some random chain letter. And even if you read the link provided by tqualey you will see that he misrepresented that too. The GOP.gov blog does not even say it is a sales tax on the proceeds of all home sales.

 

[ishii]

How can I disagree with you there?

Let’s hope Romney listens to his advisor more than Obama did to his advisor.

Let’s hope Romney does a lot of things that he says he’ll do. If he wins, (and I hope he does) it doesn’t end - we need to hold his feet to the fire. If he and the GOP wimp out, they will suffer in the next election.

Ishii

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

There you go again… with that slight of hand rhetoric.

In this imagined world you have created - under what possible circumstances would a person who claims to know and agree with abortion being identified as grave matter, consider it acceptable to Obama - given his actual (not some theoretical construct) track record with abortions - and Romney - given his actual track record with abortons.

I submit that the argument you have presented is fanciful and quite devoid of reality. If one is willing to believe anything then I guess a vote for Obama is acceptable. But, if there is anything to actually knowing and understanding what the Catholic position is - then such a vote is totally unacceptable. As I said before, you can not have it both ways.

Based on your response, I see that I did not misunderstand you.

You will note that I have yet to comment on your ‘house sign argument’ except to recommend you forward this on to an apologist. I really have no comment on such a hypothetical question except to re-direct you to Matt 22:23-29 here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_22

God bless

Not exactly. What I meant was a person might find it acceptable or unacceptable after assessing the facts and applying their prudential judgement to them. And to illustrate this point I presented a dilemma involving yard signs which you have conveniently ignored. I assume you believe it may be moral to take down your anti-abortion yard signs in order to generate more sales for your house. So this idea that “nothing is more important than abortion” is obviously not true in its most general context. Yet when it comes to voting you and others seem to believe that it is. There may be a price to pay in voting too. And I’m not taking about a poll tax either. I am talking about the sacrifice of ones chance to vote on other issues I which one may find Obama preferable. Why is it that we are asked to sacrifice all interest in “lesser” issues when it comes to voting, yet we are not asked to sacrifice a small monetary loss in the case of the yard sign scenario? One would think that the murder of innocent babies is infinitely more important than getting top dollar for your house.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But, if there is anything to actually knowing and understanding what the Catholic position is - then such a vote is totally unacceptable…
There is no Catholic position on voting for specific named candidates. If there were then we would see that teaching made clear from the pope and the bishops, complete with names, and that would be proclaimed from every pulpit on Sunday… But the USCCB document on faithful citizenship specifically says we do not have to be one-issue voters. Yet that is exactly what you are saying we have to be. And most likely the reason you have not commented on my yard sign question is that you have no reasonable answer that does not undercut your assertion that we must vote for Romney.

 

[tqualey]

H-e-l-l-ooooooooo,

We are not talking about there being a Catholic position on voting for a specific candidate. Please pay attention at least to your own posts.

The issue is voting for a candidate who actively and whole-heartedly supports, endorses and promotes abortion. Such a vote would be cooperation in the evil of abortion by allowing this person to continue their policies of murdering innocent life. That is the issue.

If you wish to vote for someone who does not embrace abortion and you think that candidate is the best choice of the remaining candidates - then vote for them. No problem. It is your choice to uphold Catholic teaching by not promoting abortion via your vote.

Now, that is the issue - do you support Catholic teaching by voting for someone who does not promote abortion or do you reject Catholic teaching by voting for someone who does promote abortion. I realize that keeping the issue simple like this greatly narrows the opportunity for your slight of hand rhetoric - but, this is the only issue on this thread.

It really isn’t necessary to respond. I understand your posts and you have well communicated your intentions for the November election. We all must give an account for our actions - and while this vote is just one of them, it is quite important.

God bless

There is no Catholic position on voting for specific named candidates. If there were then we would see that teaching made clear from the pope and the bishops, complete with names, and that would be proclaimed from every pulpit on Sunday… But the USCCB document on faithful citizenship specifically says we do not have to be one-issue voters. Yet that is exactly what you are saying we have to be. And most likely the reason you have not commented on my yard sign question is that you have no reasonable answer that does not undercut your assertion that we must vote for Romney.

 

[ProVobis]

This misrepresentation of the facts has been going around the Internet for a long time. Read the truth about this so-called sales tax on home sales here at factcheck.org. In particular if you sell a house for $100,000 you will pay zero of this new tax.

Thanks. I wondered why we hadn’t heard too much about that.

 

[pnewton]

If any of you go to an “examination of Conscience” site, you will find listed amongst the Mortal Sins “Voting for a pro-abortion andidate/politician”. This is not an opinion, but fact!
I will expound further on that fact: doing anything that gets a pro-abortion candidate elected is also a Mortal Sin. That would also include voting for a 3rd party candidate which would syphon off votes from a pro-life candidate.

This is so untrue. Even a simple reading of Faithful Citizenship will show that this is a false.

It is a good thing posters here have no authority to label mortal sin for others. I can’t believe Catholics here would really put more credence in apps, emails and web sites that on Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

Factcheck.org is a lot more trustworthy than some random chain letter. And even if you read the link provided by tqualey you will see that he misrepresented that too. The GOP.gov blog does not even say it is a sales tax on the proceeds of all home sales.

At least they make a stab at being non-partisan, though everything needs to be verified. The initial post on this was a Republican blog.