Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CMatt25 said:
God fearing Christian in very good conscience casting a vote for Obama.
Click to expand...
Because? He is incompetent,tyrannical, corrupt, and frankly downright evil. Aside from the abortion issue which is a non-starter for Catholics–although I understand you are NOT Catholic so do not subscribe to our beliefs on human life issues.

Please tell me what he has done that has been positive for this country…or as Ronald Reagan asked, are you better off now than you were four years ago? He is the worst president in my lifetime and I live through both Nixon and Jimmy Carter. The bar was high but he sailed over…

Abysmal and I cannot believe anyone with either a Christian conscious or even a semi-developed sense of self preservation would lift a finger to keep this despicable man in office.

Lisa
 
Gordon Gekko Meets The Moonbat

Now Playing

Check Local Listings for Showtimes
 
It was pointed out accurately in another forum that, as parties, neither of the two major political parties currently comes close to reflecting Catholic values. When we elect a person, we bring two things: we bring the values of that individual who is elected (values that will be reflected in many of his choices, including Cabinet choices, his priorities, and his ways of doing business); and we bring his party’s (current) philosophy with that candidate. That philosophy will shape decisions as well, and may have a ‘coat-tail’ effect in Congressional elections in the States.

There are forces in place in this country right now that it is unlikely either major candidate will be likely to reverse singlehandedly. Some of those are of high priority to Catholics. A president cannot merely make a series of executive decisions reversing court decisions (Roe), and he has no jurisdiction to reverse State decisions or initiate State actions.

However, degrees of Prsidential support can be important factors in how a country moves politically and what further decisions are made reflecting Catholic values.

The Left has utterly taken over the Democratic Party. And the Left stands for a particular definition of “social justice” and particular assumptions about just who does and does not deserve “social justice” and what the only vehicles for “social justice” should be. The Left has also become hostile to religious values, and I don’t mean those statements coming from religious leaders: I mean any values which happen to have in common with them, those values expounded (also) by faith traditions. (They are overtly suspicious of “traditional values,” because they want value-less public policies.)

Every position reflects a “value,” but the Left wants to make sure that nothing that could be connected with “morality” has any relevance to public policy. They want to enforce a morally-free public zone: in every aspect of civic life and educational life, including everything on the local level.

This is a dangerous trend as it affects the foundations of society and government. Governments cannot be morally neutral and at the same time be a force for The Common Good, domestically or internationally. Values were at the heart of the construction of this country. When you try to eradicate morality and values, you also eradicate political ideals and eventually personal ideals.

I don’t know how effective Romney would be as a president. His style underwhelms me, and I worry about the voracious economic tendencies of the Republican Right. However, it does seem that Romney is not interested in contributing to the futher onslaught against traditional values and the promotion of a “morality-free” country. Also, he is unlikely to replace any departing SC Justices with an extreme Lefty. That in itself has consequences for any Catholic voter (life issues, family issues). He also seems less likely to assume that every problem in the world can be solved or should be addressed by a distant federal government. (The Catholic position of subsidiarity.)
 
I will add that (logically, from what I posted) just the fact that Romney would be more likely to be open to dialoguing with Catholic leaders (as a group, for example) would be an important factor to me in voting considerations. And I don’t mean just some ceremonial photo op, but having serious discussions with Catholic leaders about their priorities, about faith-based social justice efforts and how government can cooperate with that, about concerns about religious liberty, etc.

I got pilloried by Catholics over in the Non-Catholic Religions forum for daring to admit that I actually associated with Mormons at one point in my life and liked them, but the fact of the matter is that Mormons are willing to associate with Catholics, probably more than Democrats on the extreme Left are. That is also important to me.

And for example, one way that I could see that having a ripple effect is that there is a social justice movement in Catholicism toward Restorative Justice. It is something that (while I didn’t have a label for it, by that name) I have wanted for quite some time. It is an approach to criminal justice & incarceration which combines justice and humanity (the Catholic value of respect for the dignity of the human person). It is not, as I read it, some permissive approach to criminal justice. Nor is it in the federal domain per se. However, it could become a model affecting many States and even the Federal system.

So I want in the White House a president who incorporates a respect for the values of faith traditions in general, because that can have at least gradual effect on the direction of the country. It’s a matter of openness and influence which I think is important to consider in one’s voting decisions. (I have sometimes voted for candidates whose platforms I didn’t entirely agree with, but who reflected in their personal priorities and style an integrity and willingness to try new approaches.)

Voting decisions are not just about campaign speeches and official party platforms. It’s also about modes of leadership, Congressional dynamics, and, yes, personal backgrounds and personal values.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
I don’t think I’m wrong. If you don’t define complicity with that broad a brush, well and good.

And I don’t think it’s that black-and-white, as my previous posts have shown.
Click to expand...
It is not clear only to those Catholics who are desperately trying to rationalize their support of pro abortion candidates. The truth is one who is morallyvgrounded shouldn’t need the Church or agnyone else tell them you cant support people who promote unrestricted taxpayer
funded abortion on demagnd
 
irishpatrick said:
Matt, I believe you are a strong Catholic, and you appear to have a great love for the poor and needy. So, with genuine respect, why are you so cold-hearted about the most vulnerable among us (the unborn trying flourish)? Can you honestly say that you believe Jesus would be fine with killing an innocent life that He has allowed?

Matt, it takes a change–a very real change–to see Christ in every unborn person. It is not easy for a great many people, and life’s circumstances oftentimes create a coldness that prevents people from seeing the obvious. Please, take your love for the poor and needy and transfer that in even greater measure to the unborn, and see that every single pregnancy has been allowed by our Lord–every single pregancy.
Click to expand...
Patrick, I suppose “strong” can have different connotations for people but I certainly never claimed it. It was very nice of you to say the word after however and I appreciate it. I’ve been on the verge of attending another church so your timing is interesting. The thing is I’m not so cold hearted and I’ve never said I believe Jesus would be fine with me aborting a fetus if I had a uterus. In fact I’ve repeatedly said I would not have one. What I’m not convinced of is that Jesus would not understand I live in a country of plural beliefs and views on this very difficult, very personal and private decision for many women. And that the secular law reflects this. This includes women whom before exercising their legal right to choose, I have no doubt pray to God on their decisions along with consulting their pastors or spiritual guides (non Catholic of course), their drs, family, and others. We’re talking about the same Jesus who gave us free will and the word “abortion” isn’t even found in Scripture. The word “poor” is however numerous times as well as discussion of caring for the sick and the homeless, the hungry, the prisoner. So are things like “blessed are the peacemakers” and the rich having difficulty getting into heaven. It’s an issue though in which I have never taken lightly and is a difficult one for me. As I am convinced it is for most, if not all, pro choice folks. We are not these evil pro abortion, “death to babies” people we get depicted as by many with an opposite POV. This issue is simply like no other to me. That’s why I don’t go about with the slavery and Holocaust comparisons nor buy into them. That’s just how I look at it and I don’t expect people here to agree. I don’t even expect people with another POV to understand although I personally understand both sides. I’m not trying to win over anyone to my POV. It hasn’t though been without much prayer and contemplation that I arrived at my current thinking. Thank you for the kindness and respect you showed me in your post. God bless you. Peace.
 
pnewton said:
In Catholic moral teaching, it really does make a difference. You may equate the two issues, but the Catholic Church does not. I think it important though to think beyond the “five non-negotiable” sound bite. That was something the Catholic Church did not come up with, but was a CA pamphlet. If we were to hold fast to it, and disregard proportional reasons, I would not be able to vote for either Obama or his counterpart, Romney.
Click to expand...
Hi Pnewton, yes I am well aware the Catholic Church allows in their CCC the state taking a human life in rare if not non existent cases. It’s one of those things I disagree with the Catholic Church on. But since I am not a Catholic, it doesn’t affect me. I’m not clear on what you mean though. Are you saying “Catholic Answers” and not the Catholic Church came up with the 5 non negotiable sound bites? If so, that wouldn’t necessarily surprise me but it would be interesting. I do seem to remember reading though something about CA coming up with their own voting guide and the bishops urging Catholics to use the USCCB one instead. I’m not sure if you mean that pamphlet though…
 
CMatt25 said:
Patrick, I suppose “strong” can have different connotations for people but I certainly never claimed it. It was very nice of you to say the word after however and I appreciate it. I’ve been on the verge of attending another church so your timing is interesting. The thing is I’m not so cold hearted and I’ve never said I believe Jesus would be fine with me aborting a fetus if I had a uterus. In fact I’ve repeatedly said I would not have one. What I’m not convinced of is that Jesus would not understand I live in a country of plural beliefs and views on this very difficult, very personal and private decision for many women. And that the secular law reflects this. This includes women whom before exercising their legal right to choose, I have no doubt pray to God on their decisions along with consulting their pastors or spiritual guides (non Catholic of course), their drs, family, and others. We’re talking about the same Jesus who gave us free will and the word “abortion” isn’t even found in Scripture. The word “poor” is however numerous times as well as discussion of caring for the sick and the homeless, the hungry, the prisoner. So are things like “blessed are the peacemakers” and the rich having difficulty getting into heaven. It’s an issue though in which I have never taken lightly and is a difficult one for me. As I am convinced it is for most, if not all, pro choice folks. We are not these evil pro abortion, “death to babies” people we get depicted as by many with an opposite POV. This issue is simply like no other to me. That’s why I don’t go about with the slavery and Holocaust comparisons nor buy into them. That’s just how I look at it and I don’t expect people here to agree. I don’t even expect people with another POV to understand although I personally understand both sides. I’m not trying to win over anyone to my POV. It hasn’t though been without much prayer and contemplation that I arrived at my current thinking. Thank you for the kindness and respect you showed me in your post. God bless you. Peace.
Click to expand...
Just because abortion is “legal”,it doesn’t make it moral. Caring for the most innocent among us,should be first and foremost something all Christians should embrace.As far as the argument re the death penalty,after studying the Summa ,by Acquinas,I have come to understand that while those commiting heinous crimes,certianly aren’t innocent like nacent life in the womb,they are made in God’s image too, and as such deserve the right to life and an opportunity for redemption.This was a difficult conclusion for me,but it is the logical one IMHO
 
Jeanne_S said:
I have come to understand that while those commiting heinous crimes,certianly aren’t innocent like nacent life in the womb,they are made in God’s image too, and as such deserve the right to life and an opportunity for redemption.This was a difficult conclusion for me,but it is the logical one IMHO
Click to expand...
I agree with that. As Catholics we believe that redemption is universally possible; no exceptions. And it is possible up to the moment of natural death.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Just because abortion is “legal”,it doesn’t make it moral. Caring for the most innocent among us,should be first and foremost something all Christians should embrace.As far as the argument re the death penalty,after studying the Summa ,by Acquinas,I have come to understand that while those commiting heinous crimes,certianly aren’t innocent like nacent life in the womb,they are made in God’s image too, and as such deserve the right to life and an opportunity for redemption.This was a difficult conclusion for me,but it is the logical one IMHO
Click to expand...
I was always pro-life. But I had a similar journey to yours regarding the death penalty, which I now oppose.

NB: if someone takes another’s life purposefully, the sentence must be life in a minimalist prison (no TV’s, weights, etc) prison with no possibility for parole, though, IMO.
 
CMatt25 said:
This includes women whom before exercising their legal right to choose, I have no doubt pray to God on their decisions along with consulting their pastors or spiritual guides (non Catholic of course), their drs, family, and others. .
Click to expand...
That is not only very generous, it is wildly inaccurate. One of the problems with increasing secularism and lack of moral teachings and standards in this country is that the destruction of unborn babies has become so remote, so antiseptic that is is given about as much consideration as removal of a wart. Do you think I am joking here Matt?

Do you REALLY think the millions and millions of women who have had abortions thought twice about doing it? Yes maybe some do, some are forced or pressured against their will but sadly the majority consider the act little more than “solving a problem.” Now many women come to regret the abortions later but at the time certainly did not “consult with their spiritual adivisor or pastor, family doctor blah blah blah.” This is utter baloney.

This is how it goes Matt, Suzie Q finds herself pregnant and although the pregnancy does not compromise her life it would be an inconvenience. I mean she might have to buy the large size jars of mayo at Costco…sarcasm intended because this IS a true story. The woman calls one of the abortion mills such as Planned Parenthood, makes an appointment and shows up, has the procedure and leaves. Done…problem solved.

Do you really think if most people really sat and thought about what they were doing that there would be so many abortions? Really? We have made it too easy, too guilt free and too lucrative for Planned Parenthoods of the world. One of the clearest proofs of my argument is that women who see their child via an ultrasound are much more likely to change their minds. It is the dehumanization of the unborn by society and by apologists for abortionists that allows this to happen.
CMatt25 said:
We’re talking about the same Jesus who gave us free will and the word “abortion” isn’t even found in Scripture. The word “poor” is however numerous times as well as discussion of caring for the sick and the homeless, the hungry, the prisoner. So are things like “blessed are the peacemakers” and the rich having difficulty getting into heaven. It’s an issue though in which I have never taken lightly and is a difficult one for me. As I am convinced it is for most, if not all, pro choice folks. We are not these evil pro abortion, “death to babies” people we get depicted as by many with an opposite POV. This issue is simply like no other to me. .
Click to expand...
Since you never responded to the same argument on another thread I’m gonna give it another go. Jesus never talked about abortion because it was NOT something that happened in his day among his people. There were few things more treasured than another baby. That he didn’t speak specifically of abortion (although you know he was pretty hard on people who dismissed BORN children which might be a clue!). He didn’t speak specifically about women in short skirts or men without facial hair or all of those other things that are part of our culture that were not of his culture.

Does this specificity negate the teaching thou shall not MURDER? Could the term “poor” be inclusive of unborn helpless children? Did you ever think about that? Do you really believe Jesus would have nothing to say about abortion were it brought up to Him? Would he shrug his shoulders and say “Well I didn’t have a uterus and it’s really a matter of free will.”

I don’t
Lisa
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
I was always pro-life. But I had a similar journey to yours regarding the death penalty, which I now oppose.

NB: if someone takes another’s life purposefully, the sentence must be life in a minimalist prison (no TV’s, weights, etc) prison with no possibility for parole, though, IMO.
Click to expand...
My sentiments and my journey exactly…the instances where the Church would justify the execution of a human being are so remote, so strict to effectively ban this procedure. OTOH God does believe in justice and the murder or other heinous crime should result in a loss of freedom.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Do you really believe Jesus would have nothing to say about abortion were it brought up to Him? Would he shrug his shoulders and say “Well I didn’t have a uterus and it’s really a matter of free will.”
Click to expand...
You probably know this, Lisa, but many Catholics and non-Catholics do not: Jesus didn’t “bring it up” because it was not something that he came to address, i.e., change. His ministry (his teaching) was about clarifying (the Law, redemption, personal behavior in relation to divine law) and conversion (relationship to the God of Israel as a personal God). What was handed down in oral tradition, and then recorded, reflected News, not old messages. The matter of abortion was an “old message.” Faithful Jews did not engage in it, even though it was crudely practiced in general in the ancient Mediterranean, before, during, and after Jesus’ ministry. Had he adopted a different (new) morality about abortion, He would have announced it, it would have become part of the oral (and then written) tradition. End of story.

Also, the fact that He did not bring it up (in contrast to what He did bring up) is further evidence that it was not being practiced to any significant degree by his various audiences.
His audiences had engaged, however, in distortions of the Law, and in a technical understanding of the Law which eviscerated the heart of the Law, which was more interior and more comprehensive than many Jews were understanding it to be, due to some conflicting teachings by their leadership, and the religious factions resulting from that bickering. That’s why we read so many references to that in the NT. It was topical. Abortion was not topical.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
You probably know this, Lisa, but many Catholics and non-Catholics do not: Jesus didn’t “bring it up” because it was not something that he came to address, i.e., change. His ministry (his teaching) was about clarifying (the Law, redemption, personal behavior in relation to divine law) and conversion (relationship to the God of Israel as a personal God). What was handed down in oral tradition, and then recorded, reflected News, not old messages. The matter of abortion was an “old message.” Faithful Jews did not engage in it, even though it was crudely practiced in general in the ancient Mediterranean, before, during, and after Jesus’ ministry. Had he adopted a different (new) morality about abortion, He would have announced it, it would have become part of the oral (and then written) tradition. End of story.

Also, the fact that He did not bring it up (in contrast to what He did bring up) is further evidence that it was not being practiced to any significant degree by his various audiences.
His audiences had engaged, however, in distortions of the Law, and in a technical understanding of the Law which eviscerated the heart of the Law, which was more interior and more comprehensive than many Jews were understanding it to be, due to some conflicting teachings by their leadership, and the religious factions resulting from that bickering. That’s why we read so many references to that in the NT. It was topical. Abortion was not topical.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying this and giving me a better approach when people claim “Jesus didn’t say anything about abortion, homosexuality…fill in the blank here.” His message was not to reiterate settled concepts. Had he proclaimed “Women should not abort their unborn babies” as part of his message it would have literally been “preaching to the choir.”

I realize that abortion is probably as old a practice as any. As I understand the original Hippocratic oath specifically referred to not performing abortions. OTOH it was certainly not a practice in ancient Israel.

Just think about the story of Mary. When she finds herself with child and when Joseph learns of this, there are several alternatives. Joseph could ‘send her away’ or marry her or apparently she could have been stoned to death. It was never suggested or discussed that she could obtain an abortion.

That is one of the pro abortion arguments that just doesn’t get to first base. Thank you for making the case more clearly
Lisa
 
LisaA said:
That is not only very generous, it is wildly inaccurate. One of the problems with increasing secularism and lack of moral teachings and standards in this country is that the destruction of unborn babies has become so remote, so antiseptic that is is given about as much consideration as removal of a wart. Do you think I am joking here Matt?

Do you REALLY think the millions and millions of women who have had abortions thought twice about doing it? Yes maybe some do, some are forced or pressured against their will but sadly the majority consider the act little more than “solving a problem.” Now many women come to regret the abortions later but at the time certainly did not “consult with their spiritual adivisor or pastor, family doctor blah blah blah.” This is utter baloney.

This is how it goes Matt, Suzie Q finds herself pregnant and although the pregnancy does not compromise her life it would be an inconvenience. I mean she might have to buy the large size jars of mayo at Costco…sarcasm intended because this IS a true story. The woman calls one of the abortion mills such as Planned Parenthood, makes an appointment and shows up, has the procedure and leaves. Done…problem solved.

Do you really think if most people really sat and thought about what they were doing that there would be so many abortions? Really? We have made it too easy, too guilt free and too lucrative for Planned Parenthoods of the world. One of the clearest proofs of my argument is that women who see their child via an ultrasound are much more likely to change their minds. It is the dehumanization of the unborn by society and by apologists for abortionists that allows this to happen.

Since you never responded to the same argument on another thread I’m gonna give it another go. Jesus never talked about abortion because it was NOT something that happened in his day among his people. There were few things more treasured than another baby. That he didn’t speak specifically of abortion (although you know he was pretty hard on people who dismissed BORN children which might be a clue!). He didn’t speak specifically about women in short skirts or men without facial hair or all of those other things that are part of our culture that were not of his culture.

Does this specificity negate the teaching thou shall not MURDER? Could the term “poor” be inclusive of unborn helpless children? Did you ever think about that? Do you really believe Jesus would have nothing to say about abortion were it brought up to Him? Would he shrug his shoulders and say “Well I didn’t have a uterus and it’s really a matter of free will.”

I don’t
Lisa
Click to expand...
Wonderful post Lisa! Let he who has eyes, see. Let he who has ears, hear.
 
This election is about the lesser of two evils. Obama supports unbridled abortion, even using tax money internationally for it, and his attack on the Catholic Church will never, ever get my vote. The guy is just stomach turning. Go away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top