Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[lynnvinc]

I cannot vote for anyone who is for annihilating all life on earth through anthropogenic global warming (see esp pg. 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf ). To me that’s a really disgusting way to end abortion (which I’m also against) – just kill everyone.

Having said that, I don’t think Obama is good on the AGW issue, even tho he is a tad better than Clinton and a whole lot better than Bush, and it seems better than Romney. Tho Romney was for mitigating AGW before he was against mitigating it. I think he read all the AGW skeptic posts on CAF and decided he could win by opposing any action on AGW. Furthermore, the gov can only do so much – it is really up to the people to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions…and it seems they’ve pretty much voted in their daily lives not to do so, but to send the world into a slow death spiral instead. (Reminds me of nasty boys who used to kick down my sand castles on the beach.)

On the other hand, I don’t think even the strongest anti-abortion president (which Romney would not be – I think he was pro-choice before he was anti-abortion) would be able to pass laws against abortion. The tide of women’s rights (including reproductive rights) is so strong now, it seems there’s no going back. But even if such laws were passed (and I’d be for them, bec I’m not into rights; I’m into duties and responsibilities – you conceive him/her, you bear him/her & rear him/her for 20 years) abortions would just go underground as they did when I was a young woman in the 60s – women all around me were having illegal abortions, a few nearly bleeding to death. Simply passing laws will not be enough. We also need to work in many other ways to reduce abortion.

The idea that if Romney were elected president abortions would stop or even be substantially reduced, I think, is false daydreaming.

Also, the idea that people would substantially reduce their greenhouse gases if Obama were elected is equally false daydreaming.

We are probably doomed to annihilating life on earth, and over the centuries leading up to the total annihilation, we are probably doomed to women having abortions, probably at ever higher rates, as well as people just out-and-out killing each other over ever diminishing life-support resources. Like some vicious, killer musical chairs.

I hope I’m just being unrealistically pessimistic and I wake up full of realistic optimism tomorrow.

BTW, my state Texas will surely go to Romney – Texans REALLY like it hot and drought-flood-hurricane-wildfire ridden. But it is really heartening to think that they would vote against their own interests (and those of their children and progeny) to save other people’s babies from abortion. I guess Texans are really good people afterall.

We must never give up struggling to promote pro-life values and behavior, no matter how bleak the situation, no matter if one is the last person alive standing up for life.

 

[Journey322]

Not so much for Romney as against Obama.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Wow!

“What a fool believes, he sees, and no wise man has the power to reason it away.” - Michael McDonald.

 

[eightandsand]

I don’t know how a practicing Catholic could vote for either of these two imposters.

Also, many Catholics seem to have fallen for the “lesser of two evils” argument, and use it to justify continously voting for imposters. The “lesser of two evils” argument has infested Catholic thinking. It is not a matter of faith or morals but some Catholics seem to think it is an actual teaching of the Church. In reality it is simply a Machiavellian political strategy employed by some Catholics (mostly former Protestants) and those with a neconservative bent. The “lesser of two evils” argument is bad logic, bad political strategy, and is the reason (sadly) why Obama will be re-elected and things will only get worse. Satan couldn’t be happier that so many Catholics would rather make deals with him than fight him.

Perhaps it is time for Catholics to exercise a third option, an uncomfortable option: civil disobedience.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Is this your survey on which states have capital punishment? Not sure of your point but I’ll bite. Yes my state has capital punishment on the books but A) it hasn’t been used in decades and B) our current governor said if any prisoner gets an execution date he will block the execution. So effectively we don’t have it here.

And your point is what?

Lisa

The point is that, if you equate, under the law, abortion to murder in every single way (as in your earlier statement), to maintain consistency, you must be advocating that women who procure abortions have at least a possibility of receiving the death penalty for it—at least to the same extent that convicted murderers in the same state do.

This is an issue states WILL have to confront if and when they ban abortion, assuming Roe v Wade is overturned. And no, this is not a backdoor argument for keeping abortion legal. It’s just a reality that will have to be faced.

Many posters in these forums who want to see abortion banned recoil at this notion, I’ve noticed. There’s far more uniformity on the notion of banning it than there is on how to penalize it under the law.

 

[LisaA]

The point is that, if you equate, under the law, abortion to murder in every single way (as in your earlier statement), to maintain consistency, you must be advocating that women who procure abortions have at least a possibility of receiving the death penalty for it—at least to the same extent that convicted murderers in the same state do.

This is an issue states WILL have to confront if and when they ban abortion, assuming Roe v Wade is overturned. And no, this is not a backdoor argument for keeping abortion legal. It’s just a reality that will have to be faced.

Many posters in these forums who want to see abortion banned recoil at this notion, I’ve noticed. There’s far more uniformity on the notion of banning it than there is on how to penalize it under the law.

Specious argument. Abortion WAS illegal in many states for many years before Roe. In no states did the woman face the death penalty for procuring an abortion. I believe the doctor could be charged with some form of crime although as a practical matter they were not.

Further if Roe is overturned, then the matter will go back to the states as it was in the past. My own state was early on a mecca for women seeking abortions. We believe in euthanasia…first state to make it legal. We believe in abortion too…such a source of pride! OTOH the death penalty is an anathema…you know perfect logic kill the innocent, save the guilty

At any rate Col et al, you don’t have a very good argument. It’s common though in the pro abortion world. You put up an outrageous argument about what “could” happen (criminal prosecution of women) and then ignore what actually DOES happen (murder of millions of unborn).

Lisa

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Specious argument. Abortion WAS illegal in many states for many years before Roe. In no states did the woman face the death penalty for procuring an abortion. I believe the doctor could be charged with some form of crime although as a practical matter they were not.

Further if Roe is overturned, then the matter will go back to the states as it was in the past. My own state was early on a mecca for women seeking abortions. We believe in euthanasia…first state to make it legal. We believe in abortion too…such a source of pride! OTOH the death penalty is an anathema…you know perfect logic kill the innocent, save the guilty

At any rate Col et al, you don’t have a very good argument. It’s common though in the pro abortion world. You put up an outrageous argument about what “could” happen (criminal prosecution of women) and then ignore what actually DOES happen (murder of millions of unborn).

Lisa

Selective reading. My statement was premised on “If you totally equate abortion to murder.” It sounds like you don’t. That in itself is nothing greatly significant. I just wanted to see what was at the bottom there, conceptually. Believe what you like.

 

[LisaA]

I don’t know how a practicing Catholic could vote for either of these two imposters.

Also, many Catholics seem to have fallen for the “lesser of two evils” argument, and use it to justify continously voting for imposters. The “lesser of two evils” argument has infested Catholic thinking. It is not a matter of faith or morals but some Catholics seem to think it is an actual teaching of the Church. In reality it is simply a Machiavellian political strategy employed by some Catholics (mostly former Protestants) and those with a neconservative bent. The “lesser of two evils” argument is bad logic, bad political strategy, and is the reason (sadly) why Obama will be re-elected and things will only get worse. Satan couldn’t be happier that so many Catholics would rather make deals with him than fight him.

Perhaps it is time for Catholics to exercise a third option, an uncomfortable option: civil disobedience.

This “lesser of two evils” claim is based on the nonsense that both choices are evil. In the case of this election I believe there is one choice that promotes evil and that is a vote for Obama. His militant pro-abortion record and philosophy makes him an impossible choice for a practicing Catholic.

I do not find anything evil about Romney. Thus it’s not a choice of the lesser of two evils.

Easy!
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Selective reading. My statement was premised on “If you totally equate abortion to murder.” It sounds like you don’t. That in itself is nothing greatly significant. I just wanted to see what was at the bottom there, conceptually. Believe what you like.

I believe in facts not outrageous scenarios established to set up a strawman and then set him on fire. You set up an absolutely ridiculous premise and the say “AHA! got you!” No you didn’t.

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

One can place faith in these writings and in the ECFs and Catholic interpretation of them.

Or, one can place faith in one’s own, personal interpretation of Scripture. Which way shows humility? Trusting and believing in one’s own abilities and intellect, or trusting and believing in the Church Christ left us, guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[St_Francis]

…snip…

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.

We live in a country of plural beliefs and views on the very difficult problem of aiding the poor, too, CMatt, and yet you are perfectly find with the government enforcing *your *view on the best way to handle that on the rest of us.

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.

And Christ never mentioned that the government should be the main vehicle for helping the poor, as you advocate.

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.

And yet many of those who think as you do about government aid to the poor depict those who disagree with them as evil, greedy, “death to the poor” people, *despite *the fact that it has been shown that conservatives are more likely to give money to charity, to volunteer, to give blood, than liberals.

 

[St_Francis]

The point is that, if you equate, under the law, abortion to murder in every single way (as in your earlier statement), to maintain consistency, you must be advocating that women who procure abortions have at least a possibility of receiving the death penalty for it—at least to the same extent that convicted murderers in the same state do.

This is an issue states WILL have to confront if and when they ban abortion, assuming Roe v Wade is overturned. And no, this is not a backdoor argument for keeping abortion legal. It’s just a reality that will have to be faced.

Many posters in these forums who want to see abortion banned recoil at this notion, I’ve noticed. There’s far more uniformity on the notion of banning it than there is on how to penalize it under the law.

The reason that they recoil is that the death penalty, where it is still around, is generally reserved for certain types of murders: those involving other physical crimes, those involving law enforcement personnel, those involving more than one or two people, and the like.

They may not be recoiling so much at the idea you propose, but at your willingness to propose such absurdity.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t know how a practicing Catholic could vote for either of these two imposters.

Also, many Catholics seem to have fallen for the “lesser of two evils” argument, and use it to justify continously voting for imposters. The “lesser of two evils” argument has infested Catholic thinking. It is not a matter of faith or morals but some Catholics seem to think it is an actual teaching of the Church. In reality it is simply a Machiavellian political strategy employed by some Catholics (mostly former Protestants) and those with a neconservative bent. The “lesser of two evils” argument is bad logic, bad political strategy, and is the reason (sadly) why Obama will be re-elected and things will only get worse. Satan couldn’t be happier that so many Catholics would rather make deals with him than fight him.

Perhaps it is time for Catholics to exercise a third option, an uncomfortable option: civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience falls under the Just War theory in Catholic thinking, and one of the criteria is that *all other avenues for redress have been exhausted. *

While we are still able to vote, to get involved ourselves in the political process, we have not reached the point where civil actions would be moral.

However, I do believe that Catholics are not doing as much as they should be doing. I do not think that Catholics are praying for the government leaders we have, nor the ones who will take their places. I would like to see more people praying more for our political leaders, and it would be really great to see this encouraged by the Church, for example, by including government leaders in our prayers during Mass, etc. The 14 Days of Prayer for Freedom was a good start, and I hope that our bishops will encourage more of that (altho I was disappointed that they did not pray a novena of prayers, which is more in line with Catholic tradition.)

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Civil disobedience falls under the Just War theory in Catholic thinking, and one of the criteria is that *all other avenues for redress have been exhausted. *

While we are still able to vote, to get involved ourselves in the political process, we have not reached the point where civil actions would be moral.

However, I do believe that Catholics are not doing as much as they should be doing. I do not think that Catholics are praying for the government leaders we have, nor the ones who will take their places. I would like to see more people praying more for our political leaders, and it would be really great to see this encouraged by the Church, for example, by including government leaders in our prayers during Mass, etc. The 14 Days of Prayer for Freedom was a good start, and I hope that our bishops will encourage more of that (altho I was disappointed that they did not pray a novena of prayers, which is more in line with Catholic tradition.)

Corporate money and lobbyists have made the vote essentially pointless. If it makes you feel good to go to the polls, please, feel free. I have misconceptions that my vote means anything.

 

[St_Francis]

Corporate money and lobbyists have made the vote essentially pointless. If it makes you feel good to go to the polls, please, feel free. I have misconceptions that my vote means anything.

Yes, corporate money does influence politics too much; however, we are not yet forbidden from discussing issues with others, with banding together ourselves to promote what we believe to be important. I don’t think corporate lobbying has *completely *taken over, and I think our votes still count for something (altho the rise of electronic voting machines makes me very suspicious.

 

[eightandsand]

Civil disobedience falls under the Just War theory in Catholic thinking, and one of the criteria is that *all other avenues for redress have been exhausted. *

While we are still able to vote, to get involved ourselves in the political process, we have not reached the point where civil actions would be moral.

However, I do believe that Catholics are not doing as much as they should be doing. I do not think that Catholics are praying for the government leaders we have, nor the ones who will take their places. I would like to see more people praying more for our political leaders, and it would be really great to see this encouraged by the Church, for example, by including government leaders in our prayers during Mass, etc. The 14 Days of Prayer for Freedom was a good start, and I hope that our bishops will encourage more of that (altho I was disappointed that they did not pray a novena of prayers, which is more in line with Catholic tradition.)

Civil Disobedience applies to any unjust law and is not restricted to the Just War Doctrine, although it certainly applies there.

Although we still have the ability to vote, it now amounts (in almost all cases where it really counts) to voting for candidates that have been chosen for us by a very small and powerful group of special interests. It has been like this for some time but many still like to believe that the process is democratic. Just go to any of the recent, hotly contested state conventions to to see how convoluted and controlled the situation has become. I don’t think our forefathers and veterans made the ultimate sacrifice for this kind of rigged and corrupt system.

You are correct that Catholics have not been doing as much as they should. And it begins at the top: it really doesn’t matter how much civil disobedience the laity engage in if the Bishops are afraid to excommunicate Catholic politicians that publicly defy the Church on matters of faith and morals. This is primarily a spiritual battle and those with the teaching authority and charism on spiritual matters (the Bishops) need to start wielding their spiritual weapons, IMHO. For our part, the laity must at the very least engage in prayer and fasting (some evil is only driven out by prayer and fasting). The request of Our Lady of Fatima for First Saturday devotions should also be heeded.

 

[LisaA]

Civil Disobedience applies to any unjust law and is not restricted to the Just War Doctrine, although it certainly applies there.

Although we still have the ability to vote, it now amounts (in almost all cases where it really counts) to voting for candidates that have been chosen for us by a very small and powerful group of special interests. It has been like this for some time but many still like to believe that the process is democratic. Just go to any of the recent, hotly contested state conventions to to see how convoluted and controlled the situation has become. I don’t think our forefathers and veterans made the ultimate sacrifice for this kind of rigged and corrupt system. .

The statement bolded is insulting to all of those who participate in elections, particularly the hotly contested primary elections. So we are all stupid sheep following the dictates of men in smoke filled rooms? Really?

While I am not under the illusion my vote for President will count in a state that is bluer than a Smurf, we can all provide influence through support of candidates in any state. The success of politicians such as Scott Walker, Allen West, Marco Rubio who defied not only “the establishment” but also huge and powerful corporate lobbyists is certainly evidence that we can make a difference. There are a number of targeted races where we can all get involved. The success of the Tea Party in swaying the 2010 election is another example.

You are correct that Catholics have not been doing as much as they should. And it begins at the top: it really doesn’t matter how much civil disobedience the laity engage in if the Bishops are afraid to excommunicate Catholic politicians that publicly defy the Church on matters of faith and morals. This is primarily a spiritual battle and those with the teaching authority and charism on spiritual matters (the Bishops) need to start wielding their spiritual weapons, IMHO. For our part, the laity must at the very least engage in prayer and fasting (some evil is only driven out by prayer and fasting). The request of Our Lady of Fatima for First Saturday devotions should also be heeded.

Completely agree on the bolded above and truly appreciate the strong stand by our Bishops on the HHS Mandate.

It is not time to take our toys and go home. Be of good cheer and know that God is with us on this journey.

Lisa

 

[St_Francis]

…snip… if the Bishops are afraid to excommunicate Catholic politicians that publicly defy the Church on matters of faith and morals. This is primarily a spiritual battle and those with the teaching authority and charism on spiritual matters (the Bishops) need to start wielding their spiritual weapons, IMHO. For our part, the laity must at the very least engage in prayer and fasting (some evil is only driven out by prayer and fasting). The request of Our Lady of Fatima for First Saturday devotions should also be heeded.

I agree with what Lisa said, but want to add that we must be careful about what we say and think about the bishops. IIt may be that what you say is true, but then again, I have had too many instances where I thought someone should do X only to later find out that what they did was better.

Remember that God is allowing this–there has to be a reason, no? Perhaps we are not praying enough for our bishops, but then again, maybe God is allowing the crop to grow freely with the tares in it so as not to uproot the wheat. Or maybe He is allowing the situation to deteriorate so that when He does something about it, we will be very clear to Whom the credit should be given.

Keep them, I pray Thee dear Lord.
Keep them, for they are Thine …
These priests whose lives burn out before
Thy consecrated shrine.

Keep them, for they are in the world,
Though from the world apart.

When earthly treasures tempt, allure,
Shelter them in Thy Heart.

Keep them and comfort them
In hours of loneliness and pain,
When all their life of sacrifice
For souls seems but in vain.

Keep them and remember, Lord
That they have none but Thee
They have only human hearts,
With human frailty.

Keep them as spotless as the Host,
That daily they caress;
Their every thought and word and deed,
May you deign, dear Lord, To bless.

Our Father… Hail Mary… Mary, Queen of the Clergy, pray for them.

 

[eightandsand]

The statement bolded is insulting to all of those who participate in elections, particularly the hotly contested primary elections. So we are all stupid sheep following the dictates of men in smoke filled rooms? Really?

Lisa

It is not insulting considering the two choices we have this November: the lawless one/neomarxist community organizer (Barry) and the flip-flopping (on, you know, insignificant issues like abortion and contraception and mandates) follower (Romney) of a fantasy cult invented by a lunatic in New York.

It is insulting to a person of average intelligence to believe that Romney and Obama were NOT chosen outside the democratic process by a powerful group of special interests. Anyone who spent even a small amount of time watching this process unfold in the media knows what I am talking about. I never implied “stupid sheep” (let’s keep this charitable) or “smoke-filled rooms.” Those are reflections of your own notions.

I think the record is clear on Obama (just remember, there would never have been an Obama had the Republicans not foolishly nominated a losing candidate like John Mcain.)

As to Romney, I find him to be an uninteresting opportunist who says one thing and then, when he is in power, caves to pressure and does things differently. His record demonstrates that he is a calculating opportunist. His rhetoric conveniently changes whenever he is up for election or reelection. I am concerned with the record one has while in office, while in power. I care very little about campaign promises or campaing rhetoric. I am concerned with how the product performs, not with the fancy packaging.

 

[eightandsand]

I agree with what Lisa said, but want to add that we must be careful about what we say and think about the bishops. IIt may be that what you say is true, but then again, I have had too many instances where I thought someone should do X only to later find out that what they did was better.

Remember that God is allowing this–there has to be a reason, no? Perhaps we are not praying enough for our bishops, but then again, maybe God is allowing the crop to grow freely with the tares in it so as not to uproot the wheat. Or maybe He is allowing the situation to deteriorate so that when He does something about it, we will be very clear to Whom the credit should be given.

Keep them, I pray Thee dear Lord.
Keep them, for they are Thine …
These priests whose lives burn out before
Thy consecrated shrine.

Keep them, for they are in the world,
Though from the world apart.

When earthly treasures tempt, allure,
Shelter them in Thy Heart.

Keep them and comfort them
In hours of loneliness and pain,
When all their life of sacrifice
For souls seems but in vain.

Keep them and remember, Lord
That they have none but Thee
They have only human hearts,
With human frailty.

Keep them as spotless as the Host,
That daily they caress;
Their every thought and word and deed,
May you deign, dear Lord, To bless.

Our Father… Hail Mary… Mary, Queen of the Clergy, pray for them.

I was thinking more along the lines of Zechariah 13:7:

"“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!’ declares the Lord Almighty. Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little one. I will strike the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered.”

and Ezekiel 34:4-12:

“You have not strenghtened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd…My sheep wandered…they were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them. Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered…I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves…I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness.”

I was also reminded of the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich:

“I had another vision…It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy that could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping… It was as if people were splitting into two camps.”