E
estesbob
Guest
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
- Status
S
SpectatorX
Guest
One is left with the implicit assumption that voting for one who merely gives lip service to the common good is not equally vacuous - that subversion of an unjust dichotomy is less meritorious than succumbing to it. Is voting for a man who claims to be pro-life and isn’t over a man who claims to be pro-choice and is a greater good than seeking an alternative?
I hope these are not your opinions. I’ll hold out for you, though, so that the same charge of substitutive reasoning will not be applied to my person.
M
mrld20
Guest
One is left with the implicit assumption that voting for one who merely gives lip service to the common good is not equally vacuous - that subversion of an unjust dichotomy is less meritorious than succumbing to it. Is voting for a man who claims to be pro-life and isn’t over a man who claims to be pro-choice and is a greater good than seeking an alternative?
I hope these are not your opinions. I’ll hold out for you, though, so that the same charge of substitutive reasoning will not be applied to my person.
Can you say that in terms the common man can understand LOL…
M
mrld20
Guest
And have a goose stepping Republican who wants to destroy modern America?! I’ll take my chances not voting LOL
B
Bluegoat
Guest
What he means is that refusing to vote when there is no reasonable candidate and in that way looking to subvert the electoral system, is no worse and maybe better than voting for an inadequate candidate and supporting a system that is only offering inadequate candidates.
A
Allegra
Guest
If by “plenty” you mean that they exist somewhere, then I might agree with you. If by “plenty” you mean that there are currently an adequate enough number of them so that voters generally, often, sometimes, or even on occasion have the ability to consider one in an actual election on a state or national level, then I have to protest this statement as being untrue. Very rarely does such a situation arise where a prolife democrat is able to run for a high-ranking position. If they are actively pro-life, it will generally cost them the change to be nominated for anything substantial by their party.
C
Corki
Guest
Since when is supporting higher taxes a Catholic issue?
M
mrld20
Guest
Higher taxes fund welfare services? Preferential option for the poor? Listen don’t be a bunch of robots. With the exception of the pro-life issue don’t let being Catholic dictate your political views! I’m Catholic and I’m a liberal flat out the way it is.
My best friend is Catholic and a hard core Tea Party Constitutionalist… The Church never said support either ideology. The Church lets Catholics choose their political views outside being pro-life.
I’m sure there are other liberal Catholics, Conservative Catholics, libertarian Catholics, Communitarian Catholics, socialist catholics, anarchist catholics… There’s all kinds of Catholics out there… The Church doesn’t and shouldn’t dictate to me what political views I have (with the exception of being pro-life. But I use somethings from the Church to base my views off of.
C
Corki
Guest
Ok. But there are other ways to care for the poor besides raising taxes. Higher taxes doesn’t necessarily mean that more money will even go to social services. And there is nothing wrong with wanting government to be financially restrained. There is nothing about higher taxes that makes it a position more closely aligned with Catholic teaching.
E
estesbob
Guest
Exactly 5 democrats voted in favor of the bill last week to forbid funding of abortions in the Helath Care bill.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Not voting is an option, one that I had to think through a lot to see how one could take it.
The problem is that voting for someone who supports legalized abortion is out of the question. But to me, voting for someone who is pro-life but who, say, supported legalizing slavery (Ha, ha, I figured out how to not upset anyone!) would Also be totally wrong.
At this point, I have to consider voting as a personal action. Should I support one sinful thing by my vote or the other sinful thing? This is where I have to ask myself what I am voting for? The lesser of two evils might still be too evil to vote for.
But thing is, my voting is still my action, my choice, my decision. If I choose one, it’s on me. Can I vote for someone who supports legalized abortion? No. Can I support someone who supports legalized slavery? No.
**No matter what else good the promoter of either supports, **I really cannot pull the lever for him if he supports the terrible evil.
E
estesbob
Guest
It is hard to carry on a reasonable discussion with someon who dismisses all republicans as “goosestepper”. When a alleged pro-life suporter sits out an election they are as complicit in the continuation of abortion as those who vote for pro-abortion canidates. Deriding those who fight this evil as “goosesteppers” does not mitigate their guilt
E
estesbob
Guest
I guess if we ever have an election where one canidate supports slavery and one supports abortion you would have a point. But political differences on how to best care for the poor and/or the proper level of taxation does not rise to lever of either slavery or abortion .
N
Nate13
Guest
haha this is all great as long as at the end of the day we realize that we are both worried about taking care of the poor and we both want to take care of elderly. We also both want to take care of women. When Nancy Pelosi gets up and says “Republicans want women to die on the floor” you see the mark of insanity. We disagree about the method in which we should accomplish these goals and the effectiveness of either sides respective method. When we lose sight of this point, we are lost as is apparent from the situation in D.C. Its no wonder a civil discussion cannot occur about the issue of social security when for instance one side believes the other doesn’t care about the elderly
This goes for the abortion discussion as well, but its even worse since one side really doesn’t care about unborn babies since according to them they aren’t even really alive yet.
E
estesbob
Guest
Abortion apologists claim Republicans want women to die on the floor. And then we have some pro-lifers dismissing Republicans as “goosesteppers” Is it any wonder the children continue to die?haha this is all great as long as at the end of the day we realize that we are both worried about taking care of the poor and we both want to take care of elderly. We also both want to take care of women. When Nancy Pelosi gets up and says “Republicans want women to die on the floor” you see the mark of insanity. We disagree about the method in which we should accomplish these goals and the effectiveness of either sides respective method. When we lose sight of this point, we are lost as is apparent from the situation in D.C. Its no wonder a civil discussion cannot occur about the issue of social security when for instance one side believes the other doesn’t care about the elderly
C
Corki
Guest
Higher taxes are just as likely to fund a larger military, higher salaries for legislators, wasteful “pork” programs and immoral efforts as they are to fund welfare services. If history is any teacher, they are actually *more *likely to go to those things than to the poor. At best ‘higher taxes’ is morally neutral from the standpoint of Catholic teaching and, when it comes to federal taxes, on the other side when you also look at the teaching of the Church regarding subsidiarity.
W
white_sheep
Guest
Higher taxes=less revenue=less help for the poor.
Are there numerous issues as Catholics we should support? Surely. Most don’t rise anywhere near the level of importance of abortion. I don’t know what anyone here specifically is trying to say by focusing on life issues other than abortion so these comments aren’t directed at anyone in particular. Usually, when people try to bring other social justice and life issues up and focus on those it is to justify their vote for a pro-abortion Democrat by saying their politician is morally superior on other, more important, issues. The five non-negotiables are abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, cloning, and gay marriage. If you’re going to vote along the lines of these most important issues, it’s pretty clear that there is one party you just can’t vote for.
Are there numerous issues as Catholics we should support? Surely. Most don’t rise anywhere near the level of importance of abortion. I don’t know what anyone here specifically is trying to say by focusing on life issues other than abortion so these comments aren’t directed at anyone in particular. Usually, when people try to bring other social justice and life issues up and focus on those it is to justify their vote for a pro-abortion Democrat by saying their politician is morally superior on other, more important, issues. The five non-negotiables are abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, cloning, and gay marriage. If you’re going to vote along the lines of these most important issues, it’s pretty clear that there is one party you just can’t vote for.
E
estesbob
Guest
Agreed. As does this Cardinal:
At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book “The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.”
And I say this with a heavy heart, because we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant parents and grandparents to better integrate into and prosper in American society. But it’s not the same anymore.
Nonetheless, there are among Democrats some pro-lifers, but they are, unfortunately, rare.
Cardinal Raymond Burke
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
In Wisconsin.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Not on racism. It was the anti-slavery party. but it would’ve been pretty hard for Catholics to vote Republican back then because it was also the anti-Catholic party with the Democrats being the pro-Catholic party.
- Status