Gabrielle Giffords Endorses Clinton

[Jeanne_S]

why do you think i asked?

 

[estesbob]

Oh,so basically,if you don’t like what the Esteemed Archbishop Chaput has to say,you will wait and hope for a different response from another Archbishop,one that fits your mindset?
May I suggest the website Courgeous Priests? There are many informative articles to guide the faithful in all manners of our a faith.The priests,bishops archbishops that this website follows is listed on the site.You can go there,see what you bishop and others have to say.It is a wonderfully informative and supportive website.

Problem is they can never find any member of the Magestrium that supports their view.

 

[Crossbones]

Oh,so basically,if you don’t like what the Esteemed Archbishop Chaput has to say,you will wait and hope for a different response from another Archbishop,one that fits your mindset?
May I suggest the website Courgeous Priests? There are many informative articles to guide the faithful in all manners of our a faith.The priests,bishops archbishops that this website follows is listed on the site.You can go there,see what you bishop and others have to say.It is a wonderfully informative and supportive website.

If there is anything I’ve learned from CAF is that the words of an individual bishop or for that the matter, the Pope are not binding to Catholics. If the Pope says that the Death Penalty is wrong, there will be entire threads saying how it is not Church teaching. For that matter, there is a thread on the front page about a New York Times article where Catholics are complaining about the Pope.

So, you’ll excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but I think many around here trumpet Archbishop Chaput because he says what they want to hear and are more than willing to ignore other teachings about unjust wars or torture from other bishops or the Pope because it’s not what they want to hear.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Problem is they can never find any member of the Magestrium that supports their view.

This is true.As you said time to bring out “the list”

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Carries on.

Got any examples?

 

[Jeanne_S]

If there is anything I’ve learned from CAF is that the words of an individual bishop or for that the matter, the Pope are not binding to Catholics. If the Pope says that the Death Penalty is wrong, there will be entire threads saying how it is not Church teaching. For that matter, there is a thread on the front page about a New York Times article where Catholics are complaining about the Pope.

So, you’ll excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but I think many around here trumpet Archbishop Chaput because he says what they want to hear and are more than willing to ignore other teachings about unjust wars or torture from other bishops or the Pope because it’s not what they want to hear.

For starters,I wouldn’t read anything that comes out of the NYT
The basic right to life has to drive all other issues It naturally follows that if life in it’s most nascent form is given dignity,then so will life outside the womb be given the same.You can argue that unjust wars take the lives of innocents and that is true,however ,unfortunately ,a consequence of war.To deliberately rip a life out of the womb is of a more grave matter.also,abortion has now morphed into infanticide in many cases.Nothing good comes from abortion,period.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Other issues carry equal weight because we can’t simply abandon people once they are born. We have to provide them with a living wage, a safe place to live, food on the table, etc.

I support a candidate who believes in abortion because the US Constitution calls for separation of church and state. I don’t believe in abortion or support it myself, but other religions do. What about the Jews who are bound by their religion to have an abortion if the mother’s life is in danger? If the US legislated against abortion, the US would be infringing on the religious beliefs of the Jewish people. They aren’t infringing on the rights of Catholics because even though abortion is legal no one is bound to have one.

And, I don’t think the presidency is the place to fight abortion. We need to educate our children about the sanctity of life as soon as they are old enough to understand. Catholic families are just too secular these days. That’s the reason for the drop in enrollment at seminaries. It’s secularism. It’s not celibacy.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Other issues carry equal weight because we can’t simply abandon people once they are born. We have to provide them with a living wage, a safe place to live, food on the table, etc.

I support a candidate who believes in abortion because the US Constitution calls for separation of church and state. I don’t believe in abortion or support it myself, but other religions do. What about the Jews who are bound by their religion to have an abortion if the mother’s life is in danger? If the US legislated against the abortion, the US would be infringing on the religious beliefs of the Jewish people. They aren’t infringing on the rights of Catholics because even though abortion is legal no one is bound to have one.

And, I don’t think the presidency is the place to fight abortion. We need to educate our children about the sanctity of life as soon as they are old enough to understand. Catholic families are just too secular these days. That’s the reason for the drop in enrollment at seminaries. It’s secularism. It’s not celibacy.

Then why are we as Christians bring coerced into providing funds,via our tax dollars to subsidize PP?Additionally,with the ACA(a misnomer if ever there was one) to pay for contraceptives ,abortions,etc.?Where is the religious liberty there?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Then why are we as Christians bring coerced into providing funds,via our tax dollars to subsidize PP?Additionally,with the ACA(a misnomer if ever there was one) to pay for contraceptives ,abortions,etc.?Where is the religious liberty there?

I think as Catholic Christians we should be able to specify that none of our tax dollars be used to fund anything to do with abortion or contraceptives. I don’t see why PP should get tax dollars in the first place. The quicker they are defunded the better.

I actually hate Planned Parenthood. I wonder how many people know Margaret Sanger believed in contraception primarily as a form of eugenics? She believed all the problems of poverty were caused by too many children! Such an idiot! If you’ve read any of her writings, you know she couldn’t spell. I had to read some for my moral theology classes. Awful!

But all that doesn’t diminish the fact that we are responsible for our neighbor from the womb to the grave. We can’t abandon them just because they achieved birth.

 

[Crossbones]

For starters,I wouldn’t read anything that comes out of the NYT
The basic right to life has to drive all other issues It naturally follows that if life in it’s most nascent form is given dignity,then so will life outside the womb be given the same.You can argue that unjust wars take the lives of innocents and that is true,however ,unfortunately ,a consequence of war.To deliberately rip a life out of the womb is of a more grave matter.also,abortion has now morphed into infanticide in many cases.Nothing good comes from abortion,period.

Unjust wars are intrinsically evil. Torture is intrinsically evil. Nothing good comes from those either. You are placing your own values on the weighting of these issues.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I think as Catholic Christians we should be able to specify that none of our tax dollars be used to fund anything to do with abortion or contraceptives. I don’t see why PP should get tax dollars in the first place. The quicker they are defunded the better.

I actually hate Planned Parenthood. I wonder how many people know Margaret Sanger believed in contraception primarily as a form of eugenics? She believed all the problems of poverty were caused by too many children! Such an idiot! If you’ve read any of her writings, you know she couldn’t spell. I had to read some for my moral theology classes. Awful!

If you want to defund PP,you need to align with the Republicansbecause on a state by state level ,many R governors have done just that.If there is any kind of hope for federal defunding,we need someone other than Hillary or Bernie in the White House.They have both publicly avowed their allegiance to PP.

 

[Theo520]

Maybe that’s why I heard today African Americans are voting for Hillary in even larger numbers than they did for Barack Obama.

Do you have a source for that? I think it’s backwards

• turnout is down significantly this Primary vs when Obama ran
• it’s down for both white and black voters in total,
• of the fewer blacks that are voting, they lean Hillary over Bernie.
• bernie is doing better with young white voters

ergo, the fewer black voters would make a larger % of the fewer total voters picking Hillary.

Nothing for Dems to get excited about. Maybe the % white will rebound after bernie is out.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Do you have a source for that? I think it’s backwards

• turnout is down significantly this Primary vs when Obama ran
• it’s down for both white and black voters in total,
• of the fewer blacks that are voting, they lean Hillary over Bernie.
• bernie is doing better with young white voters

ergo, the fewer black voters would make a larger % of the fewer total voters picking Hillary.

Nothing for Dems to get excited about. Maybe the % white will rebound after bernie is out.

What I heard was in reference to SC.

“Hillary Clinton managed to pull off something fairly remarkable. She not only increased over Obama the share of blacks voting, she won more of their support than he did.”

breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/27/hillary-clinton-wins-89-of-black-vote-in-south-carolina/

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/south-carolina-primary-hillary-clinton-did-better-with-black-voters-than-barack-obama-in-2008-a6901066.html

And au contraire. There will be much for Democratic voters to get excited about by the time the general rolls around and more so if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz becomes the GOP nominee. I have even heard it said Donald Trump will help produce a large voter turnout on the Democratic side. And don’t forget. Republicans are also about to either nominate Donald Trump who half or more of their party isn’t thrilled about. Or will deny him the nomination, ticking off those who do support him.

In addition, many general election voters in Presidential election yrs do not vote in primaries and caucuses and many only vote once every 4 yrs. The fact that the GOP won the midterms during the Obama Presidency but he won handily in 08 and again handily won reelection attests to that.

And I don’t fully understand your point about white voters. Who won the white vote in '12 and who lost? That’s the thing about the Democratic Party. It understands the electorate is changing and does not depend almost exclusively on white voters. When I Iook at Trump crowds, I see a sea. But a sea of primarily angry white Republican voters. But I look at Hillary crowds and I see more of a microcosm of America. A changing electorate is something the Republican Party needs to address if it is to survive long term. I’m not sure it has done a good enough job at that yet or if it ever will. Btw I’m a white male. Voted for Bernie. But will be right there in Nov for Hillary. No doubt about it.

But in any case much too much is being made about turnout 8 full mos before the election. Republicans have had so many candidates seeking support and the circus surrounding the Republican side probably hasn’t hurt in drawing their voters to the polls.

On the surface, the concern about Democratic turnout may seem well-founded. But read on…

“But when you compare past primary turnout to outcomes in the general election, you don’t see a pattern. Before 2008, Democrats had their highest ever primary turnout in 1988, with nearly 23 million voters at the polls. The winner, Michael Dukakis, eventually lost to George H.W Bush in a landslide defeat. Likewise, high GOP primary turnout in the 2000 primary—more than 17 million Republicans voted versus 14 million Democrats—didn’t guarantee an easy win: George W. Bush lost the popular vote.”

“Primary season turnout isn’t a reliable guide to general election results. But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn something from it. If there’s a consistent result in the Democratic primaries thus far, it’s this: Everywhere black voters have had a chance to vote in significant numbers—South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, etc.—they’ve either come close to or exceeded their 2008 vote share. In South Carolina, blacks were 61 percent of the electorate versus 55 percent in 2008; in Georgia, they were 49 percent of the electorate versus 51 percent in 2008; and in Virginia they were 25 percent of the electorate versus 30 percent in 2008. And just as they’d backed Obama in 2008, they backed Hillary Clinton by similar margins this year, delivering supermajorities—almost 90 percent in some places—to her campaign.”

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/why_hillary_clinton_s_big_super_tuesday_wins_are_great_news_for_democrats.html

 

[Sy_Noe]

I never said a word about practicing. Not once, I merely pointed out the obvious-if they vote for a pro-abortion candidate they are not following the teachings of the Church

Yes but for some reason you are avoiding my question to you.

 

[Sy_Noe]

If there is anything I’ve learned from CAF is that the words of an individual bishop or for that the matter, the Pope are not binding to Catholics. If the Pope says that the Death Penalty is wrong, there will be entire threads saying how it is not Church teaching. For that matter, there is a thread on the front page about a New York Times article where Catholics are complaining about the Pope.

So, you’ll excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but I think many around here trumpet Archbishop Chaput because he says what they want to hear and are more than willing to ignore other teachings about unjust wars or torture from other bishops or the Pope because it’s not what they want to hear.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Other issues carry equal weight because we can’t simply abandon people once they are born. We have to provide them with a living wage, a safe place to live, food on the table, etc.

I support a candidate who believes in abortion because the US Constitution calls for separation of church and state. I don’t believe in abortion or support it myself, but other religions do. What about the Jews who are bound by their religion to have an abortion if the mother’s life is in danger? If the US legislated against abortion, the US would be infringing on the religious beliefs of the Jewish people. They aren’t infringing on the rights of Catholics because even though abortion is legal no one is bound to have one.

And, I don’t think the presidency is the place to fight abortion. We need to educate our children about the sanctity of life as soon as they are old enough to understand. Catholic families are just too secular these days. That’s the reason for the drop in enrollment at seminaries. It’s secularism. It’s not celibacy.

Jeanne, ^ there appears to be an answer you’ve been seeking.

 

[Theo520]

What I heard was in reference to SC.

“Hillary Clinton managed to pull off something fairly remarkable. She not only increased over Obama the share of blacks voting, she won more of their support than he did.”

Nope, voters were down significantly from 08 (-31%) and Hillary pulled a lower count than Obama. We already knew the fewer blacks voting would lean Hillary

2008 Dem Primary
295k / 55% Obama
141k / 27% Clinton
532k Total
**
2016 Dem Primary**
271k / 74% Obama
96k / 26% Clinton
367k Total

And au contraire. There will be much for Democratic voters to get excited about by the time the general rolls around and more so if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz becomes the GOP nominee. I have even heard it said Donald Trump will help produce a large voter turnout on the Democratic side. And don’t forget. Republicans are also about to either nominate Donald Trump who half or more of their party isn’t thrilled about. Or will deny him the nomination, ticking off those who do support him.

Hillary can beat Rubio but Trump will shred her (my prediction)

In addition, many general election voters in Presidential election yrs do not vote in primaries and caucuses and many only vote once every 4 yrs. The fact that the GOP won the midterms during the Obama Presidency but he won handily in 08 and again handily won reelection attests to that.

Are you trying to rationalize the lower Dem turnout?

And I don’t fully understand your point about white voters. Who won the white vote in '12 and who lost?

There was no vote in 2012 SC Primary

But in any case much too much is being made about turnout 8 full mos before the election. Republicans have had so many candidates seeking support and the circus surrounding the Republican side probably hasn’t hurt in drawing their voters to the polls.

Primary turnout is all we’ve got as a hard measure of voter interest. I agree it doesn’t guarantee similar General election turnout.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Nope, voters were down significantly from 08 (-31%) and Hillary pulled a lower count than Obama. We already knew the fewer blacks voting would lean Hillary

2008 Dem Primary
295k / 55% Obama
141k / 27% Clinton
532k Total
**
2016 Dem Primary**
271k / 74% Obama
96k / 26% Clinton
367k Total

Hillary can beat Rubio but Trump will shred her (my prediction)

Are you trying to rationalize the lower Dem turnout?

There was no vote in 2012 SC Primary

Primary turnout is all we’ve got as a hard measure of voter interest. I agree it doesn’t guarantee similar General election turnout.

In regard to the white vote, I mistakenly thought you were referring to a general.

 

[estesbob]

Other issues carry equal weight because we can’t simply abandon people once they are born. We have to provide them with a living wage, a safe place to live, food on the table, etc.

I support a candidate who believes in abortion because the US Constitution calls for separation of church and state. I don’t believe in abortion or support it myself, but other religions do. What about the Jews who are bound by their religion to have an abortion if the mother’s life is in danger? If the US legislated against abortion, the US would be infringing on the religious beliefs of the Jewish people. They aren’t infringing on the rights of Catholics because even though abortion is legal no one is bound to have one.

And, I don’t think the presidency is the place to fight abortion. We need to educate our children about the sanctity of life as soon as they are old enough to understand. Catholic families are just too secular these days. That’s the reason for the drop in enrollment at seminaries. It’s secularism. It’s not celibacy.

Can you show us where the Church supports any of what you are stated above? Are you actually saying that a Catholic should put the Constitution of United States ahead of the teachings of the church? Are you actually saying a Catholic should support abortion because it would upset the Jews if we didn’t??? Wie’ll have to add that one to the list

 

[estesbob]

Jeanne, ^ there appears to be an answer you’ve been seeking.

So you believe that we can ignore the teachings of the church if they conflict with our political views?