HOW MANY OF YOU would vote......

[Defender1]

I am curious to know as to whether most of us here would stick to their Christian morals when voting .Say we were to get a candidate ,who was a conservative, and stood for what we as Christians stand for ,only problem is that their faith maybe a little different from ours . Say they could be Muslim,MORMON(hint hint) JW , or any of the above . How many of you would vote against them because of their faith?I am asking this because we very well could get someone, voted to run against Obama ,who is not Christian (to our standards ).I know that many Catholics put their Christian morals aside to vote for Obama (I realize that may not be that crowd I am addressing ) So ,comments welcome . Thank you , Frankie

 

[SteveGC]

Many variables to consider, of course. We’d have to examine point-by-point both candidate’s positions on the issues, starting with the non-negotiables.

In the end, if an atheist candidate’s platform fully supported all of those non-negotiables which the Church Herself supports and upholds, and an opposing Catholic candidate’s platform did not support these issues, vote goes to the atheist. An unlikely scenario perhaps, but one need only look at the likes of Nancy Pelosi to realize that we won’t get very far if we cast our vote based solely on a politician’s professed faith identity. These days, it seems almost a “Catholic” politician is the one you want to stay far away from. But, we can still hope and pray for that to change someday.

If all the non-negotiables are equally supported, I’d cast my vote for the Catholic, unless some other negotiable issues were opposed by them in such a way as to be a clear detriment to the future of our society.

 

[peacefulwarrior]

It wouldn’t matter much…
I’ve met atheists that act more catholic that most catholic people i know.
They just have to share the ideals…
I’m mostly liberal, except for a few issues. unfortunately they are the ones i cant go against (non-negotiables)
so i’m always in a rock and hard place…

 

[perro_sarnoso]

This is the lesser of two evils choice.

Not many people would admit that they didn’t vote on this last election, precisely for that reason.

I not only do not want to be reduced to the lesser of two evils but , I further don’t suspend my catholicism for anyone.

The candidates start showing their “colors” when the race starts to draw to a close. Many things are on the table that they have to comment on. This is the time that I watch for to decide who I vote for - if at all.

I didn’t vote.

 

[The_Rock]

From the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

From A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters (EWTN)
ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Question:
8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?
AnswerAs Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.

Question:
9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?

Answer:
In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above

.

 

[Outspoken]

It’s so hard to find a candidate that will actually stand up for their ‘professed’ beliefs, once elected. Though many of them might campaign using those beliefs as a way to sway voters, when it comes down to actually following through, they tend to fall apart and may just throw all of their ‘professed’ beliefs under the bus. We’ve had our own fair share of those types that have been in office for years in this state.

I sadly admit to falling for a certain candidate for governor that loudly proclaimed to be a ‘God fearing man’ that was ‘fiscally conservative’ and having profound ‘pro-family values’ (hint, hint). But, after he got into office, he raised the taxes that he promised to cut, and introduced the precursor to the national health plan (that will likely end up bankrupting this country just like it nearly has, this state). If that wasn’t bad enough, he then proceeded to be the first to sign a bill into law that allowed gay marriage. He could have rejected it and sent it back for another round on the ballot (it was a very close vote), but he said something to the effect that he was ‘giving the people of the state what they deserved’ and signed it, instead. Then, he promptly moved out of state, after he had moved back here, just in time to run for the governor’s office. Personally, I think he signed it for spite because he was taking a lot of heat for failing to do much of anything that he had promised us in his campaign. He didn’t even finish his term before running off to campaign for president, just after signing it.

In his first week in office, he also tried to do an end-run around the state legislature to make some rather unorthodox policy changes without their approval. He was quickly informed that he didn’t have that kind of power. One of his many other campaign ‘points’ was a claim that because of his ‘great experience in turning around failing businesses’ (debatable), he could bring people together from both sides of the table to get things done. That didn’t really pan out so well for him from the get go, either. Let’s just say, I will never fall for any of his lies, ever again. If he was the only choice I had, in a race against the current president, I’d rather stay home and twiddle my thumbs than ever have to admit to voting for him, again.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I was relieved when Governor Perry entered the race and gave me an option other than the Mormon, Mitt Romney. (I can’t be blamed for Obama.)

I didn’t want to vote for a man who regards the Catholic Church as “apostate” and believes his organization is God’s “restoration” of the “true faith.” But he was the best choice, or rather the only choice, I thought, until Perry got in. I wouldn’t vote for Biden, for example, for dog catcher. If a candidate were truly Catholic, that would be my choice.

Jim Dandy

P.S. Thanks, Outspoken, for your insights based on experience!

 

[Outspoken]

I was relieved when Governor Perry entered the race and gave me an option other than the Mormon, Mitt Romney. (I can’t be blamed for Obama.)

I didn’t want to vote for a man who regards the Catholic Church as “apostate” and believes his organization is God’s “restoration” of the “true faith.” But he was the best choice, or rather the only choice, I thought, until Perry got in. I wouldn’t vote for Biden, for example, for dog catcher. If a candidate were truly Catholic, that would be my choice.

Jim Dandy

P.S. Thanks, Outspoken, for your insights based on experience!

No problem, Jim Dandy! I was totally unfamiliar with his ‘faith’ before I voted for him. At the time, I used to listen to a certain talk-show guy that gushed over him. After doing some of my own research, I soon changed my opinion of both of them. Lesson learned, the hard way.

 

[seeker57]

I take a slightly different stand on this issue.

First, not voting is not an option. Our voices must be heard, even if I don’t agree with what you are saying, or vice-versa.

But, we also must remember that the elected official does not just represent Catholics, nor Christians. The official must also represent the interests of those who are marginalized or disenfranchised or hold beliefs some find objectionable.

Moreover, basing a choice simply on moral issues, or perceived moral issues as many lauded in recent elections were so much smoke and mirrors with no substance, is shortsighted.

We must elect people who will serve the best interest of the people. We need people who can govern, who can guide our nation through troubled times. Show me some ideas about how to help the economy and create jobs, address global warming, save Social Security and Medicare and, dare I mention it, provide universal health care.

I know my views on some of these subjects may no be popular here, as many here are very conservative.

But, here they are nonetheless.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[SteveGC]

I take a slightly different stand on this issue.

First, not voting is not an option. Our voices must be heard, even if I don’t agree with what you are saying, or vice-versa.

But, we also must remember that the elected official does not just represent Catholics, nor Christians. The official must also represent the interests of those who are marginalized or disenfranchised or hold beliefs some find objectionable.

I assume you know that Catholics are Christians, yes? Just making sure. An official, if instituting policy according to the Christian faith, would inherently be representing the interests of the marginalized and disenfranchised. And certainly those who hold “objectionable beliefs” are in need of protection as well, but if those beliefs are inherently and objectively immoral, and the issue at hand is whether or not to accommodate, bolster, or otherwise publicly encourage those behaviors, then I would disagree that such an official has a duty to represent those interests.

Moreover, basing a choice simply on moral issues, or perceived moral issues as many lauded in recent elections were so much smoke and mirrors with no substance, is shortsighted.

We must elect people who will serve the best interest of the people. We need people who can govern, who can guide our nation through troubled times. Show me some ideas about how to help the economy and create jobs, address global warming, save Social Security and Medicare and, dare I mention it, provide universal health care.

Ever stop to think that it’s because we’re not following objective morality in our governance of this nation that all those things you listed are going down the tank? Those issues are a distant second to the primacy of following and representing objective morals. We can’t afford to put that cart before the horse. We’ve been doing that far too long, and look where we are.

 

[exnihilo]

First, not voting is not an option. Our voices must be heard, even if I don’t agree with what you are saying, or vice-versa.

I disagree. Voting is mostly a complete and utter waste of time. Your vote will have absolutely no relevance to the election. Very few elections come down to a single vote. And if they did it would not be decided by that vote but by courts and recounts. You are more likely to die in a car wreck going to vote than for the vote to matter. Ironically the election for dog catcher is one where your vote is more likely to make a difference yet it is local elections most folks care the least about.

Your voice can be heard in many other much more effective ways. Due to the nature of our election system (single member plurality districts) the politician will generally govern based on whatever the middle ground is. The politician tends to care most about being reelected so whatever he says while campaigning is largely irrelevant. The presidency is evidence of that.

Ironically not voting is much more of a statement since the state relies on the consent of the governed. Voting is giving your consent to the system and its power. I can see voting if you agree with the power and scope of the state. But for those who dont the best thing is to not vote. You can know that is the case because all politicians really want everyone to vote. Not just for them but in general. If only 5% of the people bothered to vote that would truly frighten politicians and make them actually have some care about what the people wanted.

 

[Bluegoat]

To me there are a few very basic things that I look for first in a candidate. I am looking for someone who is honest, and really sees himself as serving the nation and the people and truth in political life. Without that, it doesn’t make much difference what his agenda is.

I like to have an idea about how he understands his role as an elected representative, and his relation to the party, and how they interact (unless he is an independent I guess.)

I’d like him to be a hard worker, and not be a nit-wit.

After that, I’m looking for more general ideas than necessarily specific ones. A general philosophy about right and wrong, our duties as citizens and a nation, and some clear ideas of how we might do those things and some real ability to work for them in government. I would never expect a party or individual to have exactly the same ideas as me on everything. And I would never expect an individual or government to be able to accomplish everything they wanted, or somehow avoid the larger problems that affect everyone (for example, no one could fix the results of the economic crisis easily.)

If a person has these things, religion per se isn’t usually going to be a factor. I’ve never been in a position where it could be the deciding factor between two equal choices. We do actually have a Christian party that runs candidates here, and I wouldn’t vote for them as their platform has very basic issues IMO.

In the last election, I probably agreed with different parties on the same number of basic issues. But I picked the one I voted for essentially on the basis of trust. The one I wouldn’t consider, it was on the basis of not trusting them at all, and thinking they would willingly lie to the public to achieve their goals.

 

[Rence]

I am curious to know as to whether most of us here would stick to their Christian morals when voting .Say we were to get a candidate ,who was a conservative, and stood for what we as Christians stand for ,only problem is that their faith maybe a little different from ours . Say they could be Muslim,MORMON(hint hint) JW , or any of the above . How many of you would vote against them because of their faith?I am asking this because we very well could get someone, voted to run against Obama ,who is not Christian (to our standards ).I know that many Catholics put their Christian morals aside to vote for Obama (I realize that may not be that crowd I am addressing ) So ,comments welcome . Thank you , Frankie

I wouldn’t vote for any candidate affilated with any religion that makes strict demands of their members to encorporate that denomination’s religious laws or rules. That candidate, like JFK before them, would have to promise that he/she would not speak for their religion on public matters, and their religion doesn’t speak for them. This is important to me, especially for a muslim or JW candidate, do to their strict religous laws. So, if I believe them and their promise, then I might vote for them.

With regards to how I vote, I use the guide put out by the US Bishops to weigh all the important topics, and choose the candidate that I believe will be beneficial to our country. For example, if I think a candidate is too weak to protect us from our enemies, I will not vote for that candidate. If I think that a candidate is taking orders from someone else (like a spouse), I will not vote for that candidate. If I think that a candidate will make changes to social security, victimizing the elderly and sick, I most certainly will not vote for that candidate. If a candidate thinks that witholding heathcare benefits from recipients already dependent on it, pulling the rug out from under them, I most certainly will not vote for that candidate. I look at the whole picture, and that’s how I vote. I also look at the web of lies that they weave during their compaign…for example, if a candidate criticizes and condemns stimulus plans, and I found out he/she then accepts stimulus money then I can’t take that candidate seriously. Who would really?

They’re all politicians. It’s going to be a matter of choosing the one who will do the least damage to our nation and our people. I want one that will look out for the people.

 

[Defender1]

I disagree. Voting is mostly a complete and utter waste of time. Your vote will have absolutely no relevance to the election. Very few elections come down to a single vote. And if they did it would not be decided by that vote but by courts and recounts. You are more likely to die in a car wreck going to vote than for the vote to matter. Ironically the election for dog catcher is one where your vote is more likely to make a difference yet it is local elections most folks care the least about.

Your voice can be heard in many other much more effective ways. Due to the nature of our election system (single member plurality districts) the politician will generally govern based on whatever the middle ground is. The politician tends to care most about being reelected so whatever he says while campaigning is largely irrelevant. The presidency is evidence of that.

Ironically not voting is much more of a statement since the state relies on the consent of the governed. Voting is giving your consent to the system and its power. I can see voting if you agree with the power and scope of the state. But for those who dont the best thing is to not vote. You can know that is the case because all politicians really want everyone to vote. Not just for them but in general. If only 5% of the people bothered to vote that would truly frighten politicians and make them actually have some care about what the people wanted.

Some may disagree with you thinking back to Bush /Gore . IT came down to the end of the wire did it not ?

 

[seeker57]

I disagree. Voting is mostly a complete and utter waste of time. Your vote will have absolutely no relevance to the election. Very few elections come down to a single vote. And if they did it would not be decided by that vote but by courts and recounts. You are more likely to die in a car wreck going to vote than for the vote to matter. Ironically the election for dog catcher is one where your vote is more likely to make a difference yet it is local elections most folks care the least about.

Your voice can be heard in many other much more effective ways. Due to the nature of our election system (single member plurality districts) the politician will generally govern based on whatever the middle ground is. The politician tends to care most about being reelected so whatever he says while campaigning is largely irrelevant. The presidency is evidence of that.

Ironically not voting is much more of a statement since the state relies on the consent of the governed. Voting is giving your consent to the system and its power. I can see voting if you agree with the power and scope of the state. But for those who dont the best thing is to not vote. You can know that is the case because all politicians really want everyone to vote. Not just for them but in general. If only 5% of the people bothered to vote that would truly frighten politicians and make them actually have some care about what the people wanted.

I disagree that voting is a waste of time. It is how we are governed in the U.S. The closer to home the vote is, the more impact that vote can have.

It is also your civic duty. Although we don’t require it by law, as they do in Australia, it is still your duty as much as serving on a jury is your duty.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[Izdaari]

Well, first of all I’m not Catholic and don’t vote primarily on the basis of Catholic social issues. A candidate’s position on abortion is something I certainly will consider, but it’s not the most important thing to me. I’m more concerned with philosophy of government, economics and foreign policy.

Now, back to the main question…

I would not vote for or against any candidate based solely on their religion (with a couple of exceptions, namely that I would not under any circumstances vote for a theistic Satanist or a radical, fundamentalist Muslim, because the first is consciously serving Satan and embracing evil, and the second is aligned with powers we’re at war with, not to mention opposing freedoms I hold dear, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and gender equality). But it is one factor to consider among many, and it does provide some insight into their thinking. I have no problem at all with voting for, say, a Mormon… and may very well end up doing just that in 2012. And so far as a candidate’s religion goes, I think a Mormon may well be preferable to a UCC person who seems to agree with Black Liberation Theology.

 

[exnihilo]

Some may disagree with you thinking back to Bush /Gore . IT came down to the end of the wire did it not ?

In my original comment I said a close election comes down to the courts and recounts. The whole hanging chad issue shows that votes are determined by the counters. The arguments for voting are these close elections. But when you actually examine what happens the courts and counters decide, not the votes.

I disagree that voting is a waste of time. It is how we are governed in the U.S. The closer to home the vote is, the more impact that vote can have.

It is also your civic duty. Although we don’t require it by law, as they do in Australia, it is still your duty as much as serving on a jury is your duty.

Statistically it is a waste of time and that is undeniable. In the US we are governed by representatives. The vote chooses the representative but the actual governing is done by the man elected. There is not much difference in the actual governing no matter who is elected.

I agree that one should serve on a jury. In that case your vote actually has a reasonable chance of making a difference. In the case of a criminal jury just one vote can prevent a finding of guilty. In a civil jury there are so few votes that yours can make an impact. But when the vote is one in 2 1/2 million it is meaningless. Also in juries your vote is actually the decision. In political elections you are merely electing a person to make decisions.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I once had the belief that you could, in American elections, vote for the “least worst” and come out okay.

Not anymore. I am only voting candidates I like, or blank ballots. Simple as that.

Conservative, traditionalist, nationalist, Christian. No more compromise.

 

[Bluegoat]

I once had the belief that you could, in American elections, vote for the “least worst” and come out okay.

Not anymore. I am only voting candidates I like, or blank ballots. Simple as that.

Conservative, traditionalist, nationalist, Christian. No more compromise.

Such a person could still be a dishonest jerk. And that will get you a government full of dishonest jerks.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I think it is safe to say that I am a single-issue voter. I cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. The pro-life candidate gets my vote. Social justice comes before all other issues.