P
Peter_Atlanta
Guest
I’ve never voted republican in a general election. This current crop of republican crooks in Congress is ensuring I never do.
If all US politicians agreed on the 5 non-negotiables, who would you elect?
- Status
P
Philip_P
Guest
So couldn’t you make the argument that Catholic who find themselves as Democratic constituents should work for change within their party rather than abandoning it? I mean, you could expand the argument on a larger scale. In many ways, the US is far from an ideal country for Catholics. Should Catholics, for that reason, abandon it, or should they not rather work within to transform it?
C
CatQuilt
Guest
In an encyclical officially stating the Catholic Church’s positions on a variety of social issues, published March, 1991, Pope John Paul II utterly condemned Socialism, saying:
“Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order.”
The Democrat Party has been taken over by those who believe in Socialism (Big Government). I could not vote Democrat again…
“Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order.”
The Democrat Party has been taken over by those who believe in Socialism (Big Government). I could not vote Democrat again…
T
trailblazer
Guest
When I consider everyone totally equal regarding non-negotiables like abortion, I voted above for democrats but after further thought, I would still lean to republicans. The reason I say this is because the democrats “in general” seem to be working to take God out of society and create an atheistic culture where any mention of God or Christian values is outlawed. Already we see some politicians trying to implement “hate” legislation where the government decides what “hate” is–such as speaking out against homosexual activity and perhaps even abortion. If this would happen, our priests would be restricted what they say under US law, even on topics defined by the Church. To me the democrats seem anti-God. On the other hand, many republicans seem to embrace freedom of religion and many Christian norms in sexual promiscuity and other areas. But the republican could do much more towards the environment and assisting the needy. As Catholics we are responsible for the enculturation of our faith – thus we must do everything in our power to make God issues societal issues, beginning with belief in God and the sacredness of all human life.
The gentleman above from Atlanta called republicans crooks. Specifically which republicans and specifically what did they steal and from whom? I’d like to see proof that all republicans are crooks beginning with all our leglislators, but at the same time apply equal weight to the democrats. Because Clinton liked to play with cigars and young women, because Kerry had questionable Vietnam activity (I am a Vietnam Vet), and because Sen Kennedy had that incident in his ealy life – does that mean all democrats fall in these categories…certainly not!
The gentleman above from Atlanta called republicans crooks. Specifically which republicans and specifically what did they steal and from whom? I’d like to see proof that all republicans are crooks beginning with all our leglislators, but at the same time apply equal weight to the democrats. Because Clinton liked to play with cigars and young women, because Kerry had questionable Vietnam activity (I am a Vietnam Vet), and because Sen Kennedy had that incident in his ealy life – does that mean all democrats fall in these categories…certainly not!
P
Philnik
Guest
The funny thing about the five things you want to imagine changed is that they all seem like Democratic issues. I voted other, because the possiblilty seems so outrageous, that these five would change without a subsequent change in other areas of the party platforms.
Would the choice be between workers’ rights and the environment (Democratic), or sexual morality - condoms, pornography, divorce - and possibly school vouchers (Republican?)?
Can’t we just have a Carolingian Party? (The “K” would be a bad choice in this land, for obvious reasons.)
Would the choice be between workers’ rights and the environment (Democratic), or sexual morality - condoms, pornography, divorce - and possibly school vouchers (Republican?)?
Can’t we just have a Carolingian Party? (The “K” would be a bad choice in this land, for obvious reasons.)
C
chicago
Guest
Philip P:
It’s my opinion that both major parties need to be leavened by Catholics and that one must, practically speaking, bloom where they are planted within the political landscapes unique realities. (If only Democrats or only Republicans ever tend to get elected in the districts in which one lives, it is probably a waste of resources to spend all kinds of effort on a losing battle with the opposition party). That said, I also do not think that Catholics ought to vote for candidates who are not pro-life and do not sincerely strive to meet the “5 non-negotiables”. If that means abstaining or voting for another candidate who is right on those issues to register your concern, then so be it.
R
Richardols
Guest
Philip P:
I do vote for the occasional Republican, usually on the basis of my personal acquaintance, but I believe that the core values that have been part of the Democratic Party over the years need be re-emphasized and brought to the fore.
That is precisely my attitude - to work within the Party and promote pro-lifers as candidates for office.
I do vote for the occasional Republican, usually on the basis of my personal acquaintance, but I believe that the core values that have been part of the Democratic Party over the years need be re-emphasized and brought to the fore.
B
BillyT92679
Guest
Philip P:
Catholics would need to make their voices louder in general. The Republicans have listened better than the Democrats, though they are still not quite there. The Democratic platform has been unyielding in its support of causes that are oppositional to Catholicism, so it’s doubtful Catholics would have much leeway in converting them. It’s better to work within a party (the Republicans) who are more accepting of basic moral issues, and work to change the mindset on more “outer-ring” issues regarding economics.
B
BillyT92679
Guest
Well, to be fair, read Centisimus Annus (or Rerum Novarum for that matter). The Pope condemned libertarian economic policies as well.
P
Philip_P
Guest
I’m not sure economics are “outer-ring” issues at all, as our economic policies dramatically affect the shape, structure, and direction of our society. I think when most people here “economics” they think “money,” but it’s really much more in depth than that. Take the recent bankruptcy law, for instance, that makes it harder for most people to declare bankrupty (though not the upper income, who can declare bankruptcy and still keep most of their assets). This, combined with easy credit and low introductory rates that jump astronomically as soon as a payment is missed or even late, often trap those who are overtaken by circumstances (nearly half of bankruptcies are due to medical bills). This obviously affects things like owning your own home, being able to hold down a job, and so forth.
This is just one example. The point I’m trying to make is that we shouldn’t dismiss “economics” quite so blithely. Our decisions here are often more subtle and invisible than, say, an amendment on marriage, but nonetheless profoundly impacts society (this shouldn’t be surprising. We are, after all, matter as well as spirit, and choices, even moral ones, don’t happen in a vacuum).
Also, it’s probably worth noting that Democrats aren’t socialists, at least not in the meaning of the Socialism condemned in those encyclicals (and Republicans aren’t fascists or Ayn Randian ultra-capitalists).
R
Richardols
Guest
Philip P:
Nor are most Liberals believers in the rigid absolutist “liberalism” condemned by Pius IX and Gregory XVI.
B
BillyT92679
Guest
Philip P:
The Church’s teaching is pretty clear on this; the reason we mention “five non-negotiables” is that the Church does not take this more economic-centered approach. Life and morality are at the core, and everything tentatcles out from that centerpoint. It’s not necessarily that economic issues are somehow less important, but it’s that there not* foundational* issues like abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. The world won’t crumble with capitalism or communism or anything else, but it would when it does not value life as primary.
It’s somewhat circular I suppose. One can claim, as the Marxists do (not labeling anyone a Communist) the economics are the progenitor of everything, so economic policies have to be addressed firstly, providing economic assistance, or at least subsistance for the poor would reduce abortions, prevent social discord et. al. The issue with that is, oftentimes it’s middle income or upper income folks who have the abortions, who advocate gay marriage and euthanasia. The poor are traditionalist and are the backbone of the Church. (I said “traditionalist” and not conservative.)
The Church’s teaching is pretty clear on this; the reason we mention “five non-negotiables” is that the Church does not take this more economic-centered approach. Life and morality are at the core, and everything tentatcles out from that centerpoint. It’s not necessarily that economic issues are somehow less important, but it’s that there not* foundational* issues like abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. The world won’t crumble with capitalism or communism or anything else, but it would when it does not value life as primary.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Although ironically, many political liberals today champion what are traditionally “conservative” economic policies while many modern political conservatives champion “liberal” economics. Recall that political liberalism and conservatism came out of the transition from the late middle ages/early modern era (or late renaissance, or whatever you want to call Europe from the 18th through 19th centuries) to the modern era, when conservative economics was mainly in opposition to the new capitalist model.
And on non-negotiables, well I missed the discussion I’m sure went on back in 2004, but I’ll add a few thoughts anyway. Even assuming that one vote solely on, say, abortion, I think it’s far from clear that the Republicans are the obvious choice. To vote for Republicans based on abortion you would have to assume, 1) that making abortion illegal is the SOLE, BEST goal for the pro-life community, 2) that this goal is achievable, within a relatively short time, and 3) the negative consequences of ignoring other issues are outweighed by the probable likelihood of success on reducing abortions.
For myself, none of these assumptions held true (presumably for pro-lifers who voted for Bush, they did). It makes no sense, for instance, for someone who was convinced that Iraq was an unjust war (and most Catholics worldwide did; politically conservative American Catholics are distinctly in the minority on this), and who is unconvinced that Pres. Bush could deliver on abortion, to vote for President Bush.
T
Trelow
Guest
Philip P:
Sure because to vote for someone whose only constant was his pledge to renege on the Mexico City policy, thereby funding thousands upon thousands of abortions, is the Catholic thing to do. Nice logic.
R
Richardols
Guest
Philip P:
You are describing my exact position and why I could not have voted for Pres. Bush. I didn’t believe that abortion would be eliminated “on his watch,” and I strongly opposed the war for the same reasons the Pope did.
R
Richardols
Guest
Were Bush and Kerry the only candidates for the U.S. Presidency in 2004?
T
Trelow
Guest
With a chance to win, yes.
Shoot, I’m much more for the Constitution party, myself. But I have to play the best hand that can win, kinda silly to draw for four of a kind when your holding a full house.
My personal favorite is the Patriot Party.
patriotparty.us/
but unfortunately we are still a two party system.
C
chicago
Guest
And how did the Republicans get to the point where they are now save by people working within that party to get them to a point where moral issues mattered as a priority?
C
CatQuilt
Guest
Excellent points!
C
CatQuilt
Guest
Philip P:
I believe the War on Terror is a just war and if President Bush is able to confirm conservative judges, he may be able to deliver on abortion. He and the Republican Congress were able to get a partial-birth abortion ban signed into law. The courts are not yet with the program. Read the book, “Men in Black” by Mark Levin to understand the problems we face with the courts.
- Status