If all US politicians agreed on the 5 non-negotiables, who would you elect?

[Richardols]

CatQuilt:

I believe the War on Terror is a just war

Yes, many conservative Catholics believe that. Other Catholics didn’t.

if President Bush is able to confirm conservative judges, he may be able to deliver on abortion.

Two big ifs - that he’ll get the judges he wants and that they’ll do as expected before he leaves office. And, at best, his judges might overturn Roe v Wade, which still wouldn’t abolish abortion.

 

[jlw]

Tough one.

OK…I think that if laws were passed:

Outlawing abortion
Contraception was not being pased out in public schools
Declaring marriage to be “one man, one woman”

Then, the culture would change:

Less out-of-wedlock births, more marriage, less one-parent families, LESS POVERTY. Welfare rolls cut drastically.

With more two-parent homes, children school performance goes up, less dilinquency, less need for “more funding”. less drop-out rates, more graduates, more opportunities available.

The need for government would go down significantly.

With a culture less dependant on government, what will happen??

I think I would vote for…

The strongest party on national security
The party that taxes consumerism, not paychecks
The party that stands most with religious freedom
The party that is toughest on crime
The party that wants higher academic and behavioral standards in public schools
The party that stands for private property rights
The party that stands for the right to bear arms
The party that is not supported by plantiff attorneys or entertainers

 

[Peter_Atlanta]

Philip P:

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?

Many of us are working to change the Democratic Party.

 

[jlw]

Richardols:

Two big ifs - that he’ll get the judges he wants and that they’ll do as expected before he leaves office. And, at best, his judges might overturn Roe v Wade, which still wouldn’t abolish abortion.

Get the judges…check

When they overturn Roe (pre or post ’ 08) is not the issue.

But when they DO overturn Roe, 45 out of 50 states will eventually outlaw abortion in all cases except life/death of the mother…check

Moving the ball.

 

[jim_orr]

Richardols:

Yes, many conservative Catholics believe that. Other Catholics didn’t.
Two big ifs - that he’ll get the judges he wants and that they’ll do as expected before he leaves office. And, at best, his judges might overturn Roe v Wade, which still wouldn’t abolish abortion.

You are quite the apologist for the Democrat Party. Nothing anybody says to you sways your thinking. Even here you seem to think abortion always was and always will be because of some all powerful force. The facts are that for sometime abortion was outlawed except for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies for example. It was the movement within the Democrat Party that started to make changes in the laws at state levels such as heavy Democrats states like New York and Califonia that liberalized the laws against abortion.

It is not a coincidence that the Democrat Party is also the party that seems to be out of touch with Judeo-Christian values of the majority of the American electorate. So, just where does your confidence come from that if your party switched its position on the 5 non-negotiables that the Democrat Party would have the moral clarity and fortitude to govern by rules of “conduct” taught by the Church? It seems to me that the moral teachings of the Church are irrelevant to their governing decisions, and that it is more a matter of doing what is needed to fool enough people to vote for them so that they can get control of the reins of power and continue to do what they want in forming a socialist government along the structure of a NAZI state.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I vote the American Nazi Party.

 

[Philip_P]

jim orr:

You are quite the apologist for the Democrat Party. Nothing anybody says to you sways your thinking. Even here you seem to think abortion always was and always will be because of some all powerful force. The facts are that for sometime abortion was outlawed except for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies for example. It was the movement within the Democrat Party that started to make changes in the laws at state levels such as heavy Democrats states like New York and Califonia that liberalized the laws against abortion.

If you have reliable figures for how many abortions occurred prior to Roe v. Wade, I’d be interested. A great deal of the Repulicans=Pro-Life argument hinges on the question of how abortion’s legal status affects abortion rates.

 

[Richardols]

jim orr:

You are quite the apologist for the Democrat Party.

Thanks. But, there are a lot more on this Forum who are quite the apologists for the Republican Party. It’s an imbalance of apologists, but I do the best I can. Luckily, I’m not the Lone Ranger on these various threads.

 

[Richardols]

Scott_Lafrance:

I vote the American Nazi Party.

No one here can accuse you of following Tweedledee or Tweedledum, Scott.

 

[Richardols]

Peter_Atlanta:

Many of us are working to change the Democratic Party.

Ahh! That’s what I need to hear!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Peter_Atlanta:

Many of us are working to change the Democratic Party.

What are you going to change it into? I have a few namaes I could recommend.

 

[Richardols]

jim orr:

heavy Democrats states like New York and Califonia that liberalized the laws against abortion.

And when he signed those liberalized laws into being in California, Reagan was a Democrat?

 

[Richardols]

jlw:

Get the judges…check

The Dems have approved nearly all the judges Bush has nominated for federal posts, which is more than the Republicans approved for Clinton. Don’t be so greedy.

When

they overturn Roe (pre or post ’ 08) is not the issue.*

It certainly is. That’s not a given. Even the former USAG (a Republican!) called it “the law of the land.”

But when they DO overturn Roe, 45 out of 50 states will eventually outlaw abortion in all cases except life/death of the mother…check

If they do, fine.

 

[jlw]

The Dems have approved nearly all the judges Bush has nominated for federal posts, which is more than the Republicans approved for Clinton. Don’t be so greedy.

Greed?? How about fair?? What in the heck are elections for??? If they democrats oppose these judges the can VOTE against them!! But for goodness sake, give them a vote!!!

It certainly is. That’s not a given. Even the former USAG (a Republican!) called it “the law of the land.”

Right. It certainly IS the law of the land. An unjust law, but a law nonetheless.

Bush’s prolife “legacy” (or Frist’s for that matter) will center on those judges’ confirmation to the high court. Bush has nothing to do with when the SCOTUS will hear an abortion case will he?? Roe probably won’t be overturned before ’ 08, but when it is, pro-lifers will look back at 2005 as a watershed year.

If they do, fine

You sound disappointed.*

 

[Apologia100]

Why isn’t the Rev. Sun Myung Moon on the list of options?

 

[jim_orr]

Richardols:

It’s an imbalance of apologists, but I do the best I can. Luckily, I’m not the Lone Ranger on these various threads.

Spoken as a true liberal would look at it - in terms of “equal amounts” rather than facts, truth, and results.

But I’ll put that aside because I am more interested in your answer to the question I asked that you ignored or didn’t see, giving you the benefit of doubt. That question was in the lead off of the second paragraph which I am posting as follows:

“It is not a coincidence that the Democrat Party is also the party that seems to be out of touch with Judeo-Christian values of the majority of the American electorate. So, just where does your confidence come from that if your party switched its position on the 5 non-negotiables that the Democrat Party would have the moral clarity and fortitude to govern by rules of “conduct” taught by the Church?”

 

[jim_orr]

Richardols:

And when he signed those liberalized laws into being in California, Reagan was a Democrat?

Reagan was a long time Republican by then. He signed the Democrat legislation liberalizing the abortion restrictions in California on his understanding from the Democrats and their witnesses that it would only result in about 100-150 procedures a year.

 

[chicago]

jim orr:

You are quite the apologist for the Democrat Party. Nothing anybody says to you sways your thinking.

Well, if that ain’t the pot callin’ the kettle black!

 

[chicago]

jlw:

Bush’s prolife “legacy” (or Frist’s for that matter) will center on those judges’ confirmation to the high court. Bush has nothing to do with when the SCOTUS will hear an abortion case will he?? Roe probably won’t be overturned before ’ 08, but when it is, pro-lifers will look back at 2005 as a watershed year.

You’re assuming that Bush will have a chance to appoint judges to the high court. I’m not so confident that will be the case. Other than Rhenquist who may be forced to resign due to his health, I don’t know that the others don’t like their jobs enough to want to keep them and dislike Bush enough to not want to let him appoint their successors. We heard all of this talk about how so many of them were likely to resign during Bush’s last term of 4 years. They didn’t, though. Not a one. What is there to give us hope that they will resign now?

More likely, the great number of appointments, then, will be under the presidency of whoever follows GWB.

 

[jim_orr]

chicago:

Well, if that ain’t the pot callin’ the kettle black!

The major distinction between this “pot” and that “kettle” is I used to be a Catholic Democrat when Catholics were Catholic, and Democrats respected them and their moral principles, beginning with life, marriage and defense of freedom.

As the Democrat Party became “blacker and blacker” drifting to the socialist left, first on defense and then abandoning the babies, the most precious and loving gift from God, my eyes started opening, followed by my mind. I know how emotionally hard it is to leave the Democrat Party, but like a spouse who is cheating on you more and more with no remorse, you are a fool to stay married.

I eventually “divorced” the Democrat Party and remained single for several years while getting to know myself again and meeting new friends. I discovered during that time that those Republican “pots” were not as “black” as I had been told and believed. In fact, I found them quite decent and honorable. Their “color” was shinier more true through and through. Eventually, I started “dating” them and when I heard the news in 1978, or there about, that they “adopted” a Prolife plank at their national convention, I became engaged and “married” the Republican Party the next day and she hasn’t cheated on me, yet, nor have I regretted my decision. We have our problems at times, as all relationships do, but it has a solid foundation based on life, the sanctity of marriage, and freedom.

Looking back at my “old spouse” and my “new one” is a natural human thing to do, occasionally. The difference between the two is the difference between living behind the “Iron Curtain” and living in America.

So, with that perspective, I am a defender of America and what it stood for before the Democrat Party started its descent into Hell…for certainly, no honest Catholic Democrat can say that the 5 non-negotiables are not dealing with the works of Satan. God said he has placed before us Life and Death…choose Life, was His directive to us. The Democrat Party has chosen…Death.

My question to Richardols, or any Catholic Democrat, concerns the source for his confidence in the Democrat Party’s willingness to “follow” Church principles in any areas given its history of the past 40 years. I find such thinking to be “partisan” in nature, and based not on perspective. “Perspective” is defined as: "the capacity to view things in their **true **relations or relative importance <by failing to maintain an historical ~ …they…fail to see the solution - Herbert Ratner>

Like the singer says in Moulin Rouge - I only seek the truth…I only seek the truth…I only seek the truth.