Informed "Good" Voting Decision

[Roman_Catechism]

I guess I’ll start by saying that I really want to vote for Ron Paul. However, I don’t take voting lightly. I think that their opinions on each issue need to be carefully considered; I think that as Catholics we’re obligated to vote in such a way that we prevent as much evil and promote as much good as possible.

I think Ron Paul is a really good candidate in many ways. He is courageously pro-life and is the only truly consistent candidate I know about. However, I am just not sure I can agree with his positions on some of the issues. It seems as if his stance on illegal immigration is not fair to the immigrant, and as such seems contrary to gospel values. You can read about his viewpoints on his campaign website here.

Are his stances on these issues listed truly contrary to the faith, or am I just misunderstanding? Or if they really are contrary to the Catholic faith, would I be making the wrong decision in voting for this candidate, or would it be better to vote for some independent candidate who could be considered closer to the ideal but cannot be feasibly be elected?

Note that, obviously, your answers will of necessity be somewhat subjective; that is why I wish to focus more on whether or not his all of his proposals, especially regarding the health care mandate, illegal immigration, defense and tax reform can be reasonably considered within or closest to an ideal candidate from the point of view of Catholic social teaching, etc.

Please don’t derail the thread with flaming or bashing politicians or parties.

I would also like to point out from the get-go that I am not a “liberal” or a “conservative.” That is not what this thread is about; I want to make a truly informed voting decision and ensure that my vote is a “good” one from the point of view of orthodox Catholic social teaching, at the very least in your opinion.

 

[martininthefiel]

You should read this:
scribd.com/doc/67635187/Forming-Consciences-for-Faithful-Citizenship-2011

One should vote in accordance with one’s conscience, which should certainly be informed by one’s faith. Catholic social teaching should guide your civic behavior, but the Church is not a political club, and people of good will can disagree. There are no perfect political candidates.

There are elements in the platforms of both political parties that support Church teaching, and elements that are clearly contrary. Only you can decide the candidate who, on balance, seems to you to be most in line with Catholic teaching.

 

[Roman_Catechism]

You should read this:
scribd.com/doc/67635187/Forming-Consciences-for-Faithful-Citizenship-2011

One should vote in accordance with one’s conscience, which should certainly be informed by one’s faith. Catholic social teaching should guide your civic behavior, but the Church is not a political club, and people of good will can disagree. There are no perfect political candidates.

There are elements in the platforms of both political parties that support Church teaching, and elements that are clearly contrary. Only you can decide the candidate who, on balance, seems to you to be most in line with Catholic teaching.

I knew I would mostly get answers like this, and that’s why I asked for your opinion. You haven’t given me that. This is a forum.

I know good and well that the Church is not a political organization. However, this link will definitely help, so thank you.

 

[St_Francis]

My opinion, which is as much according to Church teaching as I know, is that the only issue the Church would have with his positions might be amnesty, or what to do with people who are here illegally.

Also, it seems that the US bishops advocate some improvement in our immigration laws, which he does not mention.

A form of something like amnesty is for those here illegally to pay a fine and to then become regularized. Another idea is for those who complete a college education or to serve in the military.

The US Catholic bishops advocate some sort of amnesty-like plan, but not a free ticket like amnesty proper, iyswim.

I used to think that we should make a deadline by which all those illegally here should leave, but it was pointed out to me that our government was not enforcing the law and our businesses were practically inviting them in, so it seems unfair to expect those here illegally to have had more respect for our laws than we ourselves did. That made sense to me, so I now agree with the bishops.

The problem is that no candidate will fill Catholic principles completely. I think Paul’s ideas on immigration are pretty much in the middle, and that the president will probably not have that much of an effect on the issue, anyway.

Maybe you could score the candidates and weight the issues. So immigration would to me be say a 3 on the scale of 1 to 5, and Paul’s score maybe an 80, so he’d get a 240 in this issue. But the life issues would be a 5, and he seems strong on that, would he be at 100%? which give him a total score of 740 on this two issues.

As a counter, Obama would score 0 on pro-life, so even if he scored perfectly on immigration, he’d only be at 240.

 

[Nate13]

In my opinion Paul is not a bad choice. Foreign policy seems to be where the Republican party parts ways with him. However much of this may be due to the fact that he doesn’t have all the information that the President of the United States would access to. I believe this would make quite a difference considering how Obama turned out with respect to foreign policy. In all respects foreign policy at least military wise has been one of Obama’s strong points. If Obama can do a decent job on foreign policy I’m sure Paul could do equally well.

As far as issues relating to life go, I believe Paul is at least as pro-life as Gingrich or Romney. The real question is not whether they are personally pro-life or not though, but how hard they will push for it legislatively. Will they put a ban on embryonic stem cell research? Will they make sure to put forward pro-life judges? or will they just put forward a lot of well meaning rhetoric that ends up not getting us anywhere?

I currently would trust Paul more than I would Romney to get something done on the issue. Gingrich is kind of a wild card, and I haven’t really been able to pin the guy down yet. In any event I know I could vote for Paul with a clean conscience. My number one pick right now is Santorum though

 

[Roman_Catechism]

My opinion, which is as much according to Church teaching as I know, is that the only issue the Church would have with his positions might be amnesty, or what to do with people who are here illegally.

Also, it seems that the US bishops advocate some improvement in our immigration laws, which he does not mention.

A form of something like amnesty is for those here illegally to pay a fine and to then become regularized. Another idea is for those who complete a college education or to serve in the military.

The US Catholic bishops advocate some sort of amnesty-like plan, but not a free ticket like amnesty proper, iyswim.

I used to think that we should make a deadline by which all those illegally here should leave, but it was pointed out to me that our government was not enforcing the law and our businesses were practically inviting them in, so it seems unfair to expect those here illegally to have had more respect for our laws than we ourselves did. That made sense to me, so I now agree with the bishops.

The problem is that no candidate will fill Catholic principles completely. I think Paul’s ideas on immigration are pretty much in the middle, and that the president will probably not have that much of an effect on the issue, anyway.

Maybe you could score the candidates and weight the issues. So immigration would to me be say a 3 on the scale of 1 to 5, and Paul’s score maybe an 80, so he’d get a 240 in this issue. But the life issues would be a 5, and he seems strong on that, would he be at 100%? which give him a total score of 740 on this two issues.

As a counter, Obama would score 0 on pro-life, so even if he scored perfectly on immigration, he’d only be at 240.

You’re right, but I just wanted to discuss with other Catholics how well they think this particular candidate does. This is a good idea. I guess I’ll have to study the websites of the other candidates more. Can you provide a link explaining? Do you mean parts of the Healthcare law, specifically?

In my opinion Paul is not a bad choice. Foreign policy seems to be where the Republican party parts ways with him. However much of this may be due to the fact that he doesn’t have all the information that the President of the United States would access to. I believe this would make quite a difference considering how Obama turned out with respect to foreign policy. In all respects foreign policy at least military wise has been one of Obama’s strong points. If Obama can do a decent job on foreign policy I’m sure Paul could do equally well.

As far as issues relating to life go, I believe Paul is at least as pro-life as Gingrich or Romney. The real question is not whether they are personally pro-life or not though, but how hard they will push for it legislatively. Will they put a ban on embryonic stem cell research? Will they make sure to put forward pro-life judges? or will they just put forward a lot of well meaning rhetoric that ends up not getting us anywhere?

I currently would trust Paul more than I would Romney to get something done on the issue. Gingrich is kind of a wild card, and I haven’t really been able to pin the guy down yet. In any event I know I could vote for Paul with a clean conscience. My number one pick right now is Santorum though

I definitely believe Paul is committed to life at the very least on a personal level. He apparently delivered babies. He has been consistent so I also think he would push for pro-life legislation better than any other Republican candidate, even though it would not be the main focus of his legislation. You know. Jobs and all.

Oh and you do know Santorum has no chance of being the Republican nominee, right? Sorry buddy. By contrast, I think that Ron Paul has a shot even as a write-in. I’m optimistic! Plus he has good numbers in a few upcoming state primaries.

Thanks for the responses.

 

[St_Francis]

Roman Catechism,
No, I wasn’t referring to health care at all… Obama is extremely pro-choice, having worked, spoken, and voted against a law that even NARAL thought acceptable; it’s not just the healthcare bill, which merely provides more evidence.

 

[martininthefiel]

I think it would be improper in the context of this forum for me to say whether or not I would vote for Ron Paul, or whom else I favor. I will say that Paul’s initial answer on the uninsured certainly gave me pause, although he did clarify his response afterward in somewhat less harsh terms. On the other hand, I largely agree with Paul on issues of war and peace, and on the futility of our trying to arrest our way out of our drug problem. All of these have spiritual implications.

The president cannot, on his own, make abortion legal or illegal in the United States. That’s up to the legislature and the courts.

Whom the president is likely to appoint to the Supreme Court, and to other Federal courts is certainly a relevant, but his stance on abortion is only one consideration in this. There are other social and economic concerns that come before the courts, as well, and some of the current court’s economic and criminal justice decisions are, in my mind, not in keeping with Church teachings, or with my personal convictions. (BTW, there is currently not a single Protestant on the US Supreme Court. Catholics, at least nominal Catholics, are in the majority. The rest are Jews.)

Personally, I don’t find a single one of the current crop of presidential candidate to
my liking. I will hold my nose and vote for somebody.

I live in Michigan. Romney will likely win here, because he is from here originally.