Is It a Grave Sin to Vote Democrat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blackforest said:
Change the laws to that it isn’t made deliberately (yet passive-aggressively) impossible to emigrate here legally.
Click to expand...
That’s odd. A million people immigratae to the US legally every year. That sounds like it’s far from impossible.
 
Welshrabbit said:
So everyone claiming asylum, the vast majority of which are not legitimately seeking asylum, should be let into the country without further scrutiny?
Click to expand...
The asylum process is by its very definition scrutiny. And “legitimacy” is relative and subjective according to which federal officer handles the case, as well as their personal level of disdain for asylees.

You missed my point, however. They’re legally obliged to allow petitions for asylum at the border but are not doing it. Hence, they are breaking the law and at the defensive end of a reasonable lawsuit.

Going off-topic like this is inappropriate, however. This isn’t the first and certainly won’t be the last time the topic comes up.
 
This very question being asked, and the rather emphatic answers given, remind me of a quote (rather prophetic, in my own opinion) of George Washington:

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

When political parties became “slates,” “platforms,” and “blocks,” they ceased to worth the one value they had of limiting candidates. A representative democracy works as a democracy only when those representatives represent their constituents, not their party. That is why our government is so erratic and ineffective, swinging back and forth with every election and lacking a single direction.

I do not know if this happens everywhere, but in my locality, all elected officials run under a party platform, 95% Republican, because of this limited mentality that party trumps people. One cannot run, or vote, for another in a different primary. Thus, parties are no longer just a set of ideological groups, but an engine of power. The disparaging term “RINO” ignores this problem. With a dash of totalitarian control, and a hint of bigotry, many have defined the party as an absolute block. Yet even party platforms are not unanimous. Neither should one be required to have the exact opinions of others to have any chance to be elected.

So I do have a sympathy for Democrats who face the reverse problem and know of at least one pro-life Democrat who lives in such an area.
 
I’m not the one who brought up the happenings at the border, I’m simply commenting on it.

I didn’t miss your point. Once they show up at the border and apply for asylum, what should happen to them immediately afterwards?

Should they be held in a facility for any length of time? Should they immediately be released into the interior of the United States? Is there another alternative that I’m not seeing?

I’m honestly trying to get an idea of what people who believe that detention is unacceptable think is a viable alternative.

Please note blackforest, I’m not accusing you of making this claim but others in this thread certainly have.
 
Pope Benedict XVI (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger and Prefect of the CDF) addressed the issue in this letter to the American Bishops.

Library : Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles This is a confidential letter sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory during the first half of June stating
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org

In short you cannot vote for a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia politician if the vote is specifically for those reasons. If you vote for other, proportionate reasons despite their views on abortion or euthanasia, then it can be permissible in certain circumstances.

As an example here in South Africa we do not have a viable pro-life party. The ruling party, the ANC, is pro-abort, while the official opposition DA allows a vote of conscience on the issue (although in practice most of the senior members are sadly pro-abort as far as I know). Those are basically the only parties that matter so it would be unreasonable to say Catholics have a moral obligation to vote for a third party that has little to no hope of making any effective changes or even getting into parliament.
 
Last edited:
I’ll answer your questions, but if you wish to continue the topic, let’s please continue this elsewhere, e.g. spin-off thread.

With much flaming from the immigrant-phobic, I’d argue that yes, they should be “released” into the interior with scheduled court dates. Seeking asylum is legal. So when they seek it at a border, they shouldn’t be turned away, and they shouldn’t be locked up when they never broke a law.

Contrary to Fox News fear-mongering, the majority DO show up at their schedules hearings, and those who don’t could face the same or similar repercussions as, for example, parole violators or divorcees required to attend custody hearings. In all cases, there’s an incentive - citizenship, freedom from prison, and custody of one’s children.
 
I’m not sure how to do that, do you mean set up another thread?

There are two problems with your scenario:

1.What’s to stop literally everyone in the world from doing this and completely overwhelming our country’s social services?
  1. How do we properly vet people for a criminal history or ties to terrorism when coming across the border if we immediately release them into the interior?
Also, seeking asylum is legal as long as the applicant has a legitimate claim to asylum. If I show up at the border and claim asylum but then later admit that I am actually just looking for a job, that is not legal.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
40.png
Mark121359:
Two-Spirit
Click to expand...
I know I may regret asking…

What is two-spirit?
Click to expand...
That’s a good one vz71. I guess the only one who can answer that are the ones who are peddling this tripe.
 
Of course not. The Church doesn’t teach that voting one way or another is a grave sin. I don’t know why people would think it is.
 
vz71 said:
40.png
Mark121359:
Two-Spirit
Click to expand...
I know I may regret asking…

What is two-spirit?
Click to expand...
It’s a term used by some Native Americans to describe those who fulfill a third gender role in their culture.

From my understanding, it’s something that really only works in the specific context of Native American culture, which is why a lot of them are irritated that people outside their culture have been seizing upon the term and using it incorrectly.
 
Jimbo said:
That’s where I’m at.

I’ve voted 3rd party for a long time (with the exception of local elections). I believe it is a moral requirement to vote. But the Dems are frankly beyond the pale right now with abortion, euthanasia, and other things (like suing little sisters of the poor).

The Reps are just silly. They’ve dismantled education in my State and managed to make it horrific. And they are incredibly petty. I also don’t like how they handle the environment or how they seem prone to regulatory capture. Federally they are too hawkish for me (though that is also a democratic trait).

So for me recently, when possible, I vote or write in the American Solidarity Party.

Best I can do.
Click to expand...
The American Solidarity Party really should get more attention. Not only is its platform far more compatible with Catholicism than that of the Republicans or Democrats, it’s also perhaps the only third party I know of whose platform has any shot of actually gaining popular appeal. Unfortunately, because it’s relatively new, a lot of people don’t know of it, a fact I’m hoping that some more campaigning and word of mouth might be able to fix. It does seem to be gaining some level of attention now, at least. It actually got someone elected to an office earlier this year. Granted, it was a re-election and was a relatively minor position, but that instantly puts it ahead of about 98% of third parties.
 
MiserereMei said:
; guarantee taxpayer-funded basic housing for those who can’t afford a stable and safe home,
Click to expand...
This alone is more costly than the military budget for the next 4.5 years…it also costs 5 billion mature hardwood trees that could no longer combat global warming.
 
FYI - - the word “two-spirit” was made up in 1990.
“The primary purpose of coining a new term was to encourage the replacement of the outdated and considered offensive, anthropological term, berdache. While this new term has not been universally accepted—it has been criticized by traditional communities who already have their own terms for the people being grouped under this new term, and by those who reject what they call the “western” binary implications, such as implying that Natives believe these individuals are “both male and female””[4]—it has generally received more acceptance and use than the anthropological term it replaced.[5][6][7]

en.wikipedia.org

Two-spirit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

FYI – the term “two-spirit” replaced the term “berdache”:
"In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, French explorers, traders, and missionaries in the Mississippi Valley occasionally encountered Native Americans who could be classified neither as men nor women. They called such individuals *berdaches* , a French term for younger partners in male homosexual relationships. In fact, Plains Indian berdaches are best described as occupying an alternative or third gender role, in which traits of men and women are combined with those unique to berdache status. Male berdaches did women's work, cross-dressed or combined male and female clothing, and formed relationships with non-berdache men."
Click to expand...

Encyclopedia of the Great Plains | BERDACHE

plainshumanities.unl.edu plainshumanities.unl.edu
 
Last edited:
Loud-living-dogma said:
FYI - - the word “two-spirit” was made up in 1990.
Click to expand...
Yes, the WORD is new, but the concept is ancient. Obviously, the various tribes that had the “two-spirit” concept did not use that term - they had other words in their own languages. But it is true that the concept was common in many Native American cultures, as well as other cultures in other parts of the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top