It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

  • Thread starter Thread starter CPA2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sedonaman said:
Nothing is ever easy. This is from the IRS:

Political Campaign Activity – Churches and Religious Organizations

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity.

In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Substantial Lobbying Activity

In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Churches and religious organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Measuring Lobbying Activity

Substantial part test. Whether a church’s or religious organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial. Churches must use the substantial part test since they are not eligible to use the expenditure test described in the next section.

See the rest here irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf.
Click to expand...
I read the link in the appropriate sections. The Church does not jeopardize it’s tax status by guiding her members regarding voting for or against a specific canditate. Otherwise to deny this right to the Church, is to violate the 1st amendment.

The Church can’t actively go out and campaign for or against a candidate.
 
Getting to the original post: I believe that it is possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life.

I am pro-choice in the sense that, even though I think abortion i wrong, I agree with the Supreme Court that the state has no right to prohibit women from having abortion. I believe it is too great an intrusion into a woman’s right over her body to criminalize abortion.

On the other hand- abortion is wrong and we should do a much as we can to PERSUADE (not force) women to protect the child and let it live.

So I do not believe it is a sin to vote for someone who is against criminalizing abortion.
 
On the question of whether I would prefer Saddam over the current state:
  1. from an international law point of view I would say that starting wars of aggression is a terrible precedent and should not be done- even if to overthrow a murderous man like saddam.
  2. I supported the original invasion but what I find really criminal is the incompetent execution of teh war by Bush and the torture of Iraqis by the US army. I can imagine a situation where the invasion was well planned and there was no torture involved- that might be a moral war. What Bush did was sinful.
 
**If all Catholics practiced their religion Obama or any other Pro Abortion
candidate would never get elected. Unfortunately alot of Catholics talk
out of both sides of their mouths. You can never vote for a candidate that is
ProChoice no matter what. It is better to not vote, then to loose your soul!

janetl20

**
 
csuliman said:
Getting to the original post: I believe that it is possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life.

I am pro-choice in the sense that, even though I think abortion i wrong, I agree with the Supreme Court that the state has no right to prohibit women from having abortion. I believe it is too great an intrusion into a woman’s right over her body to criminalize abortion.

On the other hand- abortion is wrong and we should do a much as we can to PERSUADE (not force) women to protect the child and let it live.

So I do not believe it is a sin to vote for someone who is against criminalizing abortion.
Click to expand...
This is self-contradictory. It is beyond that; it is inane. It is the same as saying “I think human trafficking is wrong, but who am I to say that people who want to do it can’t do it?”
 
janetl20 said:
If all Catholics practiced their religion Obama or any other Pro Abortion
candidate would never get elected. Unfortunately alot of Catholics talk
**out of both sides of their mouths. You can never vote for a candidate that is **
ProChoice no matter what. It is better to not vote, then to loose your soul!

janetl20
Click to expand...
True

The CCC states

**2271 **Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

**2272 **Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

**2322 **From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (*GS *27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

**2274 **Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
 
I find it funny how the “Seperation of Church and State” is always harped on by those who disagree with Church doctrine and want to limit Church activities and freedom to teach. But most of the time it is actually the State interfering with the Church’s right and duty to teach truth regardless of how it may offend politically correct secular sensitivities. The State tries but can’t dictate what is a sin or not, as many things that are or have been legal are morally wrong. Slavery was legal, taking the land away from Indians was legal, interning Americans into POW camps because of race was legal, gulags were legal, etc etc.
What is legal changes with every new political wind that blows, but the Truth is eternal.

Where I am all political candidates support “choice” so I don’t vote for any of them. I do go to the polls and cast a spoiled ballat because that is a freedom that many suffered and died to give me and I respect their sacrifice. I don’t know what is worse candidates who are pro choice, or those who profess to be pro life, but support a woman’s “right” to choose.
 
Sorry if this is off track, but it is related.

Are there any California Catholics out there as confused as me on these candidates for California Governor?

As far as I can tell, all candidates, Democrat (Brown) and Republican (Poizner and Whitman) have views on abortion that are not in line with the Catholic Church.

Brown and Whitman appear to be the worst. Poizner might be the least offensive to Catholic teaching, but he has dramatically flip-flopped. This could mean he lacks conviction on this issue and will flip-flop again.

My wife and I believe we may be committing a sin by voting for any of them. We are considering not voting at all, believing that their views disqualify them as candidates.
 
csuliman said:
Getting to the original post: I believe that it is possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life.

I am pro-choice in the sense that, even though I think abortion i wrong, I agree with the Supreme Court that the state has no right to prohibit women from having abortion. I believe it is too great an intrusion into a woman’s right over her body to criminalize abortion.

On the other hand- abortion is wrong and we should do a much as we can to PERSUADE (not force) women to protect the child and let it live.

So I do not believe it is a sin to vote for someone who is against criminalizing abortion.
Click to expand...
Welcome to being a moral relativist! It is a big crowd, filled with those who won’t take a stand.
 
Rusyn0802 said:
Sorry if this is off track, but it is related.

Are there any California Catholics out there as confused as me on these candidates for California Governor?

As far as I can tell, all candidates, Democrat (Brown) and Republican (Poizner and Whitman) have views on abortion that are not in line with the Catholic Church.

Brown and Whitman appear to be the worst. Poizner might be the least offensive to Catholic teaching, but he has dramatically flip-flopped. This could mean he lacks conviction on this issue and will flip-flop again.

My wife and I believe we may be committing a sin by voting for any of them. We are considering not voting at all, believing that their views disqualify them as candidates.
Click to expand...
You have an obligation to vote. Learn about ALL of the candidates and vote for the least morally offensive candidate. You may want to voice your concerns about abortion to each of the candidates. It is up to Christians to make abortion a politically “hot potato.”
 
csuliman said:
Getting to the original post: I believe that it is possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life.

I am pro-choice in the sense that, even though I think abortion i wrong, I agree with the Supreme Court that the state has no right to prohibit women from having abortion. I believe it is too great an intrusion into a woman’s right over her body to criminalize abortion.

On the other hand- abortion is wrong and we should do a much as we can to PERSUADE (not force) women to protect the child and let it live.

So I do not believe it is a sin to vote for someone who is against criminalizing abortion.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court has NO jurisdiction over abortion because abortion is about divine law. Roe versus Wade is not worth the paper that it is written on. An unjust law is no law at all. The emperor has no clothes.

The source of the “rule of law” goes back to Divine Law. The Declaration of Independence uses the words, the “equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” What do these words really mean?

The ideas of the source of legitimate law were being formulated by the Catholic Church before the Magna Carta. Truth always goes back to the source of truth, which is public revelation, commonly known as the Holy Scriptures.

ANY LAW IN TRANSGRESSION OF DIVINE LAW IS INVALID! An unjust law is no law at all! **Such laws are to be defied because they do not exist. ** There is no basis for them. A recent example is Spain’s “laws” on marriages and adoptions. Pope Benedict has ordered citizens of Spain who work in adoption agencies to defy Spain’s new laws of illicit marriages and adoptions. Workers in adoption agencies are to refuse to fill out any paperwork or grant adoption of children to illicit and unnatural marriage unions. Spain’s new law disobeys natural law. NO HUMAN LAW AGAINST NATURAL LAW IS VALID!

I repeat myself again. There is Divine Law, Natural Law and Civil Law, in that order. Man only has control over civil law. **Each type of law is separate and you cannot substitute one type of law for another type of law. **

The days of Roe vs. Wade are numbered. Roe vs. Wade is not worth the paper that it is written on. The decision of the Supreme Court violates natural law. The legal veil that covers abortion was mistakenly recognized by the Supreme Court, and the decision will be overturned. The reason is simple. The Constitution and American history guarantee equal dignity to all people. The names differ, but at various times in our history people were deprived of their rights. The Supreme Court gave legal cover to these acts of violence; however, the Supreme Court always reversed itself. The most famous case that comes to mind is the Dred Scott decision, the slaveholder’s right to property.

There is no precedent on abortion in the law. However, that is not unusual. The Supreme Court has reversed itself many times, especially when new evidence is brought forth that someone’s rights, not previously recognized, were violated.
 
Polycarp1 said:
I find it funny how the “Seperation of Church and State” is always harped on by those who disagree with Church doctrine and want to limit Church activities and freedom to teach. But most of the time it is actually the State interfering with the Church’s right and duty to teach truth regardless of how it may offend politically correct secular sensitivities. The State tries but can’t dictate what is a sin or not, as many things that are or have been legal are morally wrong. Slavery was legal, taking the land away from Indians was legal, interning Americans into POW camps because of race was legal, gulags were legal, etc etc.
What is legal changes with every new political wind that blows, but the Truth is eternal.

Where I am all political candidates support “choice” so I don’t vote for any of them. I do go to the polls and cast a spoiled ballat because that is a freedom that many suffered and died to give me and I respect their sacrifice. I don’t know what is worse candidates who are pro choice, or those who profess to be pro life, but support a woman’s “right” to choose.
Click to expand...
The worse are the ones that say that they see, but are blind, such as our “Catholic” secularists in Congress.
 
=CPA2;6508223]
Click to expand...
If you believe in “abortion rights,” and knowingly and willfully vote for a candidate who promises to protect those “rights,” you have committed a sin. This is especially true for Catholics who have 2,000 years of Church teaching and tradition to back them up
Click to expand...
We can commit sin in the voting booth. Everything that we say or do either affirms or denies moral law. We are either getting closer to God, or farther away from Him. Everything that we say or do either strengthens us in virtue or enslaves us in vice. You cannot sing God’s praises in the choir and then say that you believe in abortion
Click to expand...
Give me a break, You obviously have not clue of how the American legal system works. American law must promote multiple policies simultaneously in order for a free society to function. One of the policies, in addition to trying to protect life, is the policy of limited government.

The govt does not get to make every decision in this society and it can use other means other than the police power (criminalizing all abortions) to help women make better decisions in the matter of the early fetus. Late term abortion, funding of abortion is one thing, But the decision of the women in regards to the early fetus is something that arguable should be protected to promote limited govt.

The Church has no rubric of authority on matters of American civil law, only on essential matters of faith and morals. Moreover, to hold your position effectively means one cannot be Catholic and support the two party system—which is essential to this democracy.

The Church is way out of line on asserting its authority on the legal aspect of abortion----it absolutely should speak out against it from a moral viewpoint of course.

The Church is getting way too political on this issue and the media is now playing hardball on the abuse problem as payback. Talk about the moral issue not the legal issue.

Hey, got to keep the debate up. 🙂
 
Major_Tom said:
If the Church were to officially take and announce this policy, I wonder if it’s tax-exempt status should be reconsidered.
Click to expand...
Churches can lose their 5013c letter but the church is not dependent on that letter for a tax exempt status. The church is the only organization that has a specific tax exemption under the IRS code separate from the 5013c letter. The church cannot ever lose its tax exempt status.
Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status
Automatic Exemption for Churches
Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS.
Although there is no requirement to do so, many churches seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS because such recognition assures church leaders, members, and contributors that the church is recognized as exempt and qualifies for related tax benefits.
Click to expand...
irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Click to expand...
No church has ever lost its tax exempt status.
 
Major_Tom said:
If the Church were to officially take and announce this policy, I wonder if it’s tax-exempt status should be reconsidered.
Click to expand...
I would add that abortion is not just a political issue. It is also a moral issue and as such the church has the right to teach the Biblical standards without fear of reprisal from the government, law enforcement or liberals.
 
This question really opens a can of worms. Your candidate may, indeed, be opposed to abortion but may not be pro life if he/she practices or approves birth control. Anti abortion, yes, pro life, no. How are you going to truly know?
 
CPA2 said:
You have an obligation to vote. Learn about ALL of the candidates and vote for the least morally offensive candidate. You may want to voice your concerns about abortion to each of the candidates. It is up to Christians to make abortion a politically “hot potato.”
Click to expand...
So we’ve already evolved from the opening position that it is a sin full stop to vote for a candidate that supports abortion…

If abortion becomes a “hot potato”, any bets about who that would favour? Pro-choice or pro-life?
 
kage_ar said:
Welcome to being a moral relativist! It is a big crowd, filled with those who won’t take a stand.
Click to expand...
How is my position being a moral relativist? A moral relativist is someone that says “I believe that X is immoral but if you think that it is moral your position is just as valid as mine”. I clearly stated I thought abortion was wrong absolutely.

However, there is a difference between whether we deem something a wrong and whether we accept a level of state intervention to “correct it”. Abortion is wrong but it is clear to me that in a secular and free society, the government cannot have the authority to tell women they cannot have an abortion.

This point is especially important when abortion is made illegal from conception to birth. There are many in our secular society that would argue that it only becomes immoral at a stage of development where some consciousness is possible. I disagree with this (hence not being a moral relativist) but it is a different issue whether the government should criminalize behaviour that is still a matter of debate.
 
abortion is murder- so to be in favour of thisto support it’s happening is probably a sin.:o

However, go with your conscience, not with your instinct- and also don’t rely on this message board say " do it" “don’t do it” becuase ofc, none of us are God- and only

He knows what is truly right or wrong to do.🙂
👍

Therefore go with what is right, not with your instinct.

Peace xx:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top