Moral obligation to vote--is there one?

[agmoose02]

I can only speak for myself, but as things are shaping up, I see little difference between the likely candidates. I believe either would be detrimental to the pro life cause. Morally I would have a difficult time voting for any of the likely candidates. In the long run, perhaps the best thing we could do is not vote for president, only congress and local elections. Send a message that we are tired of business as usual and quasi-liberals masquerading as conservatives. If enough exit polling shows that voters went to vote but didnt vote for president perhaps both parties might start reevaluating their strategies.

 

[mamacita]

I know this may sound silly but there was a guy that was trying to campaign for president that was republican and from Chicago. He wasn’t a mainstream politician, he was a normal businessman, owned a CPA firm and a few other corporations. I think he dropped out of the race due to lack of support. So sad. He seemed like such a good candidate in my opinion. He is CAtholic (I read somewhere that he taught PSR at his Catholic parish), very Pro-Life (having been raised w/ out a father in his life) and is married w/ 4 daughters. Excellent candidate in my opinion. Would have been nice to have someone in office that wasn’t your everyday politician, know what I mean? He had lots of experience in many areas but never made it very far. But he would have been someone that actually could understand the American people since he was ‘one of us’ so to speak. Does that make any sense? (it’s early, cut me some slack )

 

[foolishmortal]

Even if you believe it’s rigged or both sides are in cohorts with each other, if that’s true, we must vote or they could think voting doesn’t matter to us. Otherwise, I think you should vote for the best of the 2 (for the national election) or least of the worst. I think I voted for Alan Keyes in the primary he was running in. He would probably be a good Catholic and the perfect one as the first black president (if fellow whites were not ready for one then). Obama sounds honest, but his party does vocally support stuff like abortion or is against states voting on it, I think. Even if our President got us into WW3, we would have time to prepare; the unborn wouldn’t. If a Democrat wins, though, I hope it’s he.

 

[briang72]

Newbie2:

briang72:

I don’t know much about politics, but I am definitely pro-life. So my vote will be for someone looking to overturn Roe v Wade as a starting point. If all of the candidates were pro-abortion, I would have a hard time voting for a president.

If that were the case, you really couldn’t use abortion stances as a measure of differences of the candidate. One of them would be elected, whether or not you vote, so it wouldn’t really be a moral decision that you’d make. Morality would come into play when you decide between the candidates on other issues, like social justice.

This is a good point. I guess it would be prudent in this situation to pick the best candidate based on other issues, but I would be disappointed in having to vote for a president that might appoint judges to the Court that will be less likely to overturn Roe. Given that a Supreme Court Justice can serve as long as he/she pleases “during good behavior”, the effects of one presidential election are rather large.

 

[mamacita]

By the way, please don’t mention candidates names or the thread will close !
Just wanted to let you all know

And also, I do agree w/ previous poster about how we NEED to vote even if there are 2 pro-choice candidates because otherwise they will think we don’t ‘care’. Plus, we have the ‘right’ to vote and should do so since not every country has such freedom in regards to voting.

Another thing I wanted to mention was you all may want to go read (online) the Voter’s Guide for Serious CAtholics. It is a great tool to help us as Catholics vote according to our Faith. Just wanted to mention that

 

[foolishmortal]

Whoops! Sorry about that using names thing!

 

[Lucania]

Ah… but the President recommends the judges who are appointed to the Federal bench and the Supreme Court! Republicans are more likely to recommend strict constructionists, who interpret what is actually in the Constitution and don’t look to read in rights that aren’t there. They don’t deal in “pemnumbras” and “echoes,” they deal in the fact that words mean things.

So the best chance of overturning Roe is to have strict constructionists on the bench.

If you are not thrillled with the candidates this election, or for what other reason you may have for sitting it out, and are pro-life, the above post is the reason you SHOULD vote! That is the only hope for the chance of Roe Vs. Wade to be overturned! The Democrat party will see that Roe Vs. Wade stays . I would never consider sitting out an election. As for whether it is a moral obligation to vote, the reason just mentioned would qualify it as a yes for me.

 

[Joe_5859]

I plan on voting in this year’s election…but my dh and I were talking, and we are just not too happy about where things are going. I would rather see repub Presidency/cabinet, than liberal. I was listening to the radio today on the way home–and the announcer read a news snippit (this is a Christian based radio program) that stated how “Dr Dobson announced that he may not even vote…” For those of you not aware of who Dobson is–he is the author of several Christian books on family, etc, and creator of “Focus on the Family.” I really enjoy his programs. So–let’s say he chooses not to vote…is that a moral problem? Are we morally obligated to vote as Catholics? Does the Bible speak of this at all?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

I have a priest friend (who is also a former military man) who always says, “Too many people died to give me the right to vote for me not to exercise that right.” He’s very passionate about it!

 

[Joe_5859]

I just came across this in the Catechism which answers the OP’s question pretty succinctly:

CCC 2240: Submission to authority and co responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country (emphasis added).

So I guess the answer would be: YES!

 

[Lucania]

I have a priest friend (who is also a former military man) who always says, “Too many people died to give me the right to vote for me not to exercise that right.” He’s very passionate about it!

I feel the same way as the good Father does! I also think that too many people take our freedoms for granted .

 

[He_Man]

Let’s say a democrat wins the election–is it unrealistic to think that that person would not ever be pro life? Without naming anyone–I have been reading up on the democratic moral issues, and it seems that at least one candidate stands for giving funding to teach abstinence. I thought that was a step in the right direction…and the other issues seemed to revolve around banning abortion–except in rare rare cases. Anyone else read up on these issues? I mean…Bush has been president for 8 years–and banning abortion (other than keeping partial birth abortion banned) never happened. What’s to say it wouldn’t happen with a democrat? I don’t think that the ‘modern moral’ democratic views are as liberal as I might have believed (or assumed)

One candidate is notorious for being vehemently pro-death, even to the point of banning medical care for children that survive abortions. (The twisted logic being, they were intended to be killed, therefore, why give them medical treament, post womb).

The other opposing (in the primaries) candidate has an even longer record of being pro-death than their opponent.

Don’t be fooled; if up to 3 USSC justices step down in the next four years, it would set the abortion fight back decades or more if they were filled with pro-death justices.

Look up the Induced Infant Liability Act…

Knowing this, how can anyone NOT vote???

 

[He_Man]

I just came across this in the Catechism which answers the OP’s question pretty succinctly:

CCC 2240: Submission to authority and co responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country (emphasis added).

So I guess the answer would be: YES!

I knew I had seen it in there, thanks for finding it for us!

 

[bobzills]

I just came across this in the Catechism which answers the OP’s question pretty succinctly:

CCC 2240: Submission to authority and co responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country (emphasis added).

So I guess the answer would be: YES!

This is interesting, but I guess that the Catholic catechism is wrong on this issue. The reason I say so is because I have read of Catholic religous who refused to pay their taxes and went to jail. They disagreed and conscientiously objected with what the government was spending on a certain issue and refused to pay the percentage of their taxes corresponding to the percentage that the government allots for the program that they were objecting to. Also, I don’t think that there is any moral obligation to join the armed forces and defend the USA interests in Iraq. And as far as voting is concerned, does that mean that we have a moral obligation to go through all of the technicalities of these endless propositions appearing on the ballot? They are written in legal language so complicated that even New York lawyers disagree on what they actually entail. If it were true that a Catholic was morally obligated to vote, this would then mean that each Catholic would have to go out and get a law degree to get an understanding of what is entailed by voting for these propositions. And as far as voting for a candidate is concerned, can you really ever be sure that the perons you are voting for will keep his promises? How many times do you vote for someone and then when in office, they do the opposite of what they had promised? How is that fulfilling any moral obligation?

 

[He_Man]

This is interesting, but I guess that the Catholic catechism is wrong on this issue. The reason I say so is because I have read of Catholic religous who refused to pay their taxes and went to jail. They disagreed and conscientiously objected with what the government was spending on a certain issue and refused to pay the percentage of their taxes corresponding to the percentage that the government allots for the program that they were objecting to. Also, I don’t think that there is any moral obligation to join the armed forces and defend the USA interests in Iraq. And as far as voting is concerned, does that mean that we have a moral obligation to go through all of the technicalities of these endless propositions appearing on the ballot? They are written in legal language so complicated that even New York lawyers disagree on what they actually entail. If it were true that a Catholic was morally obligated to vote, this would then mean that each Catholic would have to go out and get a law degree to get an understanding of what is entailed by voting for these propositions. And as far as voting for a candidate is concerned, can you really ever be sure that the perons you are voting for will keep his promises? How many times do you vote for someone and then when in office, they do the opposite of what they had promised? How is that fulfilling any moral obligation?

I believe you are over thinking it. The catechism is clear, why even go there? Especially since, none of the situations you mention apply in this case.

 

[bobzills]

I believe you are over thinking it. The catechism is clear, why even go there?

I go there because someone else brought it up. This was not brought up by me, and I am simply answering what someone else was claiming. I believe that the Catholic catechism is wrong on what it says. It is irrelevant as to whether or not it is clear, because I contend that what it says on this point is simply wrong. I don’t see any moral obligation to join the armed forces and defend the USA in Iraq, and I don’t see any moral obligation to pay that share of your taxes that is used by the government for immoral activities, and I don’t see any moral obligation for Catholics to go to law school and get a law degree so that they can understand these complicated legal provisions of propositions that they are asked to vote on, and I don;t see how we can be morally obligated to vote for candidates when we really don’t know exactly what we are voting for. They are making a lot of promises, but how many of them are broken when they finally get in power?

 

[He_Man]

I go there because someone else brought it up. This was not brought up by me, and I am simply answering what someone else was claiming. I believe that the Catholic catechism is wrong on what it says. It is irrelevant as to whether or not it is clear, because I contend that what it says on this point is simply wrong. I don’t see any moral obligation to join the armed forces and defend the USA in Iraq, and I don’t see any moral obligation to pay that share of your taxes that is used by the government for immoral activities, and I don’t see any moral obligation for Catholics to go to law school and get a law degree so that they can understand these complicated legal provisions of propositions that they are asked to vote on, and I don;t see how we can be morally obligated to vote for candidates when we really don’t know exactly what we are voting for. They are making a lot of promises, but how many of them are broken when they finally get in power?

All I am saying is, picking and choose parts of the Catechism that are or are not wrong is a Pandora’s box full of problems.

 

[Joe_5859]

This is interesting, but I guess that the Catholic catechism is wrong on this issue. The reason I say so is because I have read of Catholic religous who refused to pay their taxes and went to jail. They disagreed and conscientiously objected with what the government was spending on a certain issue and refused to pay the percentage of their taxes corresponding to the percentage that the government allots for the program that they were objecting to. Also, I don’t think that there is any moral obligation to join the armed forces and defend the USA interests in Iraq. And as far as voting is concerned, does that mean that we have a moral obligation to go through all of the technicalities of these endless propositions appearing on the ballot? They are written in legal language so complicated that even New York lawyers disagree on what they actually entail. If it were true that a Catholic was morally obligated to vote, this would then mean that each Catholic would have to go out and get a law degree to get an understanding of what is entailed by voting for these propositions. And as far as voting for a candidate is concerned, can you really ever be sure that the perons you are voting for will keep his promises? How many times do you vote for someone and then when in office, they do the opposite of what they had promised? How is that fulfilling any moral obligation?

The Catechism is speaking of general principles. We are morally obligated to protect our country. This does not mean that we have a moral obligation to join the military and go fight in Iraq. Obviously, everyone can’t be in the military. And, of course, we have to weigh whether a particular war is a just war. But if an invading army started a military conquest of our country, we certainly have a grave duty to protect the innocent.

We also have an obligation to pay taxes. Jesus himself said to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. Perhaps some specific tax laws are unjust and may require some type of social action, but that does not remove the moral obligation that, in general, we ought to pay taxes to due authority. I’m sure the Roman authorities weren’t spending all the tax money they received in morally upstanding ways, but Jesus still said to pay taxes.

And with voting, the Church does not obligate us to obtain advance degrees in political science or law. Certainly many referenda (referendums ) are not clearly worded, and that is something that should be rectified. But we all know who the political candidates are. We have ready access to learn their views on many subjects. With the social communications at our disposal, we have more of an opportunity than any previous moment in history to make a truly informed decision on who to vote for. Just because a referendum may be confusingly worded on the ballot does not negate the moral obligation to vote, in general. We should take every effort to know the issues and the candidates and make our best judgment. If you really can’t make heads or tails of it when you get to the polls (and that has happened to me!) leave that one blank. The important thing is that you make your best effort.

 

[Joe_5859]

and I don’t see any moral obligation for Catholics to go to law school and get a law degree so that they can understand these complicated legal provisions of propositions that they are asked to vote on, and I don;t see how we can be morally obligated to vote for candidates when we really don’t know exactly what we are voting for. They are making a lot of promises, but how many of them are broken when they finally get in power?

Ultimately, the moral responsibility for a candidate’s broken promises lies with that candidate, not with us. We are obligated to make the most informed decision possible. This doesn’t mean we are obligated to quit our job and spend all of our time watching CSPAN and arranging personal interviews with each and every political candidate. Obviously, with all the candidates and issues, there is no way that we will be completely informed on a given topic or candidate. But that doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and not do our best to be informed. The decisions and policies made by politicians have a great impact on the life of society. We would be quite remiss if we didn’t take this obligation seriously.

 

[bobzills]

Ultimately, the moral responsibility for a candidate’s broken promises lies with that candidate, not with us. We are obligated to make the most informed decision possible. This doesn’t mean we are obligated to quit our job and spend all of our time watching CSPAN and arranging personal interviews with each and every political candidate. Obviously, with all the candidates and issues, there is no way that we will be completely informed on a given topic or candidate. But that doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and not do our best to be informed. The decisions and policies made by politicians have a great impact on the life of society. We would be quite remiss if we didn’t take this obligation seriously.

Have you ever voted for a candidate and it turned out that you were sorry that you voted for him or her? It happened to me and I don;t like it. I felt that I was swindled and taken in by the campaign rhetoric and if I had it to do all over again, I would vote for the other candidate. To say that we are supposed to make an informed decision is nice in theory, but in practice it really is not possible because the various candidates have polished their positions on issues to make them appeal to as many voters as possible, but once in office, things change from what they had promised during the campaign. And voting for these complicated propostions is a real mess. Many times the general public vote in favor of a particular proposition, but what happens after that? It goes to one court after another, with one appeal after another and the NY lawyers get it overturned and so it turns out that the opposite of what you had voted for goes into effect.

 

[Joe_5859]

Have you ever voted for a candidate and it turned out that you were sorry that you voted for him or her? It happened to me and I don;t like it. I felt that I was swindled and taken in by the campaign rhetoric and if I had it to do all over again, I would vote for the other candidate. To say that we are supposed to make an informed decision is nice in theory, but in practice it really is not possible because the various candidates have polished their positions on issues to make them appeal to as many voters as possible, but once in office, things change from what they had promised during the campaign. And voting for these complicated propostions is a real mess. Many times the general public vote in favor of a particular proposition, but what happens after that? It goes to one court after another, with one appeal after another and the NY lawyers get it overturned and so it turns out that the opposite of what you had voted for goes into effect.

So you’re a bit disillusioned with politics, I take it?

I understand your feelings. I have also made decisions voting that I have later regretted. Certainly, it is not a good feeling, but that doesn’t mean we stop trying. We learn from it and move on. We do our best to see past the polished rhetoric, but it’s not always easy. We cannot possibly be completely informed, but we try our best. Certainly, we are not always successful. If only we could be infallible voters!

And yes, many propositions can be complicated, but not all of them are. Last election my state voted on banning smoking in public places. It passed. Now I can go bowling or out to eat and not come home smelling like I’ve been bar-hopping. We voted, it passed, and it was implemented. The system doesn’t always work, but it doesn’t always fail either. And, right now, it’s all we have, so we should do our best to work with it in ways that conform to and support our faith.