Mortal sin not to vote?

[gmarie21]

This is unbelievable to me. Am I seriously the only one who has a problem with this?

No, you’re not the only one with a problem with the statement made by Mosher. As a single mother who does not own property nor asks for a penny from the government, I would say that I am more than qualified for the position of voting. I would say that I may be more qualified than the average voter. I’ve worked for the US Senate and have seen the true, behind-the-scenes junk that goes on. I also live in Illinois where corruption and politics usually are in the same sentence. I could go on for pages about how messed up things are here and how messed up (and OVERRATED) our Senators and Representatives are, but I’m sure you all don’t want to look like this or this :crying: or this :banghead: or this :bigyikes: or this :ehh: or thisor this :yawnr this

For me, when I know that I’ve voted I know that I’m allowed to graciously complain louder or offer thanksgiving louder than those who do not vote.

 

[mosher]

Sorry, as much as I respect St Thomas I cannot possibly agree with him or you on this.

God himself was incredibly reluctant to give Israel kings, remember … He foresaw, quite rightly, all the problems that monarchy entails as a form of government, and Israel’s foray into monarchy was disastrous.

I think we can safely say He knew better than St Thomas And given that Thomas never had a vote in his life, and that pretty much no-one in Europe had had in roughly a millennium, he didn’t know enough to appreciate the merits of democracy either.

No person in their right mind appreciates the merits of democracy. Look at France and every other Democracy out there. Mob rule is the definition of of moral relativism institutionalized.

The Church Herself recognizes this in her own governance as a reflection of Divine governance which is monarchical. As the good doctor mentioned earlier it would be a good opportunity to read the document “On Americanism” which in part addresses the problem of classical liberalism.

 

[EBSSTF4]

That is an ad hominem attack. You obviously cannot answer my well-reasoned argument.

That’s the point. Sometimes it is better not to argue with silly opinions. Particularly when they target the people most affected by our current political system, particularly the poor and minorities.

 

[aurora77]

Yes, I am in Missouri. And the good people in my state, it looks like, are poised to legalize Nazi eugenics, under the code name Amendment 2. I hardly think my little vote is going to stop the miracle of the lame walking, the blind seeing and the deaf hearing once embryonic stem cell research is legal here. Can’t stop progress.

So, you’re just giving up. That’s it–we’re going to hell in a handbasket and you can’t take 5 minutes out of your day to attempt to stop it? You do realize that by not voting, you’re basically saying you agree with Amendment 2, right? OK, so we may lose, but we need to at least try. Otherwise we just roll over and play dead and let the world know that we think it’s OK for evil things to happen. This is a hot button issue for me and I find it appalling that a religious person would just give up on something so important.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

That’s the point. Sometimes it is better not to argue with silly opinions. Particularly when they target the people most affected by our current political system, particularly the poor and minorities.

And which of my opinions, pray tell, targeted the poor and minorities?

Or do you just like to regurgitate sound bites without any thought behind what you say?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

So, you’re just giving up. That’s it–we’re going to hell in a handbasket and you can’t take 5 minutes out of your day to attempt to stop it? You do realize that by not voting, you’re basically saying you agree with Amendment 2, right? OK, so we may lose, but we need to at least try. Otherwise we just roll over and play dead and let the world know that we think it’s OK for evil things to happen. This is a hot button issue for me and I find it appalling that a religious person would just give up on something so important.

Calm down. I said I was going to vote. My goodness.

But I recognize my vote will do nothing to stop this hideous amendment from passing. The world drifts farther away from God each day and ultimately all we can do is pray.

God sees all but waits.

 

[EBSSTF4]

I have no problem with it. However, I think that the qualifications for voting should be similar to the original American system. Only those who have taxable property should be allowed to vote with an exception made for those who serve at least one term in the military as both of these types of people actually have a vested interest in the proper running of the nation. All the rest of us do not in the same magnitude. Of course I fear true democracies so anything that has changed the US closer to a democracy from a strict Republic in my opinion is dangerous - just like the direct election of Senators (worst amendment ever).

I do apologize Dr. Bombay, I had credited you with this post.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I do apologize Dr. Bombay, I had credited you with this post.

Ah, I see…no prob… :tiphat:

 

[mosher]

I do apologize Dr. Bombay, I had credited you with this post.

So, what is your point?

 

[EBSSTF4]

That’s the point. Sometimes it is better not to argue with silly opinions. Particularly when they target the people most affected by our current political system, particularly the poor and minorities.

That is still my point. You’re idea was historically used to keep African Americans and the poor from voting, will Literacy tests be next, maybe people need to read Latin and Greek to qualify to vote.

crmvet.org/info/litapp.pdf

 

[mosher]

That is still my point. You’re idea was historically used to keep African Americans and the poor from voting, will Literacy tests be next, maybe people need to read Latin and Greek to qualify to vote.

crmvet.org/info/litapp.pdf

This is very historically short sighted. The original intent had nothing to do with such things. Rather, the original intention found in our Constitution was because people who are taxed are those who have a right to determine how the government is run. Back then there was no income tax or gross receipts tax or any other form of tax except property tax. This is part in parcel with the idea of "no taxation without representation. It also works conversely. If you are not taxed then you have no participatory right as you have no vested interest in the fiscal governing of the country. This idea changed much after the Civil War when we opted for a more Federalist form of government and then even more changes came with the introduction of Income tax.

The fact that minorities were “held down” was accidental to this. However, if you work you can buy property. If you are lazy in life you have no business determining the course of governmental policy.

Women were restricted early on for pragmatic reasons. First, women were not given adequate education in protestant America and thus could not generally make an informed decision. Second, the prevailing sentiment at the time was that the husband also represented the family so his vote was the vote for the whole of the family. While I don’t argue that this is ideal it is not pragmatic in society today in that there are a lot of single women of adult age and women are as or more educated as men now. For this reason I think that the original arguments for why women should not be given an individual vote are null. However, I do agree with Ann Coulter on this topic.

Remember, we are a Republic. In a republic the privilege to vote is only given to those who are deemed to have the most interest in the running of the state. Also, from there we elect our rules. These elected officials are not necessarily beholden to vote their constituency as they are elected to govern and not to be governed by the masses.

 

[EBSSTF4]

This is very historically short sighted. The original intent had nothing to do with such things. Rather, the original intention found in our Constitution was because people who are taxed are those who have a right to determine how the government is run. Back then there was no income tax or gross receipts tax or any other form of tax except property tax. This is part in parcel with the idea of "no taxation without representation. It also works conversely. If you are not taxed then you have no participatory right as you have no vested interest in the fiscal governing of the country. This idea changed much after the Civil War when we opted for a more Federalist form of government and then even more changes came with the introduction of Income tax.

The fact that minorities were “held down” was accidental to this. However, if you work you can buy property. If you are lazy in life you have no business determining the course of governmental policy.

Women were restricted early on for pragmatic reasons. First, women were not given adequate education in protestant America and thus could not generally make an informed decision. Second, the prevailing sentiment at the time was that the husband also represented the family so his vote was the vote for the whole of the family. While I don’t argue that this is ideal it is not pragmatic in society today in that there are a lot of single women of adult age and women are as or more educated as men now. For this reason I think that the original arguments for why women should not be given an individual vote are null. However, I do agree with Ann Coulter on this topic.

Remember, we are a Republic. In a republic the privilege to vote is only given to those who are deemed to have the most interest in the running of the state. Also, from there we elect our rules. These elected officials are not necessarily beholden to vote their constituency as they are elected to govern and not to be governed by the masses.

yeah, I stand by my statement.

 

[gmarie21]

This is very historically short sighted. The original intent had nothing to do with such things. Rather, the original intention found in our Constitution was because people who are taxed are those who have a right to determine how the government is run. Back then there was no income tax or gross receipts tax or any other form of tax except property tax. This is part in parcel with the idea of "no taxation without representation. It also works conversely. If you are not taxed then you have no participatory right as you have no vested interest in the fiscal governing of the country. This idea changed much after the Civil War when we opted for a more Federalist form of government and then even more changes came with the introduction of Income tax.

The fact that minorities were “held down” was accidental to this. However, if you work you can buy property. If you are lazy in life you have no business determining the course of governmental policy.

Women were restricted early on for pragmatic reasons. First, women were not given adequate education in protestant America and thus could not generally make an informed decision. Second, the prevailing sentiment at the time was that the husband also represented the family so his vote was the vote for the whole of the family. While I don’t argue that this is ideal it is not pragmatic in society today in that there are a lot of single women of adult age and women are as or more educated as men now. For this reason I think that the original arguments for why women should not be given an individual vote are null. However, I do agree with Ann Coulter on this topic.

Remember, we are a Republic. In a republic the privilege to vote is only given to those who are deemed to have the most interest in the running of the state. Also, from there we elect our rules. These elected officials are not necessarily beholden to vote their constituency as they are elected to govern and not to be governed by the masses.

For being a Catholic and a member of KOC, I’m shocked at the ignorance you have toward the topic of an educated voter and what constitutes and educated voter. You incorrectly assume that if one owns property one is educated enough to vote, but if one does not own property one is not educated enough to vote. As one who works hard, doesn’t own property, makes below minimum wage (b/c it is more important that I work at a daycare to be with my daughter all day than to go to a well-paying job and be away from her 5 days a week), is a single mother, is a Catholic, and HAS worked in the Senate (which I am not allowed to discuss further b/c of the oath I had taken), I am extremely educated enough to vote with a well informed conscious.

 

[mosher]

yeah, I stand by my statement.

That is nice, it is historically inaccurate but I guess error is a “right” too these days.

For being a Catholic and a member of KOC, I’m shocked at the ignorance you have toward the topic of an educated voter and what constitutes and educated voter. You incorrectly assume that if one owns property one is educated enough to vote, but if one does not own property one is not educated enough to vote. As one who works hard, doesn’t own property, makes below minimum wage (b/c it is more important that I work at a daycare to be with my daughter all day than to go to a well-paying job and be away from her 5 days a week), is a single mother, is a Catholic, and HAS worked in the Senate (which I am not allowed to discuss further b/c of the oath I had taken), I am extremely educated enough to vote with a well informed conscious.

I did not state that a person who own property is more educated. Rather, I said that a person that own property has a vested interest. This is a fact. Without property one does not have a vested interest in a nation.

You seem to make this an emotional plea which falls only on deaf ears for me as by my own thoughts I would actually be removing myself from the voting pool as I do not own taxable property. The point is this. If you do not have property you don’t have as much vested in the nation. For instance the recent Keogh decision only effects property owners. While those of us who care decry the decision it doesn’t quite effect us. Remember, the original premise for this country is the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Property and not Living Wage, Welfare, and Health Care.

 

[gmarie21]

That is nice, it is historically inaccurate but I guess error is a “right” too these days.

I did not state that a person who own property is more educated. Rather, I said that a person that own property has a vested interest. This is a fact. Without property one does not have a vested interest in a nation.

You seem to make this an emotional plea which falls only on deaf ears for me as by my own thoughts I would actually be removing myself from the voting pool as I do not own taxable property. The point is this. If you do not have property you don’t have as much vested in the nation. For instance the recent Keogh decision only effects property owners. While those of us who care decry the decision it doesn’t quite effect us. Remember, the original premise for this country is the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Property and not Living Wage, Welfare, and Health Care.

Decisions regarding life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (not property) affect ALL of us, and lately, life issues are at battle. There are many non-property owning Catholics who are pro-life and vote as such.

 

[mosher]

Decisions regarding life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (not property) affect ALL of us, and lately, life issues are at battle. There are many non-property owning Catholics who are pro-life and vote as such.

That is irrelevant. That is only the issue of the day. While I make no claim that it is a small matter I don’t think that anyone with a perspective that transcends their birthday would claim that it is nit always going to be a problem.

Also, it is not happiness it is property. If I had wanted to quote the Constitution I would have. Rather I specifically mentioned the founding of the nation and most people would have noticed my words as those of the Declaration of Independence.

I will grant that under the current taxation system universal sufferage is just. However, universal taxation is not just so if that can be changed then perhaps we can fix the voter problem in the US.