Non-Negotiables Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctlw83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ctlw83

Guest
I’m not sure if this will count as a “political” question but, couldn’t find anywhere else to post it. Note: I am not asking for advice on who to vote for, etc. Just generalized advice.

We all know what the 5 non-negotiables are, however, many political candidates both for local, and national offices refuse to directly answer any questions as to their support either for or against the non-negotiables. Some don’t even have voting records to base decisions on.

So, how are we to make a morally sound and well-informed decision if there are only “implied” answers to the non-negotiables that can’t be verified, and if said implied answers are both pro-choice for the main-line candidates?

I know this isn’t a specific situation for candidates in my state, but an issue being faced by many states in this upcoming election. If there is no data on which to base a decision, how do you make one? I think the candidates are doing this on purpose so that they can be vague and flip-flop…ANNOYING!
 
Contact their offices and ask specific questions. There is also time to write and request specific answers. Simple and direct questions are best. Tell them that your vote depends entirely upon clear, coherent answers. Be patient with them through all of the stuttering and stammering. 😉
 
Barbkw said:
Vote Republican.

Need proof in the way that Catholics vote - depending on whether they are Rep or Demo.?

catholicadvocate.com/wp/?page-id=10
Click to expand...
Do I understand that your advice to avoid compromising the “five non-negotiables” is to vote Republican?

That isn’t a blanket answer – especially in states where Republicans court the women’s “choice” vote fully as much as Democrats. For instance, the link following reports Republican candidate for California Governor, Meg Whitman’s, stance on abortion.
megwhitman.com/on_the_record.php

I posted in another thread a few days ago and no one commented – maybe someone can explain to me why a candidate’s “official position” on one or more of the five non-negotiables is even relevant if in the course of the disposition of their duties they would have no impact on those particular issues.

For instance, it’s not as though we will be voting on the issue of abortion rights at a State level, nor can a governor personally requisition funds for abortion clinics, except in concert with the rest of the legislature.

I’m NOT challenging the “five non-negotiables” – I’m trying to understand why an otherwise good candidate would be eliminated on that basis if they stand no reasonable chance of having any effect on policy in their office. Thanks.
 
challam2010 said:
Do I understand that your advice to avoid compromising the “five non-negotiables” is to vote Republican?

That isn’t a blanket answer – especially in states where Republicans court the women’s “choice” vote fully as much as Democrats. For instance, the link following reports Republican candidate for California Governor, Meg Whitman’s, stance on abortion.
megwhitman.com/on_the_record.php

I posted in another thread a few days ago and no one commented – maybe someone can explain to me why a candidate’s “official position” on one or more of the five non-negotiables is even relevant if in the course of the disposition of their duties they would have no impact on those particular issues.

For instance, it’s not as though we will be voting on the issue of abortion rights at a State level, nor can a governor personally requisition funds for abortion clinics, except in concert with the rest of the legislature.

I’m NOT challenging the “five non-negotiables” – I’m trying to understand why an otherwise good candidate would be eliminated on that basis if they stand no reasonable chance of having any effect on policy in their office. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Today that person may be running for a state or even a county position… but who knows what they will be running for during the next election season. Obama started out as a community organizer. Then he became a senator. Next he became President. Most politicians do not suddenly appear out of nowhere at the federal level. Most have started at the local and state levels and then set their sights on higher and higher offices. If I know that a candidate (regardless whether he/she is running in a city, county, state, or federal election) is pro-choice; he/she will not get my vote.
 
Barbkw said:
Vote Republican.

Need proof in the way that Catholics vote - depending on whether they are Rep or Demo.?

catholicadvocate.com/wp/?page-id=10
Click to expand...
George Will on abortion:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601864.html

“Again, so what? Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation’s most common surgical procedures, illegal everywhere. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation.”
 
Here are two candidates, and their positions on the non-negotiables:

Candidate A
  1. Death
  2. Death
  3. Death
  4. Death
  5. Death
Candidate B
  1. Life
  2. Life
  3. Death
  4. Life
  5. Death
One will be elected. So why do certain Catholics engage in monu-Mental contortions of logic to vote for candidate A? Is there another label, an affiliation that means much more to them, that overshadows the simplicity of moral choice here?
 
Barbkw said:
Vote Republican.

Need proof in the way that Catholics vote - depending on whether they are Rep or Demo.?

catholicadvocate.com/wp/?page-id=10
Click to expand...
Being Republican doesn’t pull the mantle of Sainthood around anyone. Yes, conservatives are more likely to be more Pro Life than Dems.But then, there are exceptions to the rule. For example, take Mr.Mark Kirk, Senate competer in the state of Ill (need I say more, but I will) who is running on the Pub. ticket, but is pro choice. Ah ha. Another sheep in bo clothing.

All I can say, is check em out and if they are elected, hold their feet to the fire.
 
Barbkw said:
Vote Republican.

Need proof in the way that Catholics vote - depending on whether they are Rep or Demo.?

catholicadvocate.com/wp/?page-id=10
Click to expand...
Tietjen said:
Today that person may be running for a state or even a county position… but who knows what they will be running for during the next election season. Obama started out as a community organizer. Then he became a senator. Next he became President. Most politicians do not suddenly appear out of nowhere at the federal level. Most have started at the local and state levels and then set their sights on higher and higher offices. If I know that a candidate (regardless whether he/she is running in a city, county, state, or federal election) is pro-choice; he/she will not get my vote.
Click to expand...
👍
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
George Will on abortion:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601864.html

“Again, so what? Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation’s most common surgical procedures, illegal everywhere. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation.”
Click to expand...
I disagree with Will here. The fact that the issue would be returned to the states would initself be very impprtant as this, like so many issues, really ought to be governed at a more local level. I think that having the debate that would occur should Roe v Wade be overturned would be an impprtant debate for us to have.

I disagreed with many of the stances of McCain to the point where I wanted to vote 3rd party, and the only reason I did not do so was the make-up of the Supreme Court.
 
po18guy said:
Here are two candidates, and their positions on the non-negotiables:

Candidate A
  1. Death
  2. Death
  3. Death
  4. Death
  5. Death
Candidate B
  1. Life
  2. Life
  3. Death
  4. Life
  5. Death
One will be elected. So why do certain Catholics engage in monu-Mental contortions of logic to vote for candidate A? Is there another label, an affiliation that means much more to them, that overshadows the simplicity of moral choice here?
Click to expand...
If we vote “Non-Negotiable”, then we would not vote for either one, right? Otherwise, we engage in relativism, which JPII warned against in one of his encyclicals, the name of which escapes me at this early hour. At least that’s what the strict definition of non-negotiable means.

That’s the problem with the concept of “non-negotiableism”, I think. Not that these 5 things are unimportant, quite to the contrary. However, there are some that look at Candidate A’s position on issue #1 and not get beyond that. They may completely ignore that Candidate B might be in a better position to get issues 3 and 5 enacted than Candidate A has for any of the 5 issues.

To answer the OP, sometimes it’s cut and dried, sometimes you, after doing the best you can to determine a candidate’s real position on the issues, have to pray and make your best guess.

If you call or write a letter, good luck on getting a straight answer from a staffer. They’ve got a script of talking points which, if the candidate has been vague during the election will be just as vague.

What has been totally lacking in any discussion on voting in the CAF is how prayerful consideration of how to vote plays into making a choice at the ballot box. Perhaps it is assumed, but let’s not sell short divine assistance in making these important decisions.
 
St_Francis said:
I disagree with Will here. The fact that the issue would be returned to the states would initself be very impprtant as this, like so many issues, really ought to be governed at a more local level. I think that having the debate that would occur should Roe v Wade be overturned would be an impprtant debate for us to have.

I disagreed with many of the stances of McCain to the point where I wanted to vote 3rd party, and the only reason I did not do so was the make-up of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
But what Will is saying is that a vote for/against Row v. Wade is not a vote for/against abortion. Sure, you can think that abortion should be governed at a local level, but that discussion is not a “non-negotiable.”
 
Newbie2 said:
If we vote “Non-Negotiable”, then we would not vote for either one, right? Otherwise, we engage in relativism, which JPII warned against in one of his encyclicals
Click to expand...
We may vote to limit the amount of damage, since it is, in effect, the better choice.
 
Newbie2 said:
Agreed. However, this sort of goes against a strict “non-nsgotiable” POV, no?
Click to expand...
However, strictly interpreting this, and failing to use prudential judgment in voting has resulted in the situation we have today of almost maniacal devotion to the bloodshed of abortion. When it is necessary, our egos seem unable to cross political lines for the sake of the unborn.
 
po18guy said:
However, strictly interpreting this, and failing to use prudential judgment in voting has resulted in the situation we have today of almost maniacal devotion to the bloodshed of abortion. When it is necessary, our egos seem unable to cross political lines for the sake of the unborn.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Even though “non-nsgotiable” is a typo. 😃
 
elts1956 said:
👍
Click to expand...
Deal says that the Obama healthcare bill mandated abortion.

Does that mean that the Republicans who did nothing to make it a bill without abortion provisions are guilty as well?

If a few republican in the center had acted to make it a better healthcare bill, the far left portion of the democratic house would have had less influence on the outcome and perhaps some lives would have been saved.

But in choosing to do nothing the republicans get to keep their pro-choice labels while making decisions that were pro abortion in results.

Many times the story pro-lifers politicians tell is different from what the results of their actions bear as fruit.

Peace
 
portarica said:
Deal says that the Obama healthcare bill mandated abortion.

Does that mean that the Republicans who did nothing to make it a bill without abortion provisions are guilty as well?

If a few republican in the center had acted to make it a better healthcare bill, the far left portion of the democratic house would have had less influence on the outcome and perhaps some lives would have been saved.

But in choosing to do nothing the republicans get to keep their pro-choice labels while making decisions that were pro abortion in results.

Many times the story pro-lifers politicians tell is different from what the results of their actions bear as fruit.

Peace
Click to expand...
The health care bill does not fund abortions.
politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/28/john-carter/rep-john-carter-says-health-care-law-provides-full/
 
po18guy said:
However, strictly interpreting this, and failing to use prudential judgment in voting has resulted in the situation we have today of almost maniacal devotion to the bloodshed of abortion.
Click to expand...
The situation you describe exists today because we (Catholics) are the weakling in a culture that worships sex and mammon. Voting has little to do with this. Any politician you vote for will be devoted to one (Republicans, mammon; Democrats, sexual liberation) or the other.

Solutions to the “non-negotiables” will come when Catholic influence over American culture increases. There is really no other way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top