Obama won Catholic vote, regular churchgoers chose Romney [CC]

[Schmoo]

He got 55% of the female vote. They voted for him so they can legally kill thier babies.

These may be the reasons, then, that so many Catholics voted for Obama.
They are the main reasons that his other, non-Catholic, supporters voted for him.

 

[Pitcharan]

… You can defend the mother’s right to take the life of the child; …

I am not defending anyone’s right. I am just telling you that elected people’s representatives have an unalienable right to legislate as deemed fit after much deliberation, discussion and debates. That does not mean they are legalizing some wrongs; they are merely letting people be their own judges for certain wrongs.

Your personal views may be noble but cannot be imposed on others. God did not give us a duty to decide how to penalise sinners. Obama is performing his sacred duty in an exemplary manner and it is unfair to fault him with all these negative rhetoric. His concern for the life of unborn defenceless babies is second to none. Yet he can be nobody’s conscience keeper.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I really appreciate you posting this. I voted for Obama as well. I did not vote for him because I agreed with his policies on everything, I don’t. I truly wish we had a better pick then we did. I voted for him based on social issues. I felt the republicans did not have the poor and most needy in our country in their best interests. It was in my opinion they don’t care and actually are repulsed by the needy and poor. I was really offended by the 47% remark Romney made. I refuse to believe that 47% are just looking for a handout. I truly believe in helping those less fortunate, they aren’t throw aways, and given a chance and some help can rise up to contribute in so many ways. I grew up poor and it was the kindness and social programs in place that allowed me to rise above my situation. I have a good job, I own a house, I pay taxes, I also believe that kindness that was shown to me needs to be put back into the world. It’s easy to say I got mine go get your own. I can’t do that, because if I wasn’t helped in my time of need I wouldn’t be where I am today.

Wonderful.

 

[Schmoo]

Kinda hard to increase the tribe when 1500 babies get killed a day… .but hey good for you!

Admirable post. May your tribe increase and may you never be lonely!

 

[Pitcharan]

Kinda hard to increase the tribe when 1500 babies get killed a day… .but hey good for you!

Sarcasm will achieve no good. Obama’s positive campaign against abortions must have saved more babies than what all the negative rhetoric ever did,

 

[Ridgerunner]

well THIS devout Catholic/Seminary candidate voted for Obama. and yes, i am in Church every sunday, multiple times a week, also praying in front of the Blessed Sacrement, praying my Rosary, saying my Divine Office, etc. yes, i am pro life too. believe it or not, we exist. i voted for him not because of his stances on maintaining the status quo on abortion, but in spite of it, and i voted because of the social issues. I just try to be the best Catholic i can be, and counsel others about moral issues when appropriate. God Bless.

Specifically, what social issues would those be?

 

[Al_Moritz]

I am a good church-going Catholic, and my kids go to Catholic school, and I am not a minority or on welfare (in fact, I make a very good living). I voted for Barack Obama, and my conscience is clean as a whistle. If Mitt Romney had won, I would have been disappointed but not all that upset, because I did not see this election in apocalyptic terms as some did, and because (frankly) I don’t see any huge difference in the political parties despite all the rhetoric. Many of the policies of Obama were the same as his predecessor.

It is amazing to read comments like voting for Obama is a “mortal sin,” or a comment on another thread in which the poster seemed honestly suicidal about the outcome of the election. I suppose that I am a “social justice Catholic,” rather than an “abortion-and-nothing-else Catholic.” I very much supported Obamacare, for instance; I applaud the fact that millions of uninsured people will have health insurance, and I do so because of the Catholic social teachings that I learned as a kid. Plus, as much as people post about abortion, etc, the election was NOT a referendum on the issue. Almost certainly, if Romney had won, the legal status of abortion in this country would have been exactly the same four years from now as it is currently. Eight years of George W Bush did nothing to affect the legal status of the issue. Romney was not going to ban gay marriage or ban contraception or ban sex outside of marriage, either.

Excellent.

Noteworthy:

Almost certainly, if Romney had won, the legal status of abortion in this country would have been exactly the same four years from now as it is currently. Eight years of George W Bush did nothing to affect the legal status of the issue.

Precisely. That is also why the whole “you have to vote for the pro-life candidate” argument is hogwash. But the Tea Party Catholics here are simply too blind to see.

See also:

gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing:
Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?
Mr. Roberts. I don’t–Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
land. It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.

It should be pointed out that in Casey, Roe v. Wade was re-confirmed by a Supreme Court with eight out of nine Republican appointed justices.

To think that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned is utterly delusional.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Excellent.

Noteworthy:

Precisely. That is also why the whole “you have to vote for the pro-life candidate” argument is hogwash. But the Tea Party Catholics here are simply too blind to see.

See also:

gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm
Roberts confirmation hearing:
Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?
Mr. Roberts. I don’t–Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
land. It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.

It should be pointed out that in Casey, Roe v. Wade was re-confirmed by aq Supreme Court with eight out of nine Republican appointed justices.

To think that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned is utterly delusional.

Democrats counsel despair in their opponents all the time in political matters. But Catholics should not counsel other Catholics to despair in moral matters.

Roberts was saying exactly what he should, as a jurist say…the fact that, at that time, Roe was settled law. Was he supposed to say it wasn’t? But that does not mean he feels obliged to follow it if the chance to reverse it came up. He did not follow Roe in the partial birth abortion case, nor did the other Republican justices. All Democrat justices, however, felt that Roe sanctioned partial birth abortion and so voted.

 

[Lapey]

I am not defending anyone’s right. I am just telling you that elected people’s representatives have an unalienable right to legislate as deemed fit after much deliberation, discussion and debates. That does not mean they are legalizing some wrongs; they are merely letting people be their own judges for certain wrongs.

**Your personal views may be noble but cannot be imposed on others. God did not give us a duty to decide how to penalise sinners. Obama is performing his sacred duty in an exemplary manner and it is unfair to fault him with all these negative rhetoric. His concern for the life of unborn defenceless babies is second to none. Yet he can be nobody’s conscience keeper./**QUOTE]

Wow…I’m speachless. I hope this makes sense for you in India, it makes no sense here.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Sarcasm will achieve no good. Obama’s positive campaign against abortions must have saved more babies than what all the negative rhetoric ever did,

Ok, I voted Obama, and I believe his economic policies vs. the failed Republican ‘trickle down’ economics will lead to less abortions because economic pressure will be taken away (just watch how the 12 million jobs that Romney promised over the next four years will be created under Obama), but what ‘positive campaign against abortions’ are you talking about?

 

[Pitcharan]

I am a good church-going Catholic, and my kids go to Catholic school, and I am not a minority or on welfare (in fact, I make a very good living). I voted for Barack Obama, and my conscience is clean as a whistle. If Mitt Romney had won, I would have been disappointed but not all that upset, because I did not see this election in apocalyptic terms as some did, and because (frankly) I don’t see any huge difference in the political parties despite all the rhetoric. Many of the policies of Obama were the same as his predecessor.

It is amazing to read comments like voting for Obama is a “mortal sin,” or a comment on another thread in which the poster seemed honestly suicidal about the outcome of the election. I suppose that I am a “social justice Catholic,” rather than an “abortion-and-nothing-else Catholic.” I very much supported Obamacare, for instance; I applaud the fact that millions of uninsured people will have health insurance, and I do so because of the Catholic social teachings that I learned as a kid. Plus, as much as people post about abortion, etc, the election was NOT a referendum on the issue. Almost certainly, if Romney had won, the legal status of abortion in this country would have been exactly the same four years from now as it is currently. Eight years of George W Bush did nothing to affect the legal status of the issue. Romney was not going to ban gay marriage or ban contraception or ban sex outside of marriage, either.

Your first post shines in the darkness as a bright light.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Democrats counsel despair in their opponents all the time in political matters. But Catholics should not counsel other Catholics to despair in moral matters.

Roberts was saying exactly what he should, as a jurist say…the fact that, at that time, Roe was settled law. Was he supposed to say it wasn’t? But that does not mean he feels obliged to follow it if the chance to reverse it came up.

Just keep up the Delusion.

 

[Lapey]

Sarcasm will achieve no good. Obama’s positive campaign against abortions must have saved more babies than what all the negative rhetoric ever did,

I’m at a loss here, what campaign??? He has done nothing but allow more abortions and in situations, at tax payer expense.

 

[Schmoo]

Wow… are you a troll ? He did no such thing… just wow…

We will never be able to force our politicians to abolish abortion if we are always willing to bend to whatever they demand and settle on whatever they choose to sell us.

Sarcasm will achieve no good. Obama’s positive campaign against abortions must have saved more babies than what all the negative rhetoric ever did,

 

[Schmoo]

The jobs under obama will be far and few between… the ones that are… will be PT and not enuff to live.

O BTW… we do agree on something… hey its a start

Ok, I voted Obama, and I believe his economic policies vs. the failed Republican ‘trickle down’ economics will lead to less abortions because economic pressure will be taken away (just watch how the 12 million jobs that Romney promised over the next four years will be created under Obama), but what ‘positive campaign against abortions’ are you talking about?

 

[JMJSHJ]

To the Catholics who voted for Obama:

Even if you had genuine doubts that Romney would do anything to stop abortion, that doesn’t justify from a moral position a vote for Pres Obama. Do you honestly think he will do anything to stop abortion? What has his track record been on that?

No sincere (informed) Catholic can ever justify voting for Pres. Obama.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sarcasm will achieve no good. Obama’s positive campaign against abortions must have saved more babies than what all the negative rhetoric ever did,

By obliging taxpayers to pay for abortions and abortifacients and appointing NARAL choices to the Supreme Court, he saved babies. A remarkably counterintuitive proposition.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Just keep up the Delusion.

You left out the rest of the post where I noted that Roberts and the other Repub appointees upheld bans on partial birth abortion while every Dem appointee opposed the ban. Trying to create delusions of your own?

 

[joelskinc]

Christians of faith who never attend services makes as much sense as gluttons who fast. What a meaningless throw-in stat.

That was extremely insensitive. Parking your *** on a bench every week makes you no more of a christian than the president himself.

 

[joelskinc]

To the Catholics who voted for Obama:

Even if you had genuine doubts that Romney would do anything to stop abortion, that doesn’t justify from a moral position a vote for Pres Obama. Do you honestly think he will do anything to stop abortion? What has his track record been on that?

No sincere (informed) Catholic can ever justify voting for Pres. Obama.

Banning abortion will make people revert back to extremely unsafe abortions. Giving someone the safe environment to go through with an abortion and then be there for that person afterwards is what these ladies need.

If you’ve never sat down and spoken to a woman that had an abortion afterwards stop talking about the issue. You’re too disconnected.