"One Issue Voter"

[Christopher68]

One thing that is apparent is that when a Catholic proclaims they are not a single issue voter they are really saying is " I vote Democrat"

I am a Catholic and am not a single issue voter. I am a registered Independent who usually votes Libertarian. Your above post is incorrect.

 

[Newbie2]

One thing that is apparent is that when a Catholic proclaims they are not a single issue voter they are really saying is " I vote Democrat"

I am not a single issue voter and I always vote Republican (except for Perot that one year…)

So much for that theory, Bob.

 

[JimG]

If the acceptability of sending particular groups of citizens to the gas chambers was just one issue in an election, I would be a one issue voter. The same applies to the current abortion regime.

 

[Spirithound]

One thing that is apparent is that when a Catholic proclaims they are not a single issue voter they are really saying is " I vote Democrat"

Actually I have seen voting guides where we are 5-issue voters
Abortion
Embryonic stem-cell research
Same-sex marriage
Euthanasia
Human cloning

 

[Christopher68]

Actually I have seen voting guides where we are 5-issue voters
Abortion
Embryonic stem-cell research
Same-sex marriage
Euthanasia
Human cloning

I have seen those as well. Apparently the following issues pale in comparison:

• the economy
• jobs
• health care
• education
• foreign policy
• war

 

[elts1956]

The above referenced document also says:

And

Of course the Church doesn’t want one to vote in favor of something that goes against Church teaching, such as abortion. But they do NOT tell us HOW to vote, but give specific guidelines that we are told to consider. Yes, abortion is a very important consideration. But it is not the ONLY consideration. Yes, we are to use a well informed conscience. Yes, the Church wants us to vote to eradicate abortion. But we are not sinning if we do vote for a pro-choice candidate depending on our intent. If you vote for a pro-choice candidate because they are pro-choice, that is sinning. But if you vote for a pro-choice candidate because you feel other important areas will be impacted, and those areas are important to you as well, that is a lesser evil.

Of COURSE the Church wants you to vote with all their rules and regulations in mind, and of course they want you to vote to outlaw abortion, and of course they will groom Catholics to do so, but one won’t go to Hell for voting for the other guy. Nor will one a “bad” Catholic for doing so. As the above document says, there are also other ways to participate besides voting, in our daily lives to encourage good and not evil.

But no where in that document (or others shown from the Vatican or Bishops) say you absolutely have to vote one way or another, else be separated from the Church. If that was our instruction, they would say so. Just like they are specific - to the letter about - other issues in which we are required to do or not do in order to be compliant with the Church.

If we are forbidden from voting for a pro-choice candidate, they would say it, just like we are forbidden from using artificial birth control, and MUST attend Mass. If this is an area unbending, they would make that as clear as the other areas that are unbending.

We must first attend to the Natural Moral Law which is no killing of the most vulnerable of all of us, especially the unborn and also the elderly, the terminally ill, and the disabled. That is what is meant by forming a Catholic conscience and understanding the hierarchies of good and evil. To retaliate in war, caring for the environment and several other issues are issues of Prudential judgement. The direct killing of an unborn child is not to be tolerated. The remote support of those who give laws to kill the unborn, or take away laws that would protect them is also to be avoided.

 

[Rence]

We must first attend to the Natural Moral Law which is no killing of the most vulnerable of all of us, especially the unborn and also the elderly, the terminally ill, and the disabled. That is what is meant by forming a Catholic conscience and understanding the hierarchies of good and evil. To retaliate in war, caring for the environment and several other issues are issues of Prudential judgement. The direct killing of an unborn child is not to be tolerated. The remote support of those who give laws to kill the unborn, or take away laws that would protect them is also to be avoided.

I agree that it should probably start with abortion, but it doesn’t end there. After considering abortion, there are all those other issues to consider and weigh in as well.

If a candidate is pro-life, but I see red flags in his/her intentions with the elderly, the terminally ill, the disabled, education, healthcare, gun control, taxes, etc., then that “pro-life” plus wouldn’t be a determining factor. I’d not vote for this person, despite being pro-life. I look at the whole picture when I vote.

 

[elts1956]

I agree that it should probably start with abortion, but it doesn’t end there. After considering abortion, there are all those other issues to consider and weigh in as well.

If a candidate is pro-life, but I see red flags in his/her intentions with the elderly, the terminally ill, the disabled, education, healthcare, gun control, taxes, etc., then that “pro-life” plus wouldn’t be a determining factor. I’d not vote for this person, despite being pro-life. I look at the whole picture when I vote.

Abortion, Euthanasia, homosexual marriage, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, all are life issues. In 1973 the people of life began to be pushed to the side by the pro death agenda of the left wing pols promoting the woman’s “right” to abortion. . All five of the above were on the Dem platform in 2008. You can’t have one of these Intrinsic evils on the platform without the other four. Bo has also passed the funding of embryonic stem cell research and use of such is to begin on live humans in the near future in spite of the fact that other countries who have already tried this method for cures have found they instead promote or cause other diseases. The slow slide into immorality has become an avalanche with the present POTUS funding of abortion and the three states that have passed assisted suicide clauses in their constituions. Oregon, Washington State and Montana.

 

[estesbob]

I agree that it should probably start with abortion, but it doesn’t end there. After considering abortion, there are all those other issues to consider and weigh in as well.

If a candidate is pro-life, but I see red flags in his/her intentions with the elderly, the terminally ill, the disabled, education, healthcare, gun control, taxes, etc., then that “pro-life” plus wouldn’t be a determining factor. I’d not vote for this person, despite being pro-life. I look at the whole picture when I vote.

Do any of these issues matter if one is denied the right to life?

 

[Rence]

Do any of these issues matter if one is denied the right to life?

They matter to me. I wouldn’t vote someone pro-life in office if one of their promises was to double taxes on farms, and I don’t care if his opponent is pro-choice or not.

 

[estesbob]

They matter to me. I wouldn’t vote someone pro-life in office if one of their promises was to double taxes on farms, and I don’t care if his opponent is pro-choice or not.

So 1.2 million dead children a year is a small price to pay for lower farm taxes?

 

[Rence]

So 1.2 million dead children a year is a small price to pay for lower farm taxes?

I gave an example of something of one among many things that are important to consider. And my example did not include “lower farm taxes”. My example was about doubling farm taxes. It may not be an iota important to you, but it may cost a few families their home to have their taxes doubled. The born are just as important as the unborn. Considering that if someone wants an abortion, there is nothing even the president of the US can do about it, yes, people’s livelihoods are more important to me. The choices politicians make can ruin people.

 

[elts1956]

I gave an example of something of one among many things that are important to consider. And my example did not include “lower farm taxes”. My example was about doubling farm taxes. It may not be an iota important to you, but it may cost a few families their home to have their taxes doubled. The born are just as important as the unborn. Considering that if someone wants an abortion, there is nothing even the president of the US can do about it, yes, people’s livelihoods are more important to me. The choices politicians make can ruin people.

You have fallen into Bernadin’s Seamless Garment theory. Life comes first, then quality of life. Many of the Bishops have also fallen into this error where they just can’t make a commintment against abortion because there are too many “other” life issues for them to try to erase. Poverty will never be erased, care of the environment will never be perfect. Issues such as these do not even begin to be on the same level as the taking of an innocent life through direct abortion. Do any of these other issues bother me, yes, but I will fight for the life of the unborn until eternity before I make taxes my “single” issue. You have secularized your thinking until spiritual life is only a wavering candle. To confuse people is the focus of the evil one and he does a good job with those who don’t pay attention to the TRUTH and the hierarchies of evil and good.

 

[elts1956]

They matter to me. I wouldn’t vote someone pro-life in office if one of their promises was to double taxes on farms, and I don’t care if his opponent is pro-choice or not.

Not a chance that will happen because a Dem. will never lower taxes.

 

[Prophesy]

I’m always surprised that people are bothered by ‘one issue voting’. I usually try to illustrate it like this:

Imagine if you will a politician with an excellent ability to manage foreign affairs, excellent understanding of law and economics and may help lead your country to a level of prosperity. However, he’s a blatant racist and would like to legalize slavery.

(You can weasel by saying 'a racist isn’t going to have excellent foreign policy, but humor the situation for a sec.) If a politician is great but has one ghastly flaw we can justify voting against for that one grave issue. You could also justify playing darts to pick your vote, it’d be a bit foolish, but a person is entitled to their opinion and their freedom to vote.

-Prophecy

 

[Prophesy]

Not a chance that will happen because a Dem. will never lower taxes.

It depends on the Dem. Most Dems these day are large government Dems, you also have members of the GOP who are for large government. A large government requires more funding, thus more taxation. I would think that Dems are more likely to reallocate taxation than lower it at this point.

A doubling in taxation is either indicative of a low rate (2% doubling to 4%) or an insane politician (17% to 34%)

-Prophecy

 

[Prophesy]

They matter to me. I wouldn’t vote someone pro-life in office if one of their promises was to double taxes on farms, and I don’t care if his opponent is pro-choice or not.

Doubling farm taxes will not be a campaign promise. If it were something they would campaign on, it’d be “introducing an X” tax. I doubt any politician would be willing to state that they’d like to double taxes on argi-business. Especially in places like Idaho with large farming populations

-Prophecy

 

[Rence]

You have fallen into Bernadin’s Seamless Garment theory. Life comes first, then quality of life. Many of the Bishops have also fallen into this error where they just can’t make a commintment against abortion because there are too many “other” life issues for them to try to erase. Poverty will never be erased, care of the environment will never be perfect. Issues such as these do not even begin to be on the same level as the taking of an innocent life through direct abortion. Do any of these other issues bother me, yes, but I will fight for the life of the unborn until eternity before I make taxes my “single” issue. You have secularized your thinking until spiritual life is only a wavering candle. To confuse people is the focus of the evil one and he does a good job with those who don’t pay attention to the TRUTH and the hierarchies of evil and good.

Just as poverty will never be erased, and care of the envirnonment will never be perfect, so abortion will never be erased. The Bishops are not in error to consider other life issues.

Elts, I’m sure these other issues bother you, they would bother anyone. Your priority, or one voting issue, is abortion and that’s okay for you. You have that right, and that’s how it should be. Others have their ‘one voting issue’ too. The Bishops are not in error to direct Catholics to consider all issues carefully and weigh them together. I would say that for Catholics Abortion is one of the most important, if not the most important issue, but it’s not the only issue.

 

[Rence]

Not a chance that will happen because a Dem. will never lower taxes.

First of all, I wasn’t talking about lowering taxes. I was talking about significantly raising a sub population’s taxes. Second of all, it was an example of a priority for me.

Also, I would not call myself Democratic, nor would I call myself Republican. I look at all the candidates individually and weigh them against themselves as well as their opponents.

 

[Rence]

I’m always surprised that people are bothered by ‘one issue voting’. I usually try to illustrate it like this:

Imagine if you will a politician with an excellent ability to manage foreign affairs, excellent understanding of law and economics and may help lead your country to a level of prosperity. However, he’s a blatant racist and would like to legalize slavery.

(You can weasel by saying 'a racist isn’t going to have excellent foreign policy, but humor the situation for a sec.) If a politician is great but has one ghastly flaw we can justify voting against for that one grave issue. You could also justify playing darts to pick your vote, it’d be a bit foolish, but a person is entitled to their opinion and their freedom to vote.

-Prophecy

Well that’s a good example (even if it’s unrealistic – no one would dare to say he/she’d like to legalize slavery in the US today). That would definitely be a ‘one issue’ that would drive a person to not vote for the candidate. But as you said, a person is entitled to their opinion nad their freedom to vote, but I’m betting there might be some people out there who will vote for him anyway because of the other issues — which may affect certain people more directly. People are going to vote for issues that affect them directly first.