"One Issue Voter"

[Christopher68]

How is voting for someone who favors creating kids so that they can be experimented on going to get the unemployed man a job or health insurance? And even if somehow a person had assurance that the baby killer could get him a job, how can he have peace if that’s the trade he’s willing to make? And if he’s willing to make that trade, he ain’t Catholic.

Unemployment sucks. Poverty sucks. Hunger sucks. But not as bad as having your arms and legs ripped off. Not as bad as having your skin burned off or your brain sucked out of a hole in the back of your neck!

You obviously do not consider a preborn baby as a human. If black-suited g-men fanned out every day to preschools across the country and selected 3000 rugrats to be dragged to the town square and dismembered, would you be worrying about health insurance? There is no difference. 4 years old. 4 months old. 4 months gestation. 4 minutes post conception. NO DIFFERENCE!

Why did you highlight my words in red, and then add your own words in red to the section that you quoted? If you want to respond to a post of mine, please have the courtesy to let my words stand on their own, without giving the false impression that the entire section you quoted was written by me.

 

[Newbie2]

That’s not what I’m saying. The asterisks refer back to the phrase “depends on the voter”. That’s moral relativism.

You remind me of the answers the two candidates gave to the question “When does life begin?” Dear Leader Chairman Mahatmabama said it was above his paygrade. The RINO said life begins at conception–period.

That settled it for me and I am decidedly uneducated.

OK, I understand better what you wrote.

But “depends on the voter” in such a context is not ***necessarily ***moral relativism. Catholic voters have various levels of education about their faith and about the candidates. IF they were all equal in this respect, THEN quite possibly we could be legitimately talking about moral relativism.

Of course Catholics, at least those who bothered to find out what the Church teaches, would know that vague promises to lower the number of abortion could not offsset ones support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

I’m not so sure, Bob. I know this sounds uncharitable, and I don’t mean it to be so, but there are some pretty low IQ voters out there, some Catholica among them. They don’t think beyond a certain point. Some people are gullible when it comes to political promises.

Catholics who assert the Church is wrong are a lot more honest than those who defy her teachings and try to convince everyone that they are indeed in comlpiance with Her teachings.

I partly agree with this. But I maintain that there are some Catholic voters who will believe most anything that comes out of a politician’s mouth.

Both , of course, are sinning greviously but at least the former are not trying to convince people that the Church in any way supports their vote.

I beg to differ. If someone believing with all his heart that Obama meant what he said by “reducing the number of abortions” that he was going to work to eliminate all abortions, that person could hardly be guilty of a grevious sin.

 

[pnewton]

In view of these two documents, I don’t see how any Catholic could vote for the most perfect pro-abort candidate in American history.

I don’t see how any Christian can, Catholic or not, black or white. Jesus told the disciples to suffer the little children to come to him. Our president told his follows to come follow him and he will see that the little children suffer.

 

[CPA2]

Who is right? Where is truth?

People today base their relative truth on opinions, and their opinions are based on feelings. There are millions of variations of relative truth. The logic goes something like this: Your truth is relative. It has to do with your circumstances. Your truth is related to you personally. It may not be related to the lifestyle others.

People say you must be informed. We are told that you must educate yourself so that you can know the issues, and how to form your opinions. There are many people believing differently, however, and they all believe their beliefs are right. They base their beliefs on their own relative truth.

Society is guided by all of these different relative truths. Society thinks that everyone must live by his own truths. All of these different relative truths are based on nothing more than what a person feels.

There is no absolute truth in today’s world. There are many relative truths, however. Since there are no absolutes, there are many things that you can believe. You can believe this way, or you can believe that way. This is the belief system of most people in society today.

Moral Relativism

“Modern man has become passive in the face of evil. He has so long preached a doctrine of false tolerance; has so long believed that right and wrong were only differences in a point of view, that now when evil works itself out in practice he is paralyzed to do anything against it (Sheen).”

Morality (Western Bourgeois)

In the domain of morality, is it not an accepted principle of our Western bourgeois world that there is no absolute distinction between right and wrong rooted in the eternal order of God, but that they are relative and dependent entirely upon one’s point of view? Hence when the Western world wishes to decide what is right and wrong even in certain moral matters, it takes a poll – forgetful that the majority never makes a thing right….The first poll of public opinion taken in history of Christianity was on Pilate’s front porch, and it was wrong (Sheen).”

Our senses lead us to reason. Additionally, God made our reasoning ability to lead us to faith. However, we have short-circuited the process. Our reasoning ability does not lead us to God because our culture tears reason from its roots in God.

As you can see, reason has its roots in God. You may recall that the fruits of the Holy Spirit (God) are love, peace, wisdom, etc. However, that is not the way it is in the real world, is it? We live in a chaotic, unstable and evil world. We are more evil than at the time of Noah. If the origin of life is blind evolution, should we expect life to be any different than unstable and fluid?

Look at abortion. We murder over 4,500 unborn babies in the United States every day. Some on this forum would argue that abortion is “reasonable.” If man is reduced to matter, and therefore a thing, then it is “reasonable.” Reason loses its dominance and man has no other value than being an instrument of power.

 

[estesbob]

I beg to differ. If someone believing with all his heart that Obama meant what he said by “reducing the number of abortions” that he was going to work to eliminate all abortions, that person could hardly be guilty of a grevious sin.

There is no way one can rationalize supporting an intrinsic evil. If a Catholic voted for Obama it was either a direct rejection of OR willful ignorance of Church teachins. In eoither case they should make there way to confession and ask for forgivness.

 

[JKing]

Why did you highlight my words in red, and then add your own words in red to the section that you quoted? If you want to respond to a post of mine, please have the courtesy to let my words stand on their own, without giving the false impression that the entire section you quoted was written by me.

Apologies!!! I did not intend to mislead readers. Can you forgive me?

 

[Newbie2]

There is no way one can rationalize supporting an intrinsic evil. If a Catholic voted for Obama it was either a direct rejection of OR willful ignorance of Church teachins. In eoither case they should make there way to confession and ask for forgivness.

So you reject the notion that a Catholic could be mislead, by a politician’s rhetoric or by Satan himself (who is behind such rhetoric in this case)?

 

[sedonaman]

…
I beg to differ. If someone believing with all his heart that Obama meant what he said by “reducing the number of abortions” that he was going to work to eliminate all abortions, that person could hardly be guilty of a grevious sin.

He would if he chose to believe Øbama instead of his bishops.

Pray tell what “work” has Øbama done since taking office “to eliminate all abortions”?

 

[Newbie2]

He would if he chose to believe Øbama instead of his bishops.

Pray tell what “work” has Øbama done since taking office “to eliminate all abortions”?

He hasn’t, and has worked for abortions.

But you miss the point.

Let me pose the question:

Do you think it’s possible for a person to be so taken in by someone like Obama that he or she could believe that Obama actually would be working against abortions? After all, he pandered shamlessly to the moderates and moderate-to-rights in this regard. We all knew he didn’t mean it. Or did we all?

I think it’s entirely possible. Satan works through devious means.

And please, forumites. I’m not attemting to “justify evil”.

I’m attempting to put forth a possible explanation whereby a faithful Catholic could be duped into doing something that he or she would not normally do if not under the deception of the Evil One, and thereby have “less than clear” culpability of supporting abortion.

In such a case, I would posit that someone that had been so duped now would look at what they’ve done and realize they’d be mislead.

Others who think their vote didn’t affect abortion, even now that Obama’s veil is off, would still support him. I’m not talking about such people.

 

[sedonaman]

Who is right? Where is truth?
…
There is no absolute truth in today’s world.

Except the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.

There are many relative truths, however. Since there are no absolutes, there are many things that you can believe. You can believe this way, or you can believe that way. This is the belief system of most people in society today.

Notice that this means that truth is internal to the individual, not external. If truth is internal to man, it would also mean nothing existed until man observed it, which is clearly absurd. It is also nothing more than original sin, i.e., man attempting to make the rules instead of God.

A particularly sneaky kind of relativism is polylogism.
Polylogism

Polylogism is the belief that different people or groups have different forms of logic. Since logic is the art of non-contradiction, polylogism can have only two possible meanings. Either reality is different for each group, or logic is a loose term for method of acquiring knowledge. The latter, though, is not how it is used. Those speaking of polylogism state that the conclusions from the different logics are different. This means that although they both claim to be methods of acquiring knowledge, the truth of the knowledge is different for different groups. This can mean only that reality is different for the different groups.

Polylogism is an absurd idea. It hides behind a more realistic idea, though. People can acquire knowledge in different ways. There are various methods one can use in approaching truth. Some of these methods are legitimate while others are not. Polylogism pretends to encompass the legitimate methods by claiming different cultures are more prone to using particular methods.

This is just camouflage. Polylogism is nothing but social subjectivism. It claims that knowledge is whatever you want it to be, but applies it to groups. Cultures, tribes, or races are the deciders of truth, and reality conforms to their views. What’s true for a Greek philosopher is not true for an Eastern philosopher. This does not mean that the two believe different things. It means that the two are both right, even though they contradict one another. It is a denial of the Law of Identity.

Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos. solohq.com/Objectivism101/Irrational_Polylogism.shtml

Moral Relativism

“Modern man has become passive in the face of evil. He has so long preached a doctrine of false tolerance; has so long believed that right and wrong were only differences in a point of view, that now when evil works itself out in practice he is paralyzed to do anything against it (Sheen).”

Morality (Western Bourgeois)

In the domain of morality, is it not an accepted principle of our Western bourgeois world that there is no absolute distinction between right and wrong rooted in the eternal order of God, but that they are relative and dependent entirely upon one’s point of view? Hence when the Western world wishes to decide what is right and wrong even in certain moral matters, it takes a poll – forgetful that the majority never makes a thing right….The first poll of public opinion taken in history of Christianity was on Pilate’s front porch, and it was wrong (Sheen).”…

Bishop Sheen once [in the '50s] contrasted the ways the West and the ways communists arrive at truth by asking, “Where are your sox?” In the West, we turn to reality and conclude they are in your dresser drawer. The communist replies, “Wherever the party says they are.”

 

[estesbob]

He hasn’t, and has worked for abortions.

But you miss the point.

Let me pose the question:

Do you think it’s possible for a person to be so taken in by someone like Obama that he or she could believe that Obama actually would be working against abortions? After all, he pandered shamlessly to the moderates and moderate-to-rights in this regard. We all knew he didn’t mean it. Or did we all?

I think it’s entirely possible. Satan works through devious means.

And please, forumites. I’m not attemting to “justify evil”.

I’m attempting to put forth a possible explanation whereby a faithful Catholic could be duped into doing something that he or she would not normally do if not under the deception of the Evil One, and thereby have “less than clear” culpability of supporting abortion.

In such a case, I would posit that someone that had been so duped now would look at what they’ve done and realize they’d be mislead.

Others who think their vote didn’t affect abortion, even now that Obama’s veil is off, would still support him. I’m not talking about such people.

Thre is no doubt you are rationalize supporting evil

 

[Newbie2]

Thre is no doubt you are rationalize supporting evil

The Gospel according to Bob. Thanks for further contributing to this discussion.

Instead of beating a dead horse, Bob, seriously…do me the favor of answering this question:

Do you believe that Satan is incapable of duping a Catholic with a properly formed conscious on this matter?

And please stop accusing me of rationalizing evil, that is, of making arguments for abortion. That is not my intent. If you disagree, fine, we can continue to discuss the matter. But if you’re saying that I’m attempting to justify abortion or its support, please stop. That is not my intent nor is it what I am doing.

 

[estesbob]

The Gospel according to Bob. Thanks for further contributing to this discussion.

Instead of beating a dead horse, Bob, seriously…do me the favor of answering this question:

Do you believe that Satan is incapable of duping a Catholic with a properly formed conscious on this matter?

And please stop accusing me of rationalizing evil, that is, of making arguments for abortion. That is not my intent. If you disagree, fine, we can continue to discuss the matter. But if you’re saying that I’m attempting to justify abortion or its support, please stop. That is not my intent nor is it what I am doing.

Can Satan lead us into to sin? Absolutely . Can a Catholic who’s conscience has been properly formed by the teachings of the church be duped into supporting intrinsic evil? No Can a Catholic who has put their politics before their faith rationalize supporting intrinsic evil Yes.

 

[Newbie2]

Can a Catholic who’s conscience has been properly formed by the teachings of the church be duped into supporting intrinsic evil? No .

That would appear to be the crux of our disagreement.

I believe that there are those who can be deceived.

So lemme ask this…and this of course is a hypothetical…IF a person with a properly formed conscience COULD be duped as we’ve discussed, would they still be fully culpable for sinning?

Yes, I understand you don’t think such a thing could happen…but IF it could, what’s your take on such a person’s culpability for sinning in such an instance?

My take would be that such a person’s culpability would be lessened in that they were deceived into thinking something other than what was the reality of the situation.

Is it likely to happen? No. Could it happen. I think it’s possible.

 

[Christopher68]

That would appear to be the crux of our disagreement.

I believe that there are those who can be deceived.

So lemme ask this…and this of course is a hypothetical…IF a person with a properly formed conscience COULD be duped as we’ve discussed, would they still be fully culpable for sinning?

Yes, I understand you don’t think such a thing could happen…but IF it could, what’s your take on such a person’s culpability for sinning in such an instance?

My take would be that such a person’s culpability would be lessened in that they were deceived into thinking something other than what was the reality of the situation.

Is it likely to happen? No. Could it happen. I think it’s possible.

Newbie2,

Bob’s comments seem rather circular in nature, so I’m not sure you’re going to get anything vastly different from him in subsequent posts.

Bob is also assuming that government is a benevolent, high-performance organization, and that when a candidate proclaims that they are pro-life, that once they get into they office they will achieve pro-life goals. I don’t think reality bears this out in any way. From my post number 215 from this thread:

“…time after time government has been an abject failure at whatever it tries to accomplish. They turn small problems into big problems. Oftentimes their government ‘solution’ ends up costing exponentially more than anticipated, makes the existing problem worse, and creates new and unintended problems as well. Those who rabidly want government to step in to combat abortion should probably think more deeply about the reality of government. A government-led war on abortion would have the same success as the governments war on drugs, which has been an abject failure. However, I am fully aware that the emotional nature of the issue often blinds people to the unfortunate reality of government.”

So what happens if a candidate who proclaims to be pro-life (for the sake of argument, let’s say the candidate was endorsed by Bob) but when they actually get into office they actually make ‘life’ issues worse? Are the voters who were ‘duped’ by the candidates rhetoric culpable for making the problem worse? Would Bob hold himself responsible?

 

[estesbob]

Newbie2,

Bob’s comments seem rather circular in nature, so I’m not sure you’re going to get anything vastly different from him in subsequent posts.

Bob is also assuming that government is a benevolent, high-performance organization, and that when a candidate proclaims that they are pro-life, that once they get into they office they will achieve pro-life goals. I don’t think reality bears this out in any way. From my post number 215 from this thread:

“…time after time government has been an abject failure at whatever it tries to accomplish. They turn small problems into big problems. Oftentimes their government ‘solution’ ends up costing exponentially more than anticipated, makes the existing problem worse, and creates new and unintended problems as well. Those who rabidly want government to step in to combat abortion should probably think more deeply about the reality of government. A government-led war on abortion would have the same success as the governments war on drugs, which has been an abject failure. However, I am fully aware that the emotional nature of the issue often blinds people to the unfortunate reality of government.”

So what happens if a candidate who proclaims to be pro-life (for the sake of argument, let’s say the candidate was endorsed by Bob) but when they actually get into office they actually make ‘life’ issues worse? Are the voters who were ‘duped’ by the candidates rhetoric culpable for making the problem worse? Would Bob hold himself responsible?

By circular I am sure you mean views that you don’t agree with. If a person turns out not to be pro-life none should not vote for them next time around but is most certainly not mean that that gives you cart Blanche to vote for somebody who makes no secret of their pro-abortion feelings.

Personally I know of nobody I have voted for who claimed to be pro-life who made pro-life issues worse- but that isthe straw man that those who cannot reconcile their politics with their faith constantly put forth…

 

[Newbie2]

Newbie2,

Bob’s comments seem rather circular in nature, so I’m not sure you’re going to get anything vastly different from him in subsequent posts.

Maybe so, but perhaps he’ll engage in the hypothetical for the sake of discussion.

Bob? Waddya think?

 

[Christopher68]

By circular I am sure you mean views that you don’t agree with.

Not at all. I’m referring to the logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed either implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

Personally I know of nobody I have voted for who claimed to be pro-life who made pro-life issues worse- but that isthe straw man that those who cannot reconcile their politics with their faith constantly put forth…

So by your logic you’re saying that whenever the government gets involved in an issue, that the government always makes the issue better??? Or if that’s not what you’re saying, perhaps you could explain how the government makes every issue worse - with the exception of the one single issue that you have decreed to be the ‘most important’ issue? I would humbly suggest that it is you who cannot reconcile your religious beliefs with the unfortunate reality of government.

 

[John_Pascendi]

When it’s a clear choice between someone who is likely to influence abortion law or policy and we have the choice between a pro-lifer and a pro-abort, sure, it’s the most important issue.

But that all falls apart when you have two choices to vote for, and their both “pro-choice”.

True,thats why I have not voted for any presidential candidate in many years,here behind the iron curtain in NY we have few choices at all. there is no …lesser of two evils…its still evil.I kinda liked Ron Paul till he voted to abolish the dont ask dont tell bit about homosexuals in the military…I emailed him as to having two guys go at it in the barracks or what happens in the latrine to we straights or what about aids…or why cant we hetros have women in the barracks to turn us on…he never answered so I knew he was a phony also…thats how it is with these so called conservatives.when push comes to shove they soon reveal themselves for being what they are…like the so called Catholic league,they will make a splash this thursday re; mother Teresa…some work on this in different ways…my local school published a calendar last year with a quote from Jung,I spoke to the board condemning this decison for carl was a nazi lover…this year,for the same month, a lovely quote from Mother Teresa is on top of the page…one can work and do things in quiet ways and get more done,the ranting etc is more fun to be sure tho…sigh…

 

[1035princess]

I find it interesting that this thread seems to continuously jump back to voting for president, and doesn’t make much mention about voting for other representatives or public offices.

Personally, I consider very different issues when I am deciding who I want as my president than when I am deciding who I want representing me in the Senate. The president is a mere figurehead, he is our foreign representative and our commander in times of war. I care much more that he believes in supporting the Constitution and keeping our country in peace than about his opinions on euthanasia and stem cell research. I don’t worry so much if my president is pro-life or pro-choice, or whether he supports gay marriage or not - because the president is not the person who makes the law.

Conversely, I would not be able to put my support behind a congressman who did not support my Catholic beliefs, because he is the one who will be voting in my stead on exceedingly important pieces of legislation. The president may have veto power, but nothing that cannot be overridden by a majority of the Senate. My representative is meant to be just that, and represent my opinion and vote accordingly - a job I believe to be just as important, if not more so, than the job of the president.