Paul Ryan Discussion

[oldcelt]

Desanto, which bishop has come out and declared that its wrong for Catholics to vote for a Mormon for president? Who in a position of authority in the catholic church has said that we must not vote for a candidate because they are Mormon?

To answer…no Bishop, no Pope…and that is curious…I guess the Trinity is a non-question.

John

 

[estesbob]

. Is the Word of God not enough? Please go back and review the scriptures. We have been warned of this very situation. I will work on gathering scripture to share with you all, out of sincere concern…not prejudice.

Why should we accept you personal interpretation of scripture?

 

[oldcelt]

Why should we accept you personal interpretation of scripture?

Bob,

Then answer my point on the Trinity…From whom does all life flow?

I think it is a valid point for the Catholics on this board.

John

 

[JoeBowen7]

Hello JoeBowen -

Why is it that you don’t answer my question? Its a simple one: who do you want choosing the next two to three supreme court justices - Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden? Please answer!

You raise some valid criticisms of the GOP over the past few years. - too much spending, perhaps an overly idealistic foreign policy (as opposed to realistic). As for “getting new ideas going” I think that the ideas of fiscal discipline and entitlement reform being championed by Paul Ryan and embraced by Romney is a very good sign, don’t you? Your lesser of two evils argument aside, would you not agree that Virgil Goode has absolutely no chance of winning, and that he would take away some votes from Romney. In a close election, that could be a big factor. Do you want to help Obama get re-elected? Who do you think will be more likely to establish some fiscal discipline in our country, Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden?

Ishii

Like I said already, Republicans and Democrats have had their chance and the country is in a mess.

 

[meltzerboy]

THE 13% was effective rate. You are trying to compare effective rate with marginal rate. Another reason, IMO, that he shoukdnt release avny more returns

I admit to ignorance on this matter. Would the marginal rate be a lot higher?

 

[estesbob]

Bob,

Then answer my point on the Trinity…From whom does all life flow?

I think it is a valid point for the Catholics on this board.

John

John :
Given our choices I woukd rather vote for someone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity over one who believes a woman has a. right to pay someone to kill her child. Romney was not my choice but he is the best viable option available for a Cathoilc

 

[estesbob]

I admit to ignorance on this matter. Would the marginal rate be a lot higher?

Yes. For nearly half the people in the country the effective rate is 0 .

 

[LisaA]

John :
Given our choices I woukd rather vote for someone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity over one who believes a woman has a. right to pay someone to kill her child. Romney was not my choice but he is the best viable option available for a Cathoilc

Totally agree. I find this prejudice against Mormons baffling although I suspect the same would then be said of Jews…after all they reject the Trinity as well.

With respect to my church, I expect to share the same beliefs with my fellow parishioners and of course the Priests, Bishops etc. In church the belief is the common thread that ties us together.

OTOH when we are talking about life outside of the church, I don’t really care if they share my specific beliefs as long as they share my values. Recently Barack Obama claimed that he is a believing Christian who tries to live his life as Jesus lived His. OK here’s someone who says he believes in the Trinity, he follows Christ, and he also promotes abortion, gay marriage, and is at war with the Church. Somehow his belief system is irrelevant when I compare it to his (lack of) values.

Secular leaders are not supposed to also be clergy. Isn’t there something our Founding Fathers included about no establishment of religion and no religious test.

I guess those who are prejudiced against those who don’t share our faith are likewise rejecting of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. That’s certainly an interesting viewpoint.

Lisa

 

[bellasbane]

. Is the Word of God not enough? Please go back and review the scriptures. We have been warned of this very situation. I will work on gathering scripture to share with you all, out of sincere concern…not prejudice.

Are you referring to 1 John 2: 22-24?

Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.

usccb.org/bible/1john/2/

Obama knows his scripture and makes a point of declaring that he believes “Jesus Christ is the Lord” when crazy hecklers call him the Anti-Christ, which is exactly the right thing to say to pass the “test”. As a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ he believes in the doctrine of the Trinity.

As a member of the LDS Church, Mitt Romney would believe Jesus and Lucifer to be of the same “kind” and maybe even brothers. Definitely not Trinitarian. I don’t know how Romney would respond to a heckler calling him the Anti-Christ. It would be interesting to see.

The irony in this is delicious!

utlm.org/onlineresources/ldsteachingonlucifer.htm

 

[LisaA]

Elizabeth, I am not silent on moral issues. As I’ve indicated, I protest any and all religious restrictions. With regard to abortion, however, for me, individuals’ and family’s personal religious and secular moral values must be respected: that is the morality of this situation as I see it. I choose not to impose my own moral and religious values on others in situations that are not as clear-cut as you may believe. . The issue is complex in our country because of reasonable differences in religious beliefs. It is not the same issue as discrimination against Americans because of their skin color, religion, gender, age, disability, or other feature. That’s why I believe the abortion decision must be in the hands of the woman, her family, their faith, and the counsel of their doctor; not according to the dictates of either secular government or religious advocates. It is one of the few matters in which I agree with Barbara Bush, who stated that abortion should not be a political issue at all since it is a private and personal decision.

Meltzerboy, you did not respond to my post which specified that opposition to abortion is NOT strictly a religious viewpoint. I often see what I consider a canard (and frankly beneath someone like you who has the intelligence to provide a cogent argument) in "I don’t want to force my religious beliefs upon others.

Neither do I. I don’t expect other people to go to Mass, confession or believe in the Real Presence. I would love for everyone to embrace the Catholic faith because it has added so much to my life. OTOH I understand that regligious beliefs are very personal, very much part of who we are in our hearts as well as our minds. I have tremendous respect for other faith traditions and without seeming to pander, I hold Judaism above all faiths except Catholicism because of is scholarship, its wisdom, and because of the way practicing Jews live their lives.

The killing of innocent human beings is against the law and has been in cultures of varying religions. The ONLY reason abortion is allowed is that unborn human people are not considered human by some. Thus I see the whole question as a human rights issue as well as a religious issue. I am not against other people stealing or assaulting others because of my faith, but because these are inherently wrong. Just as killing the innocent and helpless whether they are unborn, unconscious, or unloved.

Would you please read and address my earlier post? I think you are arguing against a conclusion that was not at issue.

Lisa

 

[ishii]

. Is the Word of God not enough? Please go back and review the scriptures. We have been warned of this very situation. I will work on gathering scripture to share with you all, out of sincere concern…not prejudice.

Your flawed interpretation? No, that’s not good enough in this important election - sorry. What authority in the Church has declared that one may not vote for a Mormon or non-catholic for president?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Like I said already, Republicans and Democrats have had their chance and the country is in a mess.

Answer the question: who would you like to choose the next three supreme court justices - Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden, and why? (it will be Obama or Romney doing the choosing - no offence to Virgil Gooding).

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Since this is a Catholic Forum, most members, who are Catholic, would want precisely what you say. However, a minority of Catholics, as well as some members of other religious beliefs or of no religious belief, would not want either political party to follow exclusively any one religion’s teaching regarding such personal and family issues that involve life (abortion), love (gay marriage), or death (euthanasia). I know I don’t want non-Jews (or even all Jews) to follow Judaism’s teachings on abortion, which are not the same as those of the Catholic Church, nor the same as Islam’s beliefs, nor those of Quakers or Hindus. I would not want the government to legislate by means of restrictions one particular set of moral values regarding abortion, which the GOP Party–in particular Paul Ryan, as well as other members of Congress–wishes to do. It seems odd to me that the GOP, which champions small government and governmental non-interference in the economic domain, wants to micro-manage personal and religious issues of life, love, and death, in which there are a variety of reasonable religious as well as secular points of disagreement. OTOH, I believe it is equally wrong for the government to violate the practice of Catholics’ religious beliefs, as in the instance of forcing Catholic adoption agencies to allow gay couples to adopt or forcing Catholic institutions to administer contraceptive devices. We must ensure religious liberty for all religions, including the majority; however, we must not impose the majority religion’s moral values on everyone in a pluralistic and free society.

Hello Meltzerboy,

I was merely saying that Romney/Ryan come much closer to the Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life than Obama. That is a far cry from “let’s impose esoteric teaching on the rest of the country - make them eat fish on Friday’s during Lent”. Once upon a time there was a consensus among most faith traditions that the unborn were to be protected. That broke down over time but there are a great deal of Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and yes, Catholics, who believe that the unborn deserve to be protected from the vacuum. I truly think you misunderstood me: I was responding to the kind of all or nothing, “anything short of 100% in accordance with Catholic teaching candidate” is to be condemned type of voter. That type of Catholic voter thinks that only the “perfect” true believer candidate can be supported. I was trying to use the old Reagan argument that someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is your 80% friend, not your 20% enemy, or however the saying goes. Anyway, that was the context of my post.

Ishii

 

[Elizabeth502]

I choose not to impose my own moral and religious values on others in situations that are not as clear-cut as you may believe.

I don’t see situations as “clear-cut,” even in Judaism, and yes I am aware both that

in Orthodox Judaism, abortions are permitted in cases of rape and incest, as well as when the mother’s life is in danger

and that

The latter reasoning is explained in detail in the Talmud. The psychological harm done to a woman who might be forced to carry an unborn baby to term who is the product of rape or incest is taken into account by many Orthodox rabbis, though not all.

Regarding this:

It is not the same issue as discrimination against Americans because of their skin color, religion, gender, age, disability, or other feature.

The comparison I was making was not between abortion and racism. The point I was making was that religious conviction cannot be a private matter when it concerns public issues. That’s fine that you don’t think abortion is a public issue, or that the public has no right to make a statement about abortion, but that is separate from your statement that to make a stand = “to impose.” “Imposition” is not a possibility in the U.S.A., because religions do not control government – not a single religion, not all religions combined.

So for you to keep arguing that you cannot make a stand “because of” “imposition” is a straw man.

 

[JoeBowen7]

Answer the question: who would you like to choose the next three supreme court justices - Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden, and why? (it will be Obama or Romney doing the choosing - no offence to Virgil Gooding).

Ishii

It is time to get over the thought that we are locked in and that there are only two parties and we don’t have any other choice. We are bouncing back and forth between Democrat and Republican and the result is that the country is going down the drain both economically and morally. It is time to look at a third party, such as the Constitution party.

 

[WarriorAngel]

At the end of the day - none of the candidates are absolutely pro life [except Ryan as VP]

Virgil Goode, Ron Paul - the platforms are similar to Romney’s.

The actual outcome in voting for 3rd party choices is getting Obama back in.
Goode sits on a platform that reflects Libertarian. Which is not fully pro life. So the argument is kind of moot point, all things considered.

The problem is - Romney’s junk is out there and most frequently talked about. Why? Because Republican’s get a spot light - the other 3rd parties do not. If they were - they are all the same. I checked it out.

I wish we had a Santorum/Ryan ticket. Amen!

Anyway - i feel i will go with the most obvious candidate who has the greatest chance of winning against Obama, and wont be pressured to split the vote for the same junk.

No one is more pro life than Santorum and Ryan. We dropped the ball not giving Santorum more delegates. So anyone who didn’t vote for him - put us where we are.
And that is fair to say - since all parties are equal on the pro life stance - and Goode is pro death penalty [if that matters to anyone] - then Romney is the most viable.

examiner.com/article/candidate-review-virgil-goode-on-the-issues

 

[Ridgerunner]

And now we read in the news that Iraq, supposedly our ally, is helping Iran overcome the sanctions put on it by the Western powers. In afghanistan, we read that soldiers that the US has trained and armed and paid for, are now turning their guns on Nato troops and killing them? How honest is the present leader of Afghanistan? Where does all the American money go? Who is profiting? I don’t see either party changing things much, although there will be a lot of speeches.

Before we left Iraq, we had strong allies in the Kurds and with most of the important Sunni leaders. And, interestingly, we even had the support of the chief Ayatollah among the Shiites, who was opposed to Iranian intervention in Iraq’s affairs.

We threw Iraq away because Obama wanted to “make himself right” in opposing Iraq, and it was THEN that Iraq noticed that the strongest presence in the neighborhood is Iran.

In my judgment, Af/Pak is a waste and should have been recognized as such. It’s a country half in the 7th Century A.D. and half in the 7th Century B.C. Actually, it isn’t a country at all; just an uneasy concatenation of ethnic/linguistic groups. But again, because Obama campaigned on the notion that Af/Pak was the “good” war, we’re still there.

 

[SamH]

In my judgment, Af/Pak is a waste and should have been recognized as such. It’s a country half in the 7th Century A.D. and half in the 7th Century B.C. Actually, it isn’t a country at all; just an uneasy concatenation of ethnic/linguistic groups. But again, because Obama campaigned on the notion that Af/Pak was the “good” war, we’re still there.

With 2000 dead as of today.

 

[Ridgerunner]

However, i would not disagree with someone who is looking for a third party to bring about the real change that America needs. The Republicans and the Democrats have had their chance, and the result is that America is in a terrible economic depression, millions of unborn are being killed, and there appears to be no end to useless foreign interventions.

Many third parties have also had their “chance”, and have failed utterly to gain enough support to matter at all. If their appeal was so obvious and so tremendous, that would not be the case.

 

[LisaA]

Before we left Iraq, we had strong allies in the Kurds and with most of the important Sunni leaders. And, interestingly, we even had the support of the chief Ayatollah among the Shiites, who was opposed to Iranian intervention in Iraq’s affairs.

We threw Iraq away because Obama wanted to “make himself right” in opposing Iraq, and it was THEN that Iraq noticed that the strongest presence in the neighborhood is Iran.

In my judgment, Af/Pak is a waste and should have been recognized as such. It’s a country half in the 7th Century A.D. and half in the 7th Century B.C. Actually, it isn’t a country at all; just an uneasy concatenation of ethnic/linguistic groups. But again, because Obama campaigned on the notion that Af/Pak was the “good” war, we’re still there.

Absolutely agree wholeheartedly. During the Iraq War I was very involved in a troop support group and had daily contact with troops on the ground in both Iraq and Afg. I could never understand the Dems belief that Afg was the “good war” given the people and the terrain and the obstacles to overcome. Your point that it’s not really a country is spot on. We of the west are “country” or national oriented. They are TRIBE oriented. The twain doth not meet. While we are loyal to our country, many if not most Afghans are simply loyal to the tribe or village. They simply have no concept of a national unity or pride.

While Iraq has some of the same problems in being cobbled together by committee, at least it was a country where there was infrastructure, some educated populace, an industry (oil) and a specific target (Husain). In Af we are playing Whack A Mole and of late the duplicity of this people has become more and more apparent. Hearing from military tasked with trying to train the AA and AP I never had any confidence that we could effect any change. I thought the switch to focus on Afg and the complete withdrawal from Iraq were simply a function of Obama’s enormous ego. Yet he ignored what the generals said about necessary troop levels and set the withdrawal date.

The Afghans have never ‘lost’ a war. They simply defect to the winning side. The sooner we pull every one of our precious troops out of that pit the better and this is from someone who was very supportive of the original efforts to eradicate the Islamists.

Wow back to the thread…one thing about the RR ticket, while detractors claim that Romney is saber rattling and likely to embark on foreign adventures (without the slightest bit of evidence I might add) the reality is a) Romney has a businessman’s focus on all problems and b) Neither man has his ego wrapped up in Af/Pak. It would be very easy to disengage from this debacle since their hands are clean. Egos are not involved. No loss of face.

Lisa