Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[Amolibri]

Boy, there’s a Napoleon complex for you.

Ah, the old ‘splinters & logs’ vern.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ah, the old ‘splinters & logs’ vern.

How did you know I’ve been taking down dead trees for firewood?

 

[SoCalRC]

I recommend you read the report from the CCB regarding the election and the five non-negotiables. The war may or may not be unjust, I would never deny the Pope, but was is not one of the tenets of the church that in included in the non-negotiable issues in voting. When it is, I think many of us will take notice.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful provided a comprehensive doctrinal note that lists 9 specific examples of non negotiable moral values, and an overriding 10th.

I actually vote all of them to the best of my ability. Some, like you, have argued that I am being impractical in fully voting my concience. But from my point of view, I don’t see the loss of my earthly political ‘power’ any big deal. Giving up coffee for lent is a bigger loss.

Look at the last few pages of comments, try as they might the posters cannot seem to make the mental leap that there are, in fact, more than two options. Funny, some of the same folks have argued that not basing health care on private charitable giving is a failure to “trust God”, but when it comes to voting, fully trusting in God instead of making moral compromises is “a wasted vote”.

The part that bothers me is the need to resort to moral relativism. Fine, you compromised principles because of desired results. But why profess that one’s own compromises are more moral by relative comparison? Well, ok, I voted for forced abortions for profit, but at least I didn’t vote for someone who wants abortions to be legal in secular law…

Such a path leads to division and hate, not unity and peace. Look at Iowa. The GOP victor would have placed 4th among Democrats. A record number of Iowans participated in the Iowa Dem caucus, is it truly Catholic to profess that all those fellow children of God are morally inferior to oneself?

Or how about the GOP, the win did not come from the ultra conservative NW corner of the state, but all across the state and exit polls seem to indicate that a populist message on economics is what most resonated. Are they morally inferior because they reject unchecked corruption and greed and fear a lower standard of living for their children?

It is fine to have differing opinions on how best to serve one’s faith. But once one starts professing one’s choices as the one true path to faith and deriding others as intrinsically evil, you are rejecting Christ.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Indeed. And how about the Clinton cronies in Arkansas who are in jail?

If such a person were to be the nominee, no doubt there will be the usual attacks. If the Republicans have something they will surely tell us. But they’ve been investigating them for years and have yet to make anything stick.

Interesting, but hardly conclusive. You are assuming the caucus turnout will match the general election turnout, and you are assuming that the one Democrat choice they have in the general election will attract the independents, but the one Republican choice won’t. You are also assuming that Iowa is a good reflection of how the rest of the country will vote. Too many assumptions and too many variables. I prefer not to assume.

Oh I have no idea who the actual candidates will be, but I do find it most interesting that 2 days later, every single candidate has turned their campaign into Change change change. I think they got the message, and Change is not a good word when it comes to Republicans. Change means we are moving to the other side. Always has at least. Perhaps this will be different. It’s interesting no doubt,…In NH you are hearing nothing about prolife, christian leadership and stuff like that. The problem is the NH people have TV’s and know what was said in Iowa. So who knows how it will fall out. I just don’t think I’d be betting on Republicans this year.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is sad that people dislike George Bush’s so much they consider it a victory to put a Presiden in power who will do everything he can to keep the slaughter of the innocents legal in this country. We know from history that the very first thing a Democrat president will do is rescind the Mexico City policy thus allowing US taxpayers to help pay for killing children overseas. I guess that the Democratic Party considers dead children collateral damage.

You have only to thank Carl Rove for that. Some mastermind…but perhaps he only was interested in raising Bush to the whitehouse. Perhaps he was well aware that he would sacrifice the Republican party to that end.

 

[rlg94086]

If such a person were to be the nominee, no doubt there will be the usual attacks. If the Republicans have something they will surely tell us. But they’ve been investigating them for years and have yet to make anything stick.

Oh I have no idea who the actual candidates will be, but I do find it most interesting that 2 days later, every single candidate has turned their campaign into Change change change. I think they got the message, and Change is not a good word when it comes to Republicans. Change means we are moving to the other side. Always has at least. Perhaps this will be different. It’s interesting no doubt,…In NH you are hearing nothing about prolife, christian leadership and stuff like that. The problem is the NH people have TV’s and know what was said in Iowa. So who knows how it will fall out. I just don’t think I’d be betting on Republicans this year.

That has more to do with New Hampshire, and less to do with the Iowa results. Prolife and “Christian leadership” don’t “play well” in New Hampshire.

 

[mary_bobo]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful provided a comprehensive doctrinal note that lists 9 specific examples of non negotiable moral values, and an overriding 10th.

I actually vote all of them to the best of my ability. Some, like you, have argued that I am being impractical in fully voting my concience. But from my point of view, I don’t see the loss of my earthly political ‘power’ any big deal. Giving up coffee for lent is a bigger loss.

Look at the last few pages of comments, try as they might the posters cannot seem to make the mental leap that there are, in fact, more than two options. Funny, some of the same folks have argued that not basing health care on private charitable giving is a failure to “trust God”, but when it comes to voting, fully trusting in God instead of making moral compromises is “a wasted vote”.

The part that bothers me is the need to resort to moral relativism. Fine, you compromised principles because of desired results. But why profess that one’s own compromises are more moral by relative comparison? Well, ok, I voted for forced abortions for profit, but at least I didn’t vote for someone who wants abortions to be legal in secular law…

Such a path leads to division and hate, not unity and peace. Look at Iowa. The GOP victor would have placed 4th among Democrats. A record number of Iowans participated in the Iowa Dem caucus, is it truly Catholic to profess that all those fellow children of God are morally inferior to oneself?

Or how about the GOP, the win did not come from the ultra conservative NW corner of the state, but all across the state and exit polls seem to indicate that a populist message on economics is what most resonated. Are they morally inferior because they reject unchecked corruption and greed and fear a lower standard of living for their children?

It is fine to have differing opinions on how best to serve one’s faith. But once one starts professing one’s choices as the one true path to faith and deriding others as intrinsically evil, you are rejecting Christ.

 

[estesbob]

You have only to thank Carl Rove for that. Some mastermind…but perhaps he only was interested in raising Bush to the whitehouse. Perhaps he was well aware that he would sacrifice the Republican party to that end.

So child sacrifice must be practiced to expiate the sins of Karl Rove and Geoge Bush?

 

[estesbob]

lNow you know why most no longer reply to his posts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Look at the last few pages of comments, try as they might the posters cannot seem to make the mental leap that there are, in fact, more than two options. Funny, some of the same folks have argued that not basing health care on private charitable giving is a failure to “trust God”, but when it comes to voting, fully trusting in God instead of making moral compromises is “a wasted vote”.

We should vote for abotion and “fully trust in God” to obliterate the effects of our sin?

 

[Amolibri]

We should vote for abotion and “fully trust in God” to obliterate the effects of our sin?

Frankly, I’m surprised that this thread has been allowed to continue…the flagrant disregard for the CAF rules is rampant. What can one expect when politics AND religion are mashed up???

 

[vern_humphrey]

Frankly, I’m surprised that this thread has been allowed to continue…the flagrant disregard for the CAF rules is rampant. What can one expect when politics AND religion are mashed up???

You’re surprised that on a Catholic forum, Catholics espouse Catholic morality – even in discussions of politics?

Even in a thread labeled “Political Party in Re: to Catholicism?”

 

[estesbob]

Frankly, I’m surprised that this thread has been allowed to continue…the flagrant disregard for the CAF rules is rampant. What can one expect when politics AND religion are mashed up???

It is amazng how many Catholics want to shut down the discussion when reminded that their have a moral obligation to oppose abortion even when it interferes with their political allegiances.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is amazng how many Catholics want to shut down the discussion when reminded that their have a moral obligation to oppose abortion even when it interferes with their political allegiances.

I wonder why that is?

 

[Amolibri]

I wonder why that is?

What are you 2 talking about…making assumptions again? I was referring to the naming of political candidates, etc. No need to jump.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That has more to do with New Hampshire, and less to do with the Iowa results. Prolife and “Christian leadership” don’t “play well” in New Hampshire.

You betcha. And contrary no doubt to some, we do keep up with Fox, and they are reporting a certain absence of prolife, christian talk in NH…so I guess we can take it as a fact!

I was just shocked that Change ruled the day in Iowa, I don’t think any predicted a win by that margin. The Republican side was i thought what one would expect.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What are you 2 talking about…making assumptions again?

It’s a secret. You have to use your Captain Midnight Decoder Ring.

I was referring to the naming of political candidates, etc.

I haven’t named any politican candidates – I know the rules. But it’s perfectly kosher to talk politics in general and to name former politicians.

No need to jump.

But we’re already over the drop zone and the green light is on.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So child sacrifice must be practiced to expiate the sins of Karl Rove and Geoge Bush?

Wow, what right turn did you take? How do you get from what I said to there?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful provided a comprehensive doctrinal note that lists 9 specific examples of non negotiable moral values, and an overriding 10th.

I actually vote all of them to the best of my ability. Some, like you, have argued that I am being impractical in fully voting my concience. But from my point of view, I don’t see the loss of my earthly political ‘power’ any big deal. Giving up coffee for lent is a bigger loss.

Look at the last few pages of comments, try as they might the posters cannot seem to make the mental leap that there are, in fact, more than two options. Funny, some of the same folks have argued that not basing health care on private charitable giving is a failure to “trust God”, but when it comes to voting, fully trusting in God instead of making moral compromises is “a wasted vote”.

The part that bothers me is the need to resort to moral relativism. Fine, you compromised principles because of desired results. But why profess that one’s own compromises are more moral by relative comparison? Well, ok, I voted for forced abortions for profit, but at least I didn’t vote for someone who wants abortions to be legal in secular law…

Such a path leads to division and hate, not unity and peace. Look at Iowa. The GOP victor would have placed 4th among Democrats. A record number of Iowans participated in the Iowa Dem caucus, is it truly Catholic to profess that all those fellow children of God are morally inferior to oneself?

Or how about the GOP, the win did not come from the ultra conservative NW corner of the state, but all across the state and exit polls seem to indicate that a populist message on economics is what most resonated. Are they morally inferior because they reject unchecked corruption and greed and fear a lower standard of living for their children?

It is fine to have differing opinions on how best to serve one’s faith. But once one starts professing one’s choices as the one true path to faith and deriding others as intrinsically evil, you are rejecting Christ.

You may some very thoughtful points. Thank you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It is amazng how many Catholics want to shut down the discussion when reminded that their have a moral obligation to oppose abortion even when it interferes with their political allegiances.

I think thats unfair. How many are trying to get it shut down? She made a statement. Frankly I’m sometimes confused too. I know I can’t mention a name of a candidate, but I see some have with no ill effects. So apparently its not being enforced and its not clear what the policy is.