Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[estesbob]

So far as I know, only one poster on these forums has used the term “heritical” along with “schismatic” and “anethema” – and he used those terms to attack other posters.

I was accused of being a heretic just yesterday. But not Spitirmeadow .

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So your strategy is to go ahead and vote for the guy that tells ya up front he’ll vote PRO CHOICE if given the oppurtunity?

I’m not telling ya the Repubs have been perfect on this issue, but getting Roe V Wade overturned is a lot harder then it looks. Somebody help me, because I’m not sure, but as long as Roe V Wade stands, passing a Federal anti abortion law is not even possible is it? No matter how many pro life guys we have in Congress, their hands are tied, the court has said it is legal.

So the correct strategy is make sure we have a PRO LIFE guy in the White House, with enough in congress to push his nominees through to rearrange the court in our favor. Then to have a pro life state pass a tough anit abortion law, and let somebody take it to court, and from there our guys over turn it.

Thats not gonna happen if you stack Congress or the WH with a bunch of acknowledged pro choice guys. Do you not take their pro choice stance seriously? I do. I’m gonna figure when given the oppurtunity, they WILL vote pro choice at every oppurtunity given.

I’ve said before if my choices are a liberal pro life, or conversative pro choice, I’ll go with the former. I won’t like it, but I’ll figure fixing the abortion issue is what I do right now, the rest of the stuff he’s gonna mess up can be quickly fixed, but a liftetime appointed judge on that court is a lot more harder to overcome.

A constitutional amendment is the other avenue, but not gonna happen for a very long time. It takes super majority to pass such a law in the statehouses. In the liberal states such as Calif, NY, et al we don’t even have simple majorities. If we can get Roe V Wade overturned, we can at least get control back to the states, and the conservative states can pass tough abortion laws. I know in Alabama, if Roe V Wade were struck down, a tought anti abortion law would be on the books, quicker sooner then later.

Some pro life states are better than none.

So vote like ya feel like you need to vote. If hiking the minimum wage is more important to ya, or killing the Patriot Act, open borders, and you gotta vote for a pro chioce guy to get that done, well ok.

People talk here about stacking the court as if this is acceptable. It is not how the Constitution was set up to work. And it generally doesn’t work. You are tampering with a very vital and tricky institution. These folks sometimes sit for in excess of 40 years. Many many times appointees have turned out to be very different than anticipated. I’d be very careful about this idea that you win this issue by deliberately undermining the integrity of the Court with issue appointments. It is simply not a good can to open any wider than it already is.

 

[BamaRider]

I was accused of being a heretic just yesterday. But not Spitirmeadow .

 

[SpiritMeadow]

For one who said they will not vote for a pro- abortion candidate you seem to spend a lot of time defending those who will. You also spend a lot of time denigrating those elected officals who are trying to do something about abortion mainly, it seems, because you don’t like their party affiliation while expressing nothing negtive about the party that not only supports abortion but wants the taxpayer to pay for them… And lastly you seem to have a lot more contempt for those in this thread who are vigorously anti-abortion than you do for the abortionists themsleves.

You really don’t get it do you? He is apposed to the whitewash job given here in order to talk people into believing that there is but one choice to make. To defend the truth of what the Church teaches does not in any way suggest that anyone is voting necessarily for candidates you might disapprove of. The objection is to the placing of a lay organizations beliefs over and above what some consider Church teaching as a method of achieving another goal. IT’s the old ends justify the means mentality that is so very prevelant here for some reason.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Again I must ask why anyone would need a voter guide or the church to tell you you shouldn’t vote for people who support dismembering children.?

The only habit I see here , by the way, is your thinly veiled contempt for those of us who think this issue is cut and dried.

LOL…it appears you cannot see beyond your on personal opinion. You find it reflected in a CAF voting guide. That does not mean it is what the Church teaches. Some here believe it is not, and will act accordingly. The only point is that you really have no right to criticize them for doing so. And more important you have no idea, nor perhaps do they, as to how it will come down for them in the end in the voting booth.

I have no contempt whatsoever for your opinion. I do no like one bit the manner in which it is presented. I find it flirts with the truth, and largely consists of tactics which are not likely to persuade but inflame. That would seem most counterproductive, unless there is another agenda?

 

[BamaRider]

People talk here about stacking the court as if this is acceptable. It is not how the Constitution was set up to work. And it generally doesn’t work. You are tampering with a very vital and tricky institution. These folks sometimes sit for in excess of 40 years. Many many times appointees have turned out to be very different than anticipated. I’d be very careful about this idea that you win this issue by deliberately undermining the integrity of the Court with issue appointments. It is simply not a good can to open any wider than it already is.

---

The issue here seems to be the fear the pro life judge is also gonna vote conservative on the other issues, can’t be having that.

So you’d be in favor of making sure a few bona fide pro choice judges are always on the court to keep things balanced?

Elections today are hard fought. One of the things that weighs on me when I decide “is this guy gonna pick a conservative judge if given the chance?” But it is my understanding the Court can’t write a SINGLE law, not one. Their job is to rule if a existing law is legal or not.

 

[fix]

The evil of the Nazi holocaust is seen as evil for multiple reasons, including numbers. These other reasons might explain why this genocide is the “poster boy” of pure evil, rather than Stalin’s genocide, which likely doubled that of Hitler’s in terms of numbers.

That one genocide got less press does not change the magnitude of the objective evil that took place.

Nonetheless, when you state that “the numbers are a central part of this issue,” I agree. Tht is why I stated that an assessment of “proportionate reasons” does not simply mean a “body count.”

Ok.

Allow me another crazy example: A pro-abotion presidental candidate might promise to end all murders around the world. That does not mean that he would get my vote, because even though there are more murders around the world than there are murders via abortion in America, another part of the “proportionate reasons” equation would be my assessment as to whether or this candidate could actually stop all murders around the world.

I cannot follow your reasoning here? The situation we have is where two candidates are running and only one will win. Both are pro abortion. The proportionate reasons include things of that magnitude. Life issues such as abortion or euthanasia or nuclear war or some such thing.

So, are you saying that the more pro abortion candidate is unlikely to increase the availablity of abortion? He/she is really not pro abortion?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

For one who said they will not vote for a pro- abortion candidate you seem to spend a lot of time defending those who will.

Another lie.

You also spend a lot of time denigrating those elected officals who are trying to do something about abortion mainly, it seems, because you don’t like their party affiliation while expressing nothing negtive about the party that not only supports abortion but wants the taxpayer to pay for them…

Note that I speak of the party and its ideology, not individual politicians. The ideology put forth by the Republican party is not conducive to placing life as the chief value in our society. It’s about power, money, the love of money and the accumulation of both power and money into as few hands as possible at the expense of the many.

I don’t waste my time criticizing Democrats because we have people like you to take up the banner on that. I do wish they would drop some of their views, particularly on human life and homosexual “marriages” but they don’t hypocritically claim to be pro-life. Republicans do.

We can oppose the wrong in the Democratic party for what it is…they’re up front about it. It’s harder to do with the Republicans because they hide their ideological dunghill under the snow of pretty pro-life language.

By the way, they are officials and the word you want is negative.

And lastly you seem to have a lot more contempt for those in this thread who are vigorously anti-abortion than you do for the abortionists themsleves.

Yet more lies? I believe abortion is a great evil, but I believe it is even more evil to be flogging for a hypocritical political party that speaks of pro-life but has no interest in seeing what they say actually enacted. Why? Because it helps to perpetuate abortion while claiming to be against it. Can you say hypocrisy? I knew you could.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I truly wonder what some think the term Christian or Catholic even means. Such tactics are well known but one expects them from more unsavory groups than what one should find here. I don’t care how vehemently you believe you are right. Strict adherence to fair and truthful argument would seem to be at the top of the list for members of this forum.

The ‘some’ of us believe it means no SSM or women priests. Both of which you have written about in a supportful manner here on CAF and your blog where you can clearly see your political agenda.

Like I said earlier, those here supporting church teaching will not be swayed by a ‘liberal catholic’ as you describe yourself.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’m shocked and saddened at your uncharitableness. I have not condoned any disordered actions as you put it. And its a first here to be told that my general blessing is unwanted by a Christian. I will continue to pray for peace, understanding, and compassion in the world, but of course I shall respect your wishes and leave you out of it. Have a nice day.

My uncharitableness?

I read differently on your blog.

I think you were the one who was told they were uncharitable?

 

[repo_man]

So your strategy is to go ahead and vote for the guy that tells ya up front he’ll vote PRO CHOICE if given the oppurtunity?

pretty much. it’s sad but the republicans seem to do nothing about it. and bush’s compassionate conservatism was a bust. and that coupled with the fact the life issue is really the only thing i can agree with them on in good conscience …

So vote like ya feel like you need to vote. If hiking the minimum wage is more important to ya, or killing the Patriot Act, open borders, and you gotta vote for a pro chioce guy to get that done, well ok.

unfortunately that’s the case. i think abortion is one of the greatest evils of our time, but i don’t see anyone in washington willing to do anything about it so it’s become a nonissue to me in voting, however i do think that democrats would do a better job of taking care of things that would prevent abortion as they’re generally used at the financial convenience of a woman/couple. however this is not necessarily true because scandanavian countries live very comfortably with a small gap between rich and poor, yet they have a ton of abortions.

if there was a pro-life, anti-war, pro-labor, pro universal health care, etc. candidate i’d vote for him in a heartbeat. there was a certain radical candidate that used to be pro-life but he changed before the 2004 elections which is pretty upsetting to me, especially since he’s catholic. not going to find true catholic principles in any candidate. it’s a compromise either way.

i’m not a pontius pilate pro-choice liberal catholic who takes the nonstance of “well i’m personally against it, but whatever …” in fact i am rabidly pro-life and it is one of the few issues where i can lose charity and respect in arguing and get very … heated. not that that is a good thing, but i am passionate about it. i just have lost faith in the system on this issue so i myself cannot dwell on it voting for who i see to be incompetent politicians because they claim that they will overturn roe v. wade when in reality i guarantee they won’t.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who participated - this thread is now closed.