Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scians_Daughter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rubycanoe said:
Remember that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have said that the war in Iraq is unjust? Therefore we cannot vote for a candidate who is for the war. The popes are also of course, pro-life and anti-abortion, so we cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. Therefore it is really hard to be Catholic and to vote. There is one candidate who is anti-war and anti-abortion, but I don’t think he has a very good chance. So I don’t know if I will be able to vote at all.😦
Click to expand...
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.
 
Originally Posted by rubycanoe
Remember that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have said that the war in Iraq is unjust? Therefore we cannot vote for a candidate who is for the war.
Click to expand...
I recommend you read the Catechism. Neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI have said the war is unjust – and according to the Catechism, they do not have that authority.
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
Click to expand...
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
Click to expand...
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
Click to expand...
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
Click to expand...
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Click to expand...
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
Click to expand...
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Click to expand...
 
rlg94086 said:
That’s funny, I thought the elections are in November. 🤷

I see we are counting our chicks before they are hatched…careful, you might get egg on your face. 😃 A lot can happen between now and November.

And, the “deep and abiding disgust for Bush and his band of criminals” is only in the 1/4-1/3 of the country that are die-hard, partisan Democrats or far-right cranks. Others are a little more balanced in their descriptions, even if they are unhappy with the current president and his cabinet.
Click to expand...
We shall see, but I think most republicans expect to lose this November. A good many didn’t even have the stomach to run for re-election because they know they are gonna be the minority.

LOL…guess you missed how many independents came out for Democrats last night. Iowa is naturally a conservative state, yet the people out to caucus were 2 to 1 democrats and a lot of the “democrats” were actually independents who have had their belly full of “compassionate conservativism.”

I think your self-serving and undocumented assertion that only 1/4- 1/3 of the electorate is who you describe as partisan democrats, whatever that means. I’m surprised that you choose to include the
“far-right cranks” as those ticked off by Bush, but then again he promised them a whole lot on life issues that he didnt deliver, so maybe you are right about that.
 
mary_bobo said:
I think you are reading much too much into the Iowa caucuses. And you negate any legitimacy you have by name-calling. Shall we now talk about some Dem “criminals”.
Click to expand...
My but one has been convicted already…interesting way to attempt to negate an argument. About the caucuses, well we shall see.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
We shall see, but I think most republicans expect to lose this November. A good many didn’t even have the stomach to run for re-election because they know they are gonna be the minority.

LOL…guess you missed how many independents came out for Democrats last night. Iowa is naturally a conservative state, yet the people out to caucus were 2 to 1 democrats and a lot of the “democrats” were actually independents who have had their belly full of “compassionate conservativism.”

I think your self-serving and undocumented assertion that only 1/4- 1/3 of the electorate is who you describe as partisan democrats, whatever that means. I’m surprised that you choose to include the
“far-right cranks” as those ticked off by Bush, but then again he promised them a whole lot on life issues that he didnt deliver, so maybe you are right about that.
Click to expand...
SpiritMeadow, I like your style. The person who started this thread should have known better. :mad: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
mary_bobo said:
Don’t quit your day job. Don’t think you will make it as a media critic. 🙂
Click to expand...
didnt you just say something about losing any right to having a legitimate argument by casting aspersions? Does it apply to everyone or only some?
 
mary_bobo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe the USCCB does not use the term non-negociables. I believe that is a CAF term. I do not deny they do not seem to find abortion an issue which one can dissent from, but I do not believe that they use the term non-negociable. I believe that term originated and is used by the folks who run CAF.
 
marci said:
The Iowa caucus means nothing. Niether winner will be offered up in the general election. Iowa is one little part of the country and not a single winner in the last couple of elections went on to grab the presidency.
This was stated wrong. I got bad info. Sorry to all.
Click to expand...
That was not the point. You may be sure who the candidates will not be, I’m sure not sure who they will be. My point had nothing to do with who the candidate was.

Watch NH…people are expected to come out in record numbers. Iowa was supposed to field about 200,000 to the caucuses an all time high. It actually fielded nearly 350,000 amazing numbers for a non-election. There were polling places that were not large enough to hold the participants. Such has never happened before. People are extremely angry. The vote said, change and get the old guard out of here. We shall of course see how and if that changes in NH, but heck they are noted for their rebellious nature. I sure don’t expect them to embrace the right.
 
vern_humphrey said:
It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that being pro-choice is not the same thing as being pro-abortion.

Note that the pro-choice people in Congress want to guarentee taxpayer-supported abortion. You can’t hardly get more pro-abortion than to force other people to pay for it!

How did you get to be so much holier than everyone else?😃
Click to expand...
I have told you privately that I was not interesting in discussion with you since you continually call me names. You said you would continue to do so because you can speak whenever you wished. Now go ahead and tell everyone that you consider my refusal to mean that I have no argument to make as you said you would do also. I will not respond to you. Clearly you have no intent to respect my wishes or me.
 
Where are the results? I am told on this thread that it is a sin to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. And yet, despite having the White House in alledgedly pro-life presidents for 19 of the last 27 years, the abortion rate has been fairly steady. Ironically, the only significant drop took place during the pro-abortion Clinton years.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I have told you privately that I was not interesting in discussion with you since you continually call me names. You said you would continue to do so because you can speak whenever you wished. Now go ahead and tell everyone that you consider my refusal to mean that I have no argument to make as you said you would do also. I will not respond to you. Clearly you have no intent to respect my wishes or me.
Click to expand...
Boy, there’s a Napoleon complex for you.:rotfl:
 
frankadams said:
Where are the results? I am told on this thread that it is a sin to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. And yet, despite having the White House in alledgedly pro-life presidents for 19 of the last 27 years, the abortion rate has been fairly steady. Ironically, the only significant drop took place during the pro-abortion Clinton years.
Click to expand...
And what prolife or anti-abortion measures did Clinton get accomplished? There were none at all. None. If, indeed, abortions went down during the Clinton years, it certainly wasn’t because of anything Clinton did. No cause/effect relationship.

The whole issue is going to be decided by the next one or two appointments to the Supreme Court. Everyone knows that. One the ONLY prolife thing the Supremes have done is approve a ban on partial birth abortion. And that only happened because Anthony Kennedy joined Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, the last two being Bush appointees, in approving the ban.

Now, Ginsberg was appointed by Clinton and, of course, voted against any limitation on partial-birth abortion, which is infanticide, really. She also favors lowering the age of sexual consent (both hetero and homosexual) to 12.

So, when you cast your vote in November, don’t kid yourself as to what you’re voting for. I don’t expect any of those on here who want a pro-abortion administration to admit that’s their motivation, and I’m sure you won’t. But you ought to at least admit it to yourself that you intend to cast your vote in favor of killing the unborn. You’re going to live with that vote for a long time, so think it out.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
LOL…guess you missed how many independents came out for Democrats last night. Iowa is naturally a conservative state, yet the people out to caucus were 2 to 1 democrats and a lot of the “democrats” were actually independents who have had their belly full of “compassionate conservativism.”
Click to expand...
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.
 
mary_bobo said:
Indeed. And how about the Clinton cronies in Arkansas who are in jail?
Click to expand...
Oh, that doesn’t count.

In fact, one of the convicted Clinton appointees, Webster Hubble, a lawyer who stole from his clients, was invited to address the annual convention of the American Bar Association in Atlanta.😛
 
rlg94086 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Oh, that doesn’t count.

In fact, one of the convicted Clinton appointees, Webster Hubble, a lawyer who stole from his clients, was invited to address the annual convention of the American Bar Association in Atlanta.😛
Click to expand...
And let’s keep in mind how great a champion for women this President Clinton was.Especially women like Juanita Broderick, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Wiley and Paula Jones.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
That was not the point. You may be sure who the candidates will not be, I’m sure not sure who they will be. My point had nothing to do with who the candidate was.

Watch NH…people are expected to come out in record numbers. Iowa was supposed to field about 200,000 to the caucuses an all time high. It actually fielded nearly 350,000 amazing numbers for a non-election. There were polling places that were not large enough to hold the participants. Such has never happened before. People are extremely angry. The vote said, change and get the old guard out of here. We shall of course see how and if that changes in NH, but heck they are noted for their rebellious nature. I sure don’t expect them to embrace the right.
Click to expand...
The old guard includes a Democratic majority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top