Political Party in Re: to Catholicism

[mikew262]

And that is merely a restatement of the pro-choice argument.

If you feel like you’re being harassed, you’re perfectly free not to join these threads where we debate Catholic morality.

And you are not the Censor.:tsktsk:

And the pro-choice argument make perfect sense.

Concerning harassment, I was speaking in general. I participate in this thread because I feel I need too. Somebody needs to refute what you are putting out.

No, I’m not the Censor, but again somebody needs to refute the stuff you are putting out.

 

[mikew262]

Mike, very predictably, you have been “un-invited” to participate in this forum…because you hold the “wrong” position. Talk about censorship! Hang in, if you can.
**

Oh, I do get annoyed with the ideas that come out of some of these folks, as I’m sure they get annoyed with me. I’m a veteran of these keyboard battles. If I just can’t take it anymore, I usually just take a week long break and start anew.

Thanks for the encouragement! The battle for common sense is never an easy one!

 

[mikew262]

What issue trumps 50 million dead babies?

While abortion is a serious issue, you need to take off the blinders, there are many other serious issues out there as well. To ignore all the others issues for the sake of one is just not sound thinking in my opinion.

 

[fix]

What issue trumps 50 million dead babies?

Nothing currently.

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if *the right to life, *the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination…
CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI

Abortion: The Primary Issue
According to Statements from the Pope and Bishops

 

[estesbob]

i live in a primarily republican area yet i don’t see any reason for a catholic to be a republican. not one. all that right to life stuff is just something that comes up around election time.

we’ve had republican presidents for 20 of 28 years. we had a republican majority for 12 years (half of those 12 were also under a republican president)… i forget the link, but it cited the specific article in the constitution which essentially said this is all you need to overturn something like roe v. wade. the republicans HAVE to cling to the life issue because if they didn’t, what reason would catholics (or perhaps christians in general) have for voting for them? they’re not actually going to do anything about it. they never have and they never will. i know people who seriously vote republican just because they are “prolife” and that’s frightening that they’re being manipulated so easily by scoundrels like the GOP (not to let the dems off the hook, plenty of crooks there as well).

Are you saying that rather than vote for someone who you claim just gives lip service to opposing abortion that it’s better to vote for someone unequivocally supports abortion? Or are you saying you don’t vote?

By the way it is been demonstrated again and again and again that your comment about Republican Party simply is not correct. All progress on limiting abortion have come from the GOP -usually after overcoming fierce opposition from the Democrat party

 

[estesbob]

While abortion is a serious issue, you need to take off the blinders, there are many other serious issues out there as well. To ignore all the others issues for the sake of one is just not sound thinking in my opinion.

Please answer the question. What issue trumps 50 million dead babies.?

 

[mary_bobo]

Oh, I do get annoyed with the ideas that come out of some of these folks, as I’m sure they get annoyed with me. I’m a veteran of these keyboard battles. If I just can’t take it anymore, I usually just take a week long break and start anew.

Thanks for the encouragement! The battle for common sense is never an easy one!

What is common sense to one is idiocy to another. In other words, one OPINION is just as valid as another.

 

[estesbob]

What is common sense to one is idiocy to another. In other words, one OPINION is just as valid as another.

Often what one person calles common sense others call rationalizations for untenable positions.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

First you say this:

Then you say this:

So, even though you distorted the meaning of the USCCB action, you continue to hold the Church has rejected the concept of not supporting pro-choice politicians?

This is bald-faced lie. No where did I say the Church rejected the concept of not supporting pro-choice-on-abortion politicians. I said that the USCCB refused to accept the CA Voters Guide and presented their own (not necessarily in that order) that is broader in scope. Both voter guides state opposition to voting for pro-choice-on-abortion candidates as well as the other five issues the CA guide mentions. The difference is that USCCB’s guide mentions other issues that the CA guide omitted.

Back to the original question: Given two candidates, one who espouses a pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who is pro-choice, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

OF COURSE NOT.

That doesn’t automatically mean that one votes for the candidate who professes a “pro-life” (actually, anti-abortion only) stance. One must examine the rest of their views to see whether or not the candidate is acceptable on other issues as well.

You berate people mercilessly about this notion of the “fallacy of limited alternatives” and present limited alternatives yourself. This stupid tactic may be entertaining on Rush or Hannity’s shows but it doesn’t work in the real world. It also betrays a Protestant either/or mentality.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Of course, the only thing short of a constitutional amendment that can reverse Roe and its progency is a supreme court reversal. George Bush appointed two prolife justices.

We don’t know that. Bush appointed two REPUBLICAN justices. Pro-life and Republican are not the same thing.

You have made up your mind to vote for abortion, and want to justify that decision. You know it and I know it. So just say you support it, and don’t reach for things like “Republicans only support taxpayer funding of prisons, excution and war.”.Even dyed-in-the-wool Democrats know that’s not true.

This is also a bald-faced LIE. Why do people have to lie like this? Some people need to go to confession this week, it seems.

Get this through your thick skulls. Understand this: I will NOT support or vote for a pro-choice-on-abortion candidate in the upcoming election and any election. PERIOD. Get it? Understand that? Capice? ¿Entendido?

Now, my justified skepticism of the Republican “pro-life” platform is what you view as being for abortion. That’s sophistry of the highest order. As Rush, a prophet for many here if I read the posts correctly, would say, “follow the money trail.” I’m talking about an ideology here. Well, let’s look at whether or not the Republican party would benefit or be harmed if tomorrow morning, the Constitution had amendments that limited marriage to one man and one woman and recognized the life of a human from conception on (eliminating abortion and stem-cell research on cells taken from unborn children) as well as strong laws banning euthanasia and human cloning. I believe that the Republican party would be irreparably harmed by such a scenario, because it would take away the incentive we Christians have for voting for them. It would take the issues away from the Republicans that they have flogged to Christians for 20 years. Christians would be able, again, to examine the issues more clearly and vote for the party they believe would be the most beneficial to the country instead of being forced to vote for a party that makes hollow claims to pro-life.

 

[BamaRider]

i live in a primarily republican area yet i don’t see any reason for a catholic to be a republican. not one. all that right to life stuff is just something that comes up around election time.

we’ve had republican presidents for 20 of 28 years. we had a republican majority for 12 years (half of those 12 were also under a republican president)… i forget the link, but it cited the specific article in the constitution which essentially said this is all you need to overturn something like roe v. wade. the republicans HAVE to cling to the life issue because if they didn’t, what reason would catholics (or perhaps christians in general) have for voting for them? they’re not actually going to do anything about it. they never have and they never will. i know people who seriously vote republican just because they are “prolife” and that’s frightening that they’re being manipulated so easily by scoundrels like the GOP (not to let the dems off the hook, plenty of crooks there as well).

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.

 

[estesbob]

Get this through your thick skulls. Understand this: I will NOT support or vote for a pro-choice-on-abortion candidate in the upcoming election and any election. PERIOD. Get it? Understand that? Capice? ¿Entendido?

.

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.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

**Another good reason by keeping your vote to yourself. Some would like to have votes made public so they could “harrass” you and show what a heretic you are, a bad person, a horrible Christian and anti-Catholic… Let the ex-communications begin! Actually, I don’t think I would have made it during the Middle Ages or the early years in US. I would have been burned at the stake or hanged for sure. Ah, the good ‘ol days! Suddenly I have a hankerin’ for a Starbucks Mocha Latte. **

You are no doubt right. What is maddening of course is that statements are not even read apparently. I see “answers” posted to others statements that bear exactly no resemblance to what was said in either spirit or literalness. It’s very wearing on one. I guess some people think this is effective debate. It is not of course, it simply causes one to float back and forth as to whether the poster is truly unable to comprehend simple english or is intentionally mistating the facts. I sadly conclude it is the latter and wonder why some find this type of “pretended misleading” as Christian.

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.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Unfortunately, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and even the Pope are human and subject to human failings. The Pope does have Infallibility on Docrtinal issues. The only thing we have to cling to is the fact that the church still stands after 2000 years in spite of its human leaders. Kind of makes you believe Christ’s statement that “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” Mat 16:18

There is also no question that some here do denigrate the USCCB, and have called it heretical. Many here routinely tell posters that their priests are wrong and ill educated, What has been said here by some about religious women is embarassing and most repulsive. This suggests to me that all three are not in agreement with said posters beliefs and they prefer to interpret Vatican documents themselves. I find it interesting that some then turn around and accuse others of not following Church teaching. Yet such teaching is parsed to say whatever some wish it to say, and the pesky American authorities are simply ignored as wrong-headed. I’m admonished to follow those above me, yet ignore them when it suits someone’s personal agenda. It’s quite confusing.

I do not believe based on what i have read that the CAF voting guide, aimed pejoratively at only “serious” Catholics, correctly states Catholic teaching. There is a habit here it seems to me, to put forth simplistic rules deliberately and knowingly wrong for paternalistic reasons. I do notr regard such tactics as Christian or Catholic. That’s my opinion of course. I do not assume the ability to read documents for myself and just correctly get what the Church wants. I realize that it may have to be taken in conjunction with things I’m not even aware of. That is why I look to those in authority to double check my thinking. The USCCB seems to agree with what I have concluded. Others ask me to deny their authority in favor of a lay organizations conclusions. I must ask why?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

rlg94086;3190739

It’s interesting to me that someone who rejects “lip service” and looks for actual works rejects a pragmatic voting strategy when it comes to Catholic issues. While it is completely legitimate of course to vote for a 100% Catholicism-approved candidate, write someone in or withhold your vote; it seems contrary to your earlier statement. The result, or “works,” of your vote will most probably help the major candidate that is less “Catholic” in their views.

So, if I look at your track record, regarding who your vote or non-vote supported from a pragmatic standpoint, your votes actually have a negative effect on Catholic issues. How does this make sense for you? Does that make your ‘I vote Catholic’ statements “lip service?” Does it just make you feel better to vote for someone who has no chance of winning but agrees with your views?

First I see no pragmatic voting strategy that actual works as you put it. That does not logically follow at all. And more important, how do you look at his track record? You have some knowledge of his vote? I’m at a loss here how you assume who he votes for and what effect it can possible have? It’s pure assumption on your part.

You are only advocating voting for candidates who can win? That’s quite odd I would think.

 

[estesbob]

I do not believe based on what i have read that the CAF voting guide, aimed pejoratively at only “serious” Catholics, correctly states Catholic teaching. There is a habit here it seems to me, to put forth simplistic rules deliberately and knowingly wrong for paternalistic reasons. I do notr regard such tactics as Christian or Catholic. ?

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.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is also no question that some here do denigrate the USCCB, and have called it heretical.

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.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

i live in a primarily republican area yet i don’t see any reason for a catholic to be a republican. not one. all that right to life stuff is just something that comes up around election time.

we’ve had republican presidents for 20 of 28 years. we had a republican majority for 12 years (half of those 12 were also under a republican president)… i forget the link, but it cited the specific article in the constitution which essentially said this is all you need to overturn something like roe v. wade. the republicans HAVE to cling to the life issue because if they didn’t, what reason would catholics (or perhaps christians in general) have for voting for them? they’re not actually going to do anything about it. they never have and they never will. i know people who seriously vote republican just because they are “prolife” and that’s frightening that they’re being manipulated so easily by scoundrels like the GOP (not to let the dems off the hook, plenty of crooks there as well).

You are very correct. And the rottenness lies on both doorsteps of course. The fact is there is very little out there one can trust. We as the electorate have so far failed to impress upon our elected officials that we want what we want, and they need to start doing it, or they will be one termers for sure. The problem is everyone thinks thats great, but they generally think their own rep. or senator is okay. So nothing changes.

 

[BamaRider]

Now, my justified skepticism of the Republican “pro-life” platform is what you view as being for abortion. That’s sophistry of the highest order. As Rush, a prophet for many here if I read the posts correctly, would say, “follow the money trail.” I’m talking about an ideology here. Well, let’s look at whether or not the Republican party would benefit or be harmed if tomorrow morning, the Constitution had amendments that limited marriage to one man and one woman and recognized the life of a human from conception on (eliminating abortion and stem-cell research on cells taken from unborn children) as well as strong laws banning euthanasia and human cloning. I believe that the Republican party would be irreparably harmed by such a scenario, because it would take away the incentive we Christians have for voting for them. It would take the issues away from the Republicans that they have flogged to Christians for 20 years. Christians would be able, again, to examine the issues more clearly and vote for the party they believe would be the most beneficial to the country instead of being forced to vote for a party that makes hollow claims to pro-life.

From reading your posts I’m gonna infer you’re gonna sit out elections, or write some guy in. You’re not gonna find a pro life democrat to vote for on national level, and since you refuse to vote pro choice, that rules out the dems, and you’re not gonna vote pro life repubs because of the other issues. So where does that leave ya?

Either sitting out, or a write in. As conservatives, I’m not faced with that dilemna. My pro life stance lines up with the rest of the conservative agenda. Would I vote democrat if the guy is conservative running against a liberal repub? YES. (you are correct not ALL repubs are pro life, but very few them ever make it out of the primaries)

And that is what our Catholic brothers need to do on that side. They have to try to convince some dems that have a liberal agenda to vote pro life. A pro life democrat needs to make it out of the primaries and give folks like you a optioin. The current democratic party is a collection of disenfranchised groups like the feminists, unions, Illegals, enviromentalists, and whatever the group this week is that feels someone is cheating them outta something. Getting a pro life guy outta that fringe network is gonna be hard but not impossible.

In the 06 elections, some of the dems that went in office were more conservative than the repubs they defeated, that was certainly the case in the South. And they have helped in neutralizing Pelosi and Reed on the far left. Good for them.

I think it is incorrect to say the Repubs have not supported Pro life issues. (Not all, but the majoirty) The President and the GOP defeated the stem cell research bill, he nominated conservative judges, and they pushed them through the process to the chagrin of the dems. We’ll just hafta to disagree the Repubs waffle on the life issues. The track record says otherwise.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What is common sense to one is idiocy to another. In other words, one OPINION is just as valid as another.

THANK YOU…correct correct correct. It’s opinions vs opinions. And yes, each is undoubtedly valid as a free expression of a person’s personal thinking. They are perhaps not equally valid in objective truth.