Republican voters??

[rlg94086]

Does anyone here see any ethical problem with essentially voting for candidates almost soley on the basis of whether they agree with your faith beliefs? Are you in favor of a Church-State rather than a democracy? If you have opted to live in a democracy aren’t you required to accept the constitutional prohibition of mixing Church and State?

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our country works. The separation of Church and State means that the State can’t establish a religion and it can’t prohibit the free exercise of religion. It has nothing to do with religious people passing laws based on religious morality or voting for people who have religious conviction. In fact, the Constitution protects our rights to do this.

 

[melensdad]

Does anyone here see any ethical problem with essentially voting for candidates almost soley on the basis of whether they agree with your faith beliefs? Are you in favor of a Church-State rather than a democracy? If you have opted to live in a democracy aren’t you required to accept the constitutional prohibition of mixing Church and State?

We live in a Republic and our system of government is a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. I see no conflict in electing representatives who hold beliefs similar to mine.

• “In God We Trust” is on our money.
• Politicians swear an oath on the Bible when they take office.
• We swear an oath on the Bible whenever we appear in court as a witness.
• The foundation of our legal system was built upon a Judeo -Christian interpretation of the 10 Commandments God handed down to Moses as per the Old Testament of the Bible.
• “The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests.” President Andrew Jackson
• “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” - United States Supreme Court, 1892
• "Everyone appointed to public office must say, “I do profess faith in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost. In God who is blessed forevermore I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures and the Old and New Testaments which are given by divine inspiration.” Delaware Constitution of 1776
• “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations. The battle is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, ALMIGHTY GOD! Give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry
• “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible” President George Washington, September 17th, 1796
• “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay
• “The only assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.” Abraham Lincoln
• “The fundamental basis of this nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state.” President Harry S. Truman
• “History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration to ultimate national disaster” General Douglas MacArthur
  I’m not so sure it is easy to have a complete separation of church from state in our nation.

It seems clear that while NO SINGLE religion is institutionalized by our government, there is a strong foundation of Christian and Jewish belief that is built into our government. It also seems that the farther we stray from the foundation, the worse the condition we seem to find our society.

 

[estesbob]

Does anyone here see any ethical problem with essentially voting for candidates almost soley on the basis of whether they agree with your faith beliefs? Are you in favor of a Church-State rather than a democracy? If you have opted to live in a democracy aren’t you required to accept the constitutional prohibition of mixing Church and State?

I have never voted for a canidate becuase of their faith beliefs. Heres how i examine them.

One has to ask themselves:

Does my politics form my faith or does my faith form my politics.?. I prefer the latter.

 

[SoCalRC]

I discount everything from Frank Rich and most of what comes out of the NY Times.

Of course you don’t, see my earlier posts. Far better to listen to, say, a convincted drug abuser who has the odd habit of taking “all boys” vacations with a bucket of Viagra to the underage prostitute capitol of the western hemisphere than shady sources like two Popes or the USCCB…

Oh, and Bush is not running in 2008.

I noticed. That is why the GOP has such a fine array of pro-life presidential hopefuls lined up to replace him. Presumably the cross dressing, serial womanizing, and shady mob connections are just a bonus among the front runner.

 

[SoCalRC]

We live in a Republic and our system of government is a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. I see no conflict in electing representatives who hold beliefs similar to mine.

Nor do I, but the history of seperation of Church and state is a bit more complicated than you make it out to seem. Just some examples from your list:

“In God We Trust” is on our money.

It did not appear on our money until the Civil War. We actually had a fairly strong Church State seperation tradition prior. For example “E pluribus unum” was placed on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782 and on coinage in 1795. It was our official motto for most of US history. During the civil war, both sides spent a lot of time professing that they were in God’s graces.

Still, In God We Trust did not become our official motto until 1956. The argument is that we wanted to differentiate ourselves from the Godless Soviets. This is similiar to the Pledge of Allegience. Although Frances Bellamy was a Baptist minister there was no mention of God when the pledge was first published in 1892. That was added in the 1950s (1952?).

Politicians swear an oath on the Bible when they take office.
We swear an oath on the Bible whenever we appear in court as a witness.

Both those traditions actually come to us from England. And the founding fathers had some discussions about them. Two interesting exceptions:

Thomas Jefferson, an ardent supporter of seperation of Church and State and something of a ‘free thinker’ did not swear on the bible when taking the oath of the Presidency, but he did kiss the bible after taking the oath as a sign of respect.

John Quincy Adams was by many accounts one of the most devoutly religious of our early presidents (founded a Church, wrote a treatise denouncing Islam, etc.). But instead of taking the Presidential Oath on a bible, he chose to use the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance to single his committment to the seperation of Church and state. To understand why, you really need to look at the war of 1812 and the large block of clerics who had sided with England.

The foundation of our legal system was built upon a Judeo -Christian interpretation of the 10 Commandments God handed down to Moses as per the Old Testament of the Bible.

I see this claim a lot, but it seems a bit odd to me. Only two of the Commandments (5 and 7) have ever really been given serious weight in our laws. Also, many of the basic concepts in our legal system, like presumption of innocence, cross examination, etc., are secular reforms to traditional Church and Monarchal legal systems.

 

[Verisimilitude]

That is why the GOP has such a fine array of pro-life presidential hopefuls lined up to replace him. Presumably the cross dressing, serial womanizing, and shady mob connections are just a bonus among the front runner.

I am not a Republican but I will vote for one who has been consistant with life and Constitutional liberty in and out of public life. No vote is truly wasted if counted honestly.

I am a supporter of the defense of our nation, and I used to think this preemptive war was justified. For many reasons I no longer think the same.

Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat before he felt the party left his ideals. He has since defined what a Republican is as his name is so often invoked.

The Republicans have traditionally been the anti-war party. Ike ran to end the Korean War, and Nixon to end the Viet Nam War. Both won and delivered whatever else they did. Each of those wars was initiated by the President without a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Over the years/decades Congress has given its Legislative authority to the Executive branch to avoid blame and responsibility. The Judical branch at times legislates when it has no authority and the checks and balances of equal but separate Federal Powers has been abused and are discarded for wealth and influence to the detrament of the people.

The military did not choose this war but do as directed by the civilian authority which is the legal Constitutional responsibility. The President does not have, and did not ask for the consent of the People to go to war in Iraq by having Congress declare war. This hurts the soldiers because it leaves a question of moral authority unanswered.

We the People should should straighten our own House and either abide by the Constitution as written and Amended, or scrape it all together. I want to keep it and abide by it.

This is the wrong battle. All but a few in either party promise at least 4 more years of the war in Iraq, and maybe decades of occupation for global security reasons. We should come home…from everywhere. For now and for a while. Let the world take care of themselves and we can take care of ourselves. It was the intent of our foundation as a nation.

A larger storm is coming. I don’t think it the end times per se’, but I think we should consider the story of Joseph and Pharro’s dream. We should spend the next 7 years filling our graineries in the modern sense; domestic oil drilling, nuclear power, clean coal, renewable energy…repair our infrastructure of highways and clean water sources…security or our borders and a commitment to life from its natural begining to its natural end. Then we might be prepared for the storm. We are not ready now.

If somebody walks the walk and talks the talk. Listen. Dark horse candidates are named so for a reason. Personal and public hypocracy excludes RudMittMcCFred and EdHillOma for me to consider them. I will not vote for a lesser evil, but I will vote even if a write-in.

 

[mary_bobo]

Of course you don’t, see my earlier posts. Far better to listen to, say, a convincted drug abuser who has the odd habit of taking “all boys” vacations with a bucket of Viagra to the underage prostitute capitol of the western hemisphere than shady sources like two Popes or the USCCB…

I noticed. That is why the GOP has such a fine array of pro-life presidential hopefuls lined up to replace him. Presumably the cross dressing, serial womanizing, and shady mob connections are just a bonus among the front runner.

Thank you for your very courteous, mature response. Please reread forum rules. Me thinks you have over-stepped the boundry.

 

[estesbob]

Thank you for your very courteous, mature response. Please reread forum rules. Me thinks you have over-stepped the boundry.

I’m surprised you still read his rants.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have never voted for a canidate becuase of their faith beliefs. Heres how i examine them.

One has to ask themselves:

Does my politics form my faith or does my faith form my politics.?. I prefer the latter.

It would appear that here, only one issue is of importance, abortion. I see no talk about this awful war, about poverty, about education, the growing imbalance between the rich and poor, healthcare, how we are to address the growing danger of fundamentalism in the world, the environment, our tax system, social security, veterans rights, our trade policies.

I don’t retract my statement. This is not how democracy works when you vote only on one issue. Important as these issues of abortion and personal behavior are, they are not the exclusive issue. We have a couple which are threatening our very existence.

And I disagree that you have a constitutional right to legislate other people’s morals in general. The Pilgrims tried that, as did a few of our other early settlements. We opted to prevent that by the separation of church and state. You just cant limit it to sound “good”…You say the State can’t force anyone to believe any particular thing, but by electing only those who agree with you on faith matters, you encourage them to create laws that reflect that faith, thus forcing all others to follow your faith belief. That’s how I see it.

 

[estesbob]

It would appear that here, only one issue is of importance, abortion. I see no talk about this awful war, about poverty, about education, the growing imbalance between the rich and poor, healthcare, how we are to address the growing danger of fundamentalism in the world, the environment, our tax system, social security, veterans rights, our trade policies.

The you didn’t read my post. Being pro-life is merely a pre-requisite for getting my vote. As far as the other issues you mention neither party has a monopoly on these issues. The Vatican , however, as stated firmly that no issue or combination of issues trumps abortion. So though Catholics in good conscience may disagree about capital punishment(which I oppose) or the Iraqi war(which I support) and the best way to deal with the needy we must all be firm in our opposition to abortion and those who support it.

I don’t retract my statement. This is not how democracy works when you vote only on one issue. Important as these issues of abortion and personal behavior are, they are not the exclusive issue. We have a couple which are threatening our very existence.

Since no one in this thread has said they vote on only one issue I’m a loss as to why you keep claiming they do.

And I disagree that you have a constitutional right to legislate other people’s morals in general. The Pilgrims tried that, as did a few of our other early settlements. We opted to prevent that by the separation of church and state. You just cant limit it to sound “good”…You say the State can’t force anyone to believe any particular thing, but by electing only those who agree with you on faith matters, you encourage them to create laws that reflect that faith, thus forcing all others to follow your faith belief. That’s how I see it.

All laws legislate morality and all laws reflect someone’s belief. Surely you’re not saying only those beliefs that come from faith should be rejected?

 

[melensdad]

It would appear that here, only one issue is of importance, abortion.

First, you clearly have not followed the whole of this thread, but honestly sometimes I don’t either. However, the Church places LIFE issues above others in terms of importance, and often that fact ends up here as a discussion that focuses mostly on abortion.

However, LIFE issues are not just limited to abortion, and all of them have been discussed. They were simply discussed many pages back in this topic.

Secondly, there are SOCIAL issues, which you bring up and the Church does place them on a lower level of importance, probably because there is some room for honest disagreement on exactly how to deal with those issues. Again, many have been discussed in the thread, but to varying degrees.

For example, the war. Both our last pope and our current Pope opposed the attack on Iraq. Both, however have issued statements to President Bush that we can NOT pull out of Iraq until it is stable and fixed. The USCCB also sent a letter to the President echoing the same message. Basically it says the war is wrong, but since we broke Iraq we are now morally bound to fix it. We cannot pull out until we fix it and leave it in a stable, self sustaining condition.

As for things like SOCIAL JUSTICE (feeding the poor, caring for the elderly, healthcare, etc) there is not as much support on ONE solution from the leadership of the Church. Some believe that it is wrong to simply expand social programs, others believe we must expand them. There is also very honest disagreement on HOW to properly be a good steward to the world. Al Gore was just awarded a Nobel Prize, and a day later a very respected scientist called Al Gore’s conclusions wrong, but politically correct. So we have to sort through things and do our best on some issues where there is no clear leadership from our church on exactly what we are to do.

 

[rlg94086]

It would appear that here, only one issue is of importance, abortion. I see no talk about this awful war, about poverty, about education, the growing imbalance between the rich and poor, healthcare, how we are to address the growing danger of fundamentalism in the world, the environment, our tax system, social security, veterans rights, our trade policies.

Perhaps you should reread the original post. The poster was posing the dilemma of Republican candidates who are pro-choice. That’s probably why abortion is the major topic of the thread…

I don’t retract my statement. This is not how democracy works when you vote only on one issue. Important as these issues of abortion and personal behavior are, they are not the exclusive issue. We have a couple which are threatening our very existence.

The way “democracy works,” people can vote on one issue if they want or just a few issues or all the issues. They could even vote for someone based on shoe size, if they are so inclined. So, fine, don’t retract your statement. It doesn’t change the fact that your statement is nonsensical.

And I disagree that you have a constitutional right to legislate other people’s morals in general. The Pilgrims tried that, as did a few of our other early settlements. We opted to prevent that by the separation of church and state. You just cant limit it to sound “good”…You say the State can’t force anyone to believe any particular thing, but by electing only those who agree with you on faith matters, you encourage them to create laws that reflect that faith, thus forcing all others to follow your faith belief. That’s how I see it.

It’s nice that you disagree regarding the “right to legislate other people’s morals.” First of all, we can’t - a person has a right to any morality they personally believe in. However, we can create laws which all citizens have to abide by. They can be and are based on the voters’ morals, regarless of whether the morals are pro-choice or pro-life. Both are moral positions…which morality do you think we can’t legislate?

The checks and balances put in place give us a Supreme Court who then checks these laws to see if they are constitutional. Now, the problem with the abortion issue is that we haven’t clearly defined personhood or when life begins. If as a society, we decide that a person exists from conception (the Church’s view), then the Constitution would protect that person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Now, all of this is really off-topic, as the original topic has to do with the quandry that Republican voters have in the presidential elections. We have broadened it somewhat to include the voting for Republicans, in general. But, let’s not go down the road of debating the “legislation of morality.” Start another thread, if you are interested in doing that.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The you didn’t read my post. Being pro-life is merely a pre-requisite for getting my vote. As far as the other issues you mention neither party has a monopoly on these issues. The Vatican , however, as stated firmly that no issue or combination of issues trumps abortion. So though Catholics in good conscience may disagree about capital punishment(which I oppose) or the Iraqi war(which I support) and the best way to deal with the needy we must all be firm in our opposition to abortion and those who support it.

Since no one in this thread has said they vote on only one issue I’m a loss as to why you keep claiming they do.

All laws legislate morality and all laws reflect someone’s belief. Surely you’re not saying only those beliefs that come from faith should be rejected?

If one issue is a deal breaker then you are a one issue voter. You would deny a candidate because heshe was wrong on a woman’s right to choose, but who was by far the superior candidate as to every other issue.

 

[estesbob]

If one issue is a deal breaker then you are a one issue voter. You would deny a candidate because heshe was wrong on a woman’s right to choose, but who was by far the superior candidate as to every other issue.

Oh really? If a candidate ran on a platform of reinstituting segregation would that be a dealbreaker for you? If so I guess your’e a single issue voter, aren’t you

 

[Ender]

If one issue is a deal breaker then you are a one issue voter.

You are working very hard to categorize people who reject all pro-abortion politicians as “one issue voters.” Obviously you consider that an argument ending pejorative, but I don’t think you have considered it thoroughly enough. You imply that for you there is no position on any topic that someone could take that would render them utterly unfit regardless of their other positions. I find that hard to believe. For me, given a choice, there are three issues on which I won’t compromise. Does that make me three times worse than a mere one issue voter?

You would deny a candidate because heshe was wrong on a woman’s right to choose, but who was by far the superior candidate as to every other issue.

It is apparent that abortion is not a deal breaker for you and you don’t see why it should be taken that seriously by anyone else. People have different values. Stopping the slaughter of the unborn is at the top of some lists, somewhat further down on yours.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

It is apparent that abortion is not a deal breaker for you and you don’t see why it should be taken that seriously by anyone else. People have different values. Stopping the slaughter of the unborn is at the top of some lists, somewhat further down on yours.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not sure I understand all this ranting about a “deal breaker” or “single issue voting.” Does this mean I am under obligation to vote for a candidate who intends to expand abortion?

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not sure I understand all this ranting about a “deal breaker” or “single issue voting.” Does this mean I am under obligation to vote for a candidate who intends to expand abortion?

I think you are supposed to make a list…

1. In favor of the death penalty for parking tickets
2. In favor of stop lights on street corners
3. In favor of keeping the current US flag

Okay…2 out of 3…that’s my candidate.

Obviously, some issues can be deal-breakers. The whole line of reasoning presented was flawed.

 

[Dale_M]

It would appear that here, only one issue is of importance, abortion. I see no talk about this awful war, about poverty, about education, the growing imbalance between the rich and poor, healthcare, how we are to address the growing danger of fundamentalism in the world, the environment, our tax system, social security, veterans rights, our trade policies.

There have been a few, lengthy threads on health care and poverty - I am not sure about the others. Some members of CAF are very active on the abortion issue. Others, such as myself, struggle at supporting the Church’s teaching. For example, it was painful for me to vote for George Bush, given his terrible record on so many pro-life issues, but he has been strong against abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and he has done much to increase access to anti-HIV drugs in Africa.

And I disagree that you have a constitutional right to legislate other people’s morals in general. The Pilgrims tried that, as did a few of our other early settlements. We opted to prevent that by the separation of church and state.

SpiritMeadow, as much as I support the principle of separation of church and state, it is not part of the U.S. Constitution. It is a judicial tradition which has grown out of court rulings.

Some of our laws do regulate morals. The definition of marriage is of current debate, but I think few citizens would advocate for allowing polygamy. One of our U.S. Senators was arrested for seeking to have sex in a public restroom. I have met persons who feel this sort of public sex should be legal, but the vast majority of Americans probably do not. Laws regulating moral standards are not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[SoCalRC]

Thank you for your very courteous, mature response. Please reread forum rules. Me thinks you have over-stepped the boundry.

It all comes from selective application. You are the third person to proudly boast that they exclude certain information automatically. It was your boast, not mine.

I noted that father of neo conservatism, Frances Fukuyama has written and spole about this phenomena in an earlier post and made reference to it.

You are insulted, by why? Because of Rush being a convicted drug abuser and having been caught on a dubious moral situation? Or because the four top tier GOP presidential hopefuls all have nasty pro-abortion ties? Am I somehow responsible for Rudy’s cross dressing fetish, or three of the four having serious serial womanizing problems?

Similiarly, I cannot help it that two Popes and the USCCB have both highlighted the same substanative issues that you automatically dismissed. They won’t cover that on Fox, or presumably your narrow reading list, but living in a bubble does not physically alter the world outside it.

What I find interesting is that these threads are wholly predictable; and circular.

Step 1. Profess that only one political choice is conceivably pro-life, any other choice is intrinsically evil.

Response. Point out that pro-life, in a Catholic theological sense, is derived from our understanding of the human person as succinctly described the Second Vatican Council. Evangelium Vitae, which declared our absolute ban on abortion infallible demonstrated, beautifully, that our stance is seemless and complete, from conception to natural death.

Step 2. Sneer that nothing, absolutely nothing, trumps abortion, the Church ‘says so’.

Response. Quote the Church explaining that single narrow issue voting is “incoherent” and “a detriment” to the cohesive teachings which are Christianity.

Step 3. Make a moral sounding statement that regardless of what the Church’s stance is, you have to vote a certain way lest the blood be on your hands.

Response. Give examples that even in the narrow context of abortion, neither of the two main political parties is blood free.

Step 4. Three choices: State that you don’t read rants, state that the sources are unreliable, or claim that you are being attacked.

Response. Point out that commenting in forceful terms on something not read is not exactly a sign of cognitive or contemplative thought, point out that the same point is made by the Church as the ‘unreliable source’, or point out that the ‘attack’ is just reporting inconvenient reality.

Step 5. Assert that it does not matter because the other party is worse, then go back to Step 1…

There are variations, but the pattern essentially remains unchanged - regardless of even the argument presented. I have not said embrace abortion or choice, I have said wholly embrace the teachings of the Church. Stand with God regardless of the odds. This is hardly a new concept, it is repeated in both the Old and New Testaments…

One other thing that, sadly, does not surprise me is the constant double standard. Professing that a particular human being is unworthy of being a Catholic and an insult to the faith is OK. Pointing out that the GOP is not currently running a legitimate conservative in '08, is obviously a breach of forum rules…

I think it is a conditioned response. Bill O. starts complaining about a ‘War on Christmas’, I hear it repeated. Point out that Bill’s theology is flawed, Easter, not Christmas, is the center of our faith (Christmas was not even celebrated by Christians for centuries), and shrieking begins. Point out that Bill’s commercial interests use the non denominational ‘Season’s Greetings’ that he is lambasting, heads start exploding…