Republican voters??

[SoCalRC]

He allowed use of existing lines, but did not allow for creation of new lines by diliberately destroying new embryos for the purpose. The only research which shows real promise at this time is that which is being done on adult stems cells. So I don’t get your meaning.

Because you have been hoodwinked. There is NO new prohibition on stem cell research whatsoever. Two bipartisan bills have been introduced during the Bush presidency, both were killed by Republican leadership. Those bills also included additional restrictions on clone research.

What the President has done has been to limit FEDERAL SPENDING only to research on existing lines. Meaning he did not even wholly stop spending our tax dollars on this abomination. California countered with it’s own funding. The Democratic controlled legislature would not pass such a bill, so our GOP gov promoted a ballot initiative instead.

This is true, however, though the church does not apporve of IVF, one can remove the issue of aborted embryos by only harvesting the eggs which will be implanted in entirety. This may result in miscarrage, but not the need to throw away fertilized eggs.

Only if we reject Church teaching on when life begins.

This has nothing to do with the president.

The subject is the GOP, he is in line for leadership of the country and has principally driven foreign policy during both Bush terms. The fact that he is a hypocrit who does not share our values (much like Karl Rove, who is an atheist) should matter. Particularly since the Pope has described the center piece of that foreign policy “grave evil”.

Again, nothing to do with the president, or any sitting member of congress.

If you harbor a gay predatory pedophile, you are accountable in my book. The sitting GOP leadership in Congress helped cover up for two, for years. All in the name of preserving power…

Are you saying that Bush is responsible for the “expansion of gay marriage”. I guess the activist judges appointed by primarily liberal democrats have had nothing to say on the matter. Let’s see, how many states have the people voted “no” to gay marriage only to have a judge say it’s unconstitutional?

The only problem is that over 3/4 of the judges involved are Republican appointees. That’s the problem with serving two masters. When it comes to business and faith, the GOP only seems to really love one.

I suppose Kerry would have opted for life.

Kerry voted against both bills, and quoted two Popes in his speech on the matter in the Senate. At a family health conference he brought up the issue again and read a passage from his Catholic bible. It was the same bible he carried with him in Vietnam.

That’s another problem with idolotry of a political party. You have to abandon the center of our belief on abortion, belief in the fundemental value in every human person. You can’t serve two religions, so we abandon Love Thy Neighbor and adopt ‘Villify anyone who doesn’t stand in exact lock step with us…’

I did not vote for John Kerry, but I respect him. Like me, he enlisted and served in a war he did not support. And he was coming from priviledge. He could easily have down the Cheney-Bush, gutless chickenhawk two step. Similiarly, on 9/11 he stood next to the capitol building and complained about closing it, letting the terrorists win. I sat all day in my office downtown, thinking the same thing.

When his military service was falsely attacked for political gain, I was almost as disgusted as when the screeching right wing tools went after a brain damaged 12 year old boy with false claims.

So disgusted that I finally realized that carrying water for evil people made me evil as well. Now I vote my faith.

 

[estesbob]

. There is no discernable difference between the two parties in anything but rhetoric. And there won’t be a difference in the country until people have the courage to do what is right, not what they think is expedient.

Many of us posted information that absoultely destroyed this falsehood the first dozen or so times you posted it. I, like, many have given up since you preety much ignore anything that diputes your position .I guess you figure if you post it enough times that makes it true.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

To Melensdad, Rlg94086,estesbob,
Ditto, ditto, ditto
I have been looking in on this thread, but usually don’t have time
to comment. So those I have mentioned have for the most part
spoken my thoughts. I especially think that Melensdad offers
concrete solutions in mentioning how grassroots efforts can
be effective in supporting pro-life candidates.
In PA, voters voted in a Pro-Life candidate—yeah, right! Check
his voting record. Truth is he is very weak in this area and if
he did have a pro-life initiative, he would have NO support in his
party. That same initiative would find support in the Republican
party, even with the # of pro deathers we have. What’s the
solution? Get more pro-lifers in and take out the Orin Hatches
& Olivia Snows(sp), The latter is harder because of the stronghold
of liberals in those states, so limiting them is the best that can
be done there.
I am currently working at the grassroots level and will continue as
long as I have the time and energy. We can always use helpers.

 

[scottm]

If you intentionally waste a vote on someone who absolutely can’t win then you are allowing harm to be done by opening the door for evil if an avowed anti-life politician wins.

You went too fast for me.

First, now is a vote for a candidate who acts on good beliefs, a “wasted” vote? It looks to me that voting for a candidate who would do good things is the best vote to cast.

Second, how do you know who can win until the election is over? Is there a pre-election that is held before the votes are cast, so that I’m morally obligated to cast my vote in conformity with that pre-election? I don’t understand how you already know who can win and who cannot win.

Melo:

If it makes you feel better to vote third party or write in someone that’s great. But you should know that by doing so, you will really be voting in the Dem.

But wait – Are you not aware that **Democrats win anyway **?! In real life Democrats win despite Republican votes! Ergo, the fear of Democrats is not a reason to vote Republican. We need a different reason.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You went too fast for me.

First, now is a vote for a candidate who acts on good beliefs, a “wasted” vote? It looks to me that voting for a candidate who would do good things is the best vote to cast.

Second, how do you know who can win until the election is over? Is there a pre-election that is held before the votes are cast, so that I’m morally obligated to cast my vote in conformity with that pre-election? I don’t understand how you already know who can win and who cannot win.

I think what is being said is sit down, shut up and vote for any Republican who says they’re pro-life. Whether or not they live their life in a manner that demonstrates pro-life and family-values is unimportant…just professing pro-life is enough. It’s the sola fide of politics.

 

[rlg94086]

I think that this thread has really showed that many people are only focused on the actual election, but not on the entire process of getting to that point. Not only is it important to be heard DURING THE PRIMARY elections, and to vote in the primary, it is often important to get involved BEFORE the PRIMARY election.

I don’t care if you are a Republican, Democrat, or whatever, if you want to make your voice heard, you need to start attending your local meetings and regional meetings and make sure that your voice is being heard by your party. Want to really make your voice heard? Then bring in a few other like-minded people to those meetings with you.

We all know that when there are prayer vigils in front of an abortion clinic the number of customers plummet. Well you can do a similar thing inside your political party by starting early. You literally have to start NOW for elections that are 2 or 4 years away. If you think you can alter a national election that is only a few months away then you are sadly mistaken. But there is no reason you can’t alter an election for the NEXT cycle after this one. And yes, in some areas you face overwhelming odds.

In my district we have a very pro-abortion state representative by the name of Peter Visclosky. He represents Gary, IN and the surrounding area and has a very strong base. He walks away with 70-to-80% of the vote each election and he sits in Washington thumbing his nose at the Pro-Life community.

No Democrat will oppose him in a primary. No Republican can stand up against him in an election because the district is overwhelmingly Democratic. So what am I to do? I vote against him, but I bide my time. Eventually he will step down. But I have organized focused attacks on many of his votes with letter writing campaigns. He is solidly anti-gun and one election we mobilized the hunting community against him and it made an impact, but not enough. Every candidate has MANY issues they oppose or support. That means you can work with MANY different groups that have different agendas. Want to get rid of a Pro-Abortion candidate, you may need to hit him on his TAX & SPEND policies? Or maybe on his GUN RIGHTS policies? Or maybe on his ABORTION beliefs? Or maybe because he wants to tax smokers!?!

Yes, you may find yourself working with groups that you do not personally support, but you must understand that sometimes in politics*** “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”*** is often a practical way to look at politicians.

Excellent points. And, I would like to make a request of my fellow Catholic voters. If you are going to vote third party, please keep your Republican registration long enough to vote in your state’s primary. We need your votes to get a pro-life presidential candidate. If you bail now, there is no chance.

 

[marci]

Kerry voted against both bills, and quoted two Popes in his speech on the matter in the Senate. At a family health conference he brought up the issue again and read a passage from his Catholic bible. It was the same bible he carried with him in Vietnam.

John Kerry is a stanch pro-abortionist. He believes in the unlimited right of a woman to choose even if the choice is partial birth abortion. What makes this more discusting is the fact that Kerry is (in name only) catholic. I wonder, does he carry the same bible with him into the senate chambers as he votes to further expand the murder of innocense in this country?

 

[melensdad]

John Kerry is a stanch pro-abortionist. He believes in the unlimited right of a woman to choose even if the choice is partial birth abortion. What makes this more discusting is the fact that Kerry is (in name only) catholic. I wonder, does he carry the same bible with him into the senate chambers as he votes to further expand the murder of innocense in this country?

Marci, please don’t confuse us with facts All you did was show us that Kerry is a hypocrite too. He is a Catholic hypocrite but is often politically honest in the fact that he claims to be Catholic while at the same time he is actually pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-embryonic stem cell research.

Near as I can tell, Bush never claimed to be Catholic, and he has, at very least, slowed down the march of the pro-death forces. Do I like him as a president, nope I don’t. But I know he is more pro-life than 90+% of the Democrats and he has been better for honest Catholics than Kerry would have been.

It also seems clear that some folks blame Bush for EVERYTHING.

 

[Nino]

Yes,character does count…if a man or woman takes his/her vow ,in a church etc so lightly as does Rudy,etc then why should I expect him to take our constitution seriously. To vote for the lesser of two evils is also stupid…so many of us have fallen for that line for years …and of course we still get evil!.Our nation is becoming more and more red fascist…there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship…greed,power,lust …these are the compelling factors that take over the hearts and souls of such leaders of such nations…to give up liberty for a tid bit of security…one loses liberty right down the line! A secular humanistic society only benefits the corporations…citizens who have been brain-washed into believing this earth is all max out their credit cards.buy all kinds of useless junk etc…while in a Christian society,the average citizen knows this earth is but the blink of an eye…sooooo he spends his sprare money on charity,and helping to find cures for cancer,aids etc…Nino

 

[estesbob]

I think what is being said is sit down, shut up and vote for any Republican who says they’re pro-life. Whether or not they live their life in a manner that demonstrates pro-life and family-values is unimportant…just professing pro-life is enough. It’s the sola fide of politics.

Another falsehood that has been refuted more times than I can count. The fact we dont refute it anymore as you ignore it anyway doesnt suddenly make it right.

 

[SoCalRC]

John Kerry is a stanch pro-abortionist. He believes in the unlimited right of a woman to choose even if the choice is partial birth abortion. What makes this more discusting is the fact that Kerry is (in name only) catholic. I wonder, does he carry the same bible with him into the senate chambers as he votes to further expand the murder of innocense in this country?

That is the problem with a constant back ground of hate speech and spin, it makes it difficult to get past charactures and buzz words and examine any issue in the context of reality. I actually started to dissect each of your talking points one at a time, but realized that there is little point. It is dogma of an alternative faith.

In that light think that the saddest consequence of trying to balance Republicanism with Catholicism is the need to abandon the fundemental teaching of Christ on which our Catholic teaching on abortion is ultimately based.

Look at your open disdain and willingness to judge rather or not Kerry is truly Catholic. I cannot look into Kerry’s heart and see if he is the tax collector, but you are openly acting the part of the Pharisee. I hope you are on firmer moral ground, but I don’t see it.

You argue that, because he has voted to permit abortions, Kerry is a disgrace to fellow Catholics. More precisely, voting simply to allow an abortion to be chosen = pro-abortionist.

But you yourself appear to vote GOP. We have already established that the Princes of the Church have identified a grievous situation, under US government control, involving human trafficing, forced sex, and forced abortions. In a complex scandal involving the White House and most of the GOP leadership in congress, we discovered that the GOP repeatedly used its political power to perpetuate the situation instead of stopping it.

Further, they took millions of dollars and appear to have engaged in some of the immoral sex acts themselves. Now, if vote-to-allow-abortion-by-choice = pro-abortionist, how can we honestly say that a vote-to-force-abortion-for-profit does not?

There simply is no honest criteria by which Kerry is a pro-abortionist and everyone involved in the Abramof/Mariannas scandal is not. But we missed a step. What does ignoring the Princes of the Church and voting for the people promoting and profiteering from horrific evil make you? Did you not, yourself, choose to vote for forced abortions and profit?

In Mass each week I acknowledge that, like everyone else present, I am not truly worthy to receive the Lord. We are truly made equal, perfect social justice, by our joint unworthiness. In that light, I would never begrude you in the slightest a place in our pews or warm and heart felt signs of peace from our parish. What else could I do? Christ tells us to Love God with all our hearts and Love our Neighbor as ourselves.

But small wonder that these teachings sometimes clashes with a faith that builds its foundation on debasing others and labelling them as morally inferior and wholly evil.

The second saddest thing about reconcilling Republicanism with Catholicism is that it requires rejecting reality. Notice the extensive study the WHO gave us today:

nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This is just another study in a pile of evidence that we have been accumulating for a decade. Secular laws don’t have a measurable effect on abortion rates. If anything, this reaffirms our faith in Catholicism. The same things our Saviour told us to do on the plain and on the mount millenia ago do have a measurable effect on this great evil. The research just makes it more urgent, because we know that birth control, the demonstrated secular solution, is evil and hence cannot be persued for good.

But Republicanism cannot accept this as reality. That is because secular law is the only pro life position that the party actually holds. If it is ineffective, the platform should change. But the platform cannot change because the party serves two masters, and we already know which one it loves more.

So this leave a person in the sad condition of having to deride other human beings, declare moral superiority, and adamanently deny measurable reality. It is much easier to reject the false religion, embrace God, love fellow humans, accept one’s own unworthy state, and deal with the world as it is (and see evidence of God in it and the relevance of the Catholic faith as a consequence). But that is a lesson that people ultimately must learn for themselves.

 

[Ender]

Look at your open disdain and willingness to judge rather or not Kerry is truly Catholic. I cannot look into Kerry’s heart and see if he is the tax collector, but you are openly acting the part of the Pharisee.

We really don’t need to see into Kerry’s heart to know what he has done publicly: reject the teaching of the Church on a grave moral issue. It is hardly pharisaical to condemn what the Church condemns.

We have already established that the Princes of the Church have identified a grievous situation, under US government control, involving …

Virtually no one who voted for the Republicans in power now knew anything about the situation you describe (even if it exists as you describe it which is debatable). That is, at least voting for a Republican did not involve knowingly voting for evil. What is more, I’m sure no Republican publicly defends the practice and says it ought to continue to exist - which is the opposite of the Democrats position on abortion.

What does ignoring the Princes of the Church and voting for the people promoting and profiteering from horrific evil make you?

At worst, ignorant. Unlike voters who continually and knowingly support those promoting the horrific evil of abortion.

But the platform cannot change because the party serves two masters, and we already know which one it loves more.

Wow, and you complain about other people being judgmental.

So this leave a person in the sad condition of having to deride other human beings, declare moral superiority, and adamanently deny measurable reality.

Saddest of all, we are left with an entire political party supporting abortion as a woman’s right (like getting her legs waxed) without even recognizing the existence of the child being destroyed.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

We really don’t need to see into Kerry’s heart to know what he has done publicly: reject the teaching of the Church on a grave moral issue. It is hardly pharisaical to condemn what the Church condemns.

That is the problem with using so many Christian terms in Republican rhetoric. Frequent listeners get confused about what is and is not Christian conduct. The parable raised is a near identical situation, passing judgement on the spiritual situation raised by a public servant seemingly publicly sinning.

The morals remain the same as well. We have zero evidence that Kerry has rejected or sinned in regards to our infallible teaching about abortion. He has historically rejected secular law as a way to reduce abortions. A position that does seem to be based on evidence.

However, the Church now teaches that votes in democratic life that permit legalize activities are, themselves, grievous sin. This teaching is quite new and is prudential. That is, the Pope has not declared this interpretation of existing Canon law infallible and mutliple bishops have openly questioned it (elliminating infallibility via the Ordinary Magesterium).

I am Roman Catholic, so I accept the Pope’s directives. But the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has explaiend to the laity how to assess the importance of prudential teachings. Given that the GOP platform rejects multiple prduential teachings, including one that has appeared both in a Papal Encyclical and now the Catechism of the Church, Catholics who vote Republican should be careful casting stones.

Virtually no one who voted for the Republicans in power now knew anything about the situation you describe (even if it exists as you describe it which is debatable).

I believe I already covered part of this. Republicanism requires willful ignorance in order to remain even remotely compatible with the Christian concience. We know from university studies (ex. Princeton, UC Davis, and UCLA) that individuals who identify Fox News and talk radio as their primary source of information are dramtically more likely to answer basic questions of objective fact about high profile public issues incorrectly.

The true test comes when the bubble is broached. I notice that you still question the situation itself. It has been appearing in special reports on the news since 1997. And the UCSSB has been convering the situation for years as well. Similiarly, we’ve had a record number of convictions on capitol hill regarding the Abramof scandal, spanning years.

Why question when you can look?

We are, after all, talking about the same sin for which Kerry is being derided as a Catholic. Reading the Pope’s public statements on the matter it would seem that Catholics who continue to support politicians involved in Saipan should not present themselves for communion. We can, after all, have ‘no disagreement regarding abortion’.

The Pope teaches that politicians can be denied Communion because their sin is public, but “Sacramentum Caritatis” appears to make it clear that the sin itself is not limited to politicians.

A similiar situation arises with torture and the war in Iraq. Even George Weigel, who has written more on Iraq meeting the just war standard than anyone else, conceded in his first column regarding prisoner abuse that torture automatically negates a just war argument.

So, if you want to be a good Catholic, dig out the facts and follow your faith. If it is more important to be a good Republican, don’t, since things like torture, unjust war, and profiteering from forced abortions obvoiusly put the two at odds.

What is more, I’m sure no Republican publicly defends the practice and says it ought to continue to exist - which is the opposite of the Democrats position on abortion.

I’m sorry, that is not a Catholic concept. Concealing grievous sins with deception and hyprocisy, hence making people unwilling accomplises, is not morally superior.

Wow, and you complain about other people being judgmental.

I find it interesting that you do not see the distinction between juding a political party on its platform and legislative actions. Do you really mean to equate an earthly political assessment with guessing the mind and pleasure of God (the context referred to in scripture)?

Saddest of all, we are left with an entire political party supporting abortion as a woman’s right (like getting her legs waxed) without even recognizing the existence of the child being destroyed.

You are still stuck in the rut of trying to compare lesser evils. I, and others, are saying, reject evil altogether, just as the Church appears to recommend and which Jesus demonstrated in his earthly ministry.

 

[mozart-250]

I see your point. I was in that position often when I lived in California with my local races. It is an easier choice to vote third party in those instances, as you know there will be no effect.

The other states I have lived in (Oregon, Colorado) as well as my current state (Washington) are a little more competitive. In fact, Colorado has turned much more blue than it used to be.

In the end voting for a preferable third party candidate versus a candidate from the two major parties reduces to a judgement call.

It is one thing to vote for a third party candidate when both of the major candidates are pro-abortion. It is another thing to vote for a third party candidate when there is a ‘R’ or ‘D’ party candidate that is not pro-abortion and the differentiation between the third party candidate and the ‘R’ or ‘D’ party candidate is on issues other than killing innocent human life. I still might in this scenario vote third party, but it is a much harder sell.

Oh BTW in case you haven’t figured it out, if I take seriously the fact that abortion is the killing of innocent human life, then any other issue that you throw out there is small potatoes compared to the killing of say 45 million people or more.

 

[SoCalRC]

In the end voting for a preferable third party candidate versus a candidate from the two major parties reduces to a judgement call.

The problem is that when people forget that it is a matter of judgement and start speaking in absolute terms about secular elections and Faith.

I believe that the Church is absolutely right in the quotes I’ve provided. Our faith and teachings are a cohesive whole it is “incoherent” and a “detriment” to collapse our faith and obligations into a single expression of a single teaching. Likewise, it is incorrect to relinquish one’s obligations to Christ via proxy to a political party.

I could easy tear into Democrats, but there don’t appear to be any ‘devout’ ones here claiming that they represent God and are the only viable alternative to ‘wholly evil’ Republicans. But we do have the reverse.

When you profess to wholly celebrate life and offer the ‘evil democrats’ as an alternative, it is difficult not to see the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. But with the GOP harboring pedophiles and gay sexual predators in Congress, presenting a slew of pro death cadidates to lead the party, supporting a state of perpetual war, torture, chronyism and incompetence that has led to shameful lapses in Christian responsibility like Katrina, politicizing the justice department, and involvement in disenfranchising poor and minority voters (like the disgusting ploy that was just struck down in Geogia), a lot fewer stones should be cast.

Last week our Archdiocese weekly newspaper carried a nice column by Fr. Rolheiser which discussed some of the lessons that can be taken from David and Goliath:

the-tidings.com/2007/101207/rolheiser.htm

That image, David before Goliath, the child before the giant, depicts how anyone who is a true defender of God’s cause invariably stands before the world — hopelessly overmatched, looking naive, a child before an adult, bare skin against iron, a joke, someone not to be taken seriously. But victory belongs to the child. It’s the giant that’s vulnerable, it is iron that won’t hold up, providing of course that the child has some smooth pebbles inside his or her shepherd’s pouch.

Again and again, those who have stood with God and followed Christ have been victorious against seemingly impossible odds. But again and again we convince ourselves that God’s way is impossible, the odds are too low… And we convince ourselves that cooperating with evil is unavoidable. Or, worse, we start telling ourselves that the evil does not exist and that we are part of something divine.

 

[mary_bobo]

In the end voting for a preferable third party candidate versus a candidate from the two major parties reduces to a judgement call.

It is one thing to vote for a third party candidate when both of the major candidates are pro-abortion. It is another thing to vote for a third party candidate when there is a ‘R’ or ‘D’ party candidate that is not pro-abortion and the differentiation between the third party candidate and the ‘R’ or ‘D’ party candidate is on issues other than killing innocent human life. I still might in this scenario vote third party, but it is a much harder sell.

Oh BTW in case you haven’t figured it out, if I take seriously the fact that abortion is the killing of innocent human life, then any other issue that you throw out there is small potatoes compared to the killing of say 45 million people or more.

One thing that I have not seen mentioned in this thread (if it has been, excuse me) is that a president alone cannot affect a policy. Whatever the policy, there will a certain number of people of both parties who will not support the idea. If a party as a whole is in favor of something (pro-life), it becomes easier, especially if the party has a veto proof Congress. That has not happened recently. IMO voting for a third party, that does not at this time in history, have a prayer of a chance of being elected, it throwing one’s valuable vote to the pro-death group.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I am in a predicament. It may be PRIDE.

I have voted for a Mormon for Governor. I have voted many times for pro-choice candidates using the lesser of evil theory because no one running was pro-life.

Now it appears that I will be forced to do the same. I have been having a real difficult time thinking that I will have to hold my nose and vote either for a Mormon whose faith I don’t agree with or a pro-choice candidate. I thought I was passed this. I thought I’d never again have to have to vote for a pro-abortion person for the presidency.

I like a number of the second tier candidates. I keep hoping a second tier candidate will come forth but that is almost impossible. I loved to see two-second tier candidates - one for president and one for vice-president but I am not hopeful.

If I don’t vote, that will ensure that another person I don’t want gets in. This is so difficult.

I keep thinking I won’t vote.

I shared that dilemma (lesser of two evils) and have come to a resolve. I will no longer make a choice one candidate or the other whose “evils” seem fewer but still have some that are egregious.

I will vote for a Third Party and among those there will be a pro-lifer that I can vote for. True, it cannot win, but, like you, I’ll be at inner peace with myself knowing I did not espouse an evil of one or more. Voting today, to me at least, is NO LONGER who wins or who loses…it is about my inner self/soul.

Jesus was in a minority with His teachings…they were not popular but He never compromised them.

 

[SoCalRC]

IMO voting for a third party, that does not at this time in history, have a prayer of a chance of being elected, it throwing one’s valuable vote to the pro-death group.

I just read the folloing editorial in the New York Times:

nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14rich2.html?_r=1&ex=1350100800&en=db0293f96432022f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Which closes with the following:

Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance…

The most insulting part is the case is well made. It shouldn’t surprise Catholics, our church has been warning us in the strongest possible terms for 5 years.

But thank goodness we aren’t ‘wasting our votes’ doing something as silly as standing with our church to oppose something the Vicar of Christ has described as the “gravest of evils”.

 

[mary_bobo]

I just read the folloing editorial in the New York Times:

nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14rich2.html?_r=1&ex=1350100800&en=db0293f96432022f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Which closes with the following:

The most insulting part is the case is well made. It shouldn’t surprise Catholics, our church has been warning us in the strongest possible terms for 5 years.

But thank goodness we aren’t ‘wasting our votes’ doing something as silly as standing with our church to oppose something the Vicar of Christ has described as the “gravest of evils”.

I discount everything from Frank Rich and most of what comes out of the NY Times. Oh, and Bush is not running in 2008.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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?