Republican voters??

[mary_bobo]

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.

You know, there are four other issues that we, as Catholics, cannot compromise on. Abortion is the fifth. I can’t for the life of me understand why one would want to quibble about these issues when the Church has made it quite clear where She stands on each of these. What’s the problem?

 

[BobP123]

Both frontrunners are abortionists. Both are pro-war. Both are heavy deficit spenders. Republicans favor the rich. Democrats favor the very poor. The rich get richer under both parties. So why should I vote Republican?

Since Ron Paul seems to be fading, I can only vote in conscience for a third party again.

 

[estesbob]

Both frontrunners are abortionists. Both are pro-war. Both are heavy deficit spenders. Republicans favor the rich. Democrats favor the very poor. The rich get richer under both parties. So why should I vote Republican?

Since Ron Paul seems to be fading, I can only vote in conscience for a third party again.

Actually Democrats favor keeping the poor poor. What they have done to African americans in the last 40 years is criminal. However , like you, it appears i will not be voting for the nominee of either major Party this year.

 

[mary_bobo]

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?

COLOR=“Red”]Please tell me what this has to do with the election, Rush, I mean. It is not necessary to call people names to make your point. And the other allegations you have made–you do not KNOW to be true. Is that a charitible thing to do?
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.

How typical of a liberal to denegrade someone’s intelligence or reading habits. You know absolutely nothing about me, my education, my background, and certainly not my reading habits. And you have no idea what TV programs I watch. Get a grip.
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…

Why are you telling me this? Don’t think this responds to anything I have said.
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…

I have no idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[estesbob]

I have no idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Rarely does-that is why very few people bother responing to him anymore.

 

[mary_bobo]

Rarely does-that is why very few people bother responing to him anymore.

They are a lot smarter than I. Bet I don’t do it again.

 

[Ender]

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.

Douglas MacArthur once said a general should never write an order that could be understood. Instead, the general has to write orders that cannot be misunderstood. Your interpretations of Church documents demonstrate the validity of his concern.

The document you cite could hardly be clearer that no issue is more significant than abortion and only one or two others are even mentioned in the same context. You claim that singling abortion out from other issues is incoherent; the Church claims that it is a duty. “In the face of *fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, *Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and *euthanasia …” *(italics in the original). And again: “democracy … succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle…”

Your position is based on this paragraph: *"**… a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good."

*The first sentence is unambiguous: one may not support a law “which contradicts the fundamental content of faith and morals.” This has already been defined: abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research. The second sentence is ambiguous only if you ignore the first and third; what is being discussed here is Catholic social doctrine. Regarding this doctrine and which solutions adhere to it:

*“It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person.” *

Given that the Church exempts herself from pronouncing that any specific political solution is morally superior to another there is no justification for your claiming that either party’s proposals more closely mirror the Church’s social teaching.

“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility.” Abortion is an activity that directly contradicts a fundamental moral principle - and no compromise is acceptable.

Ender

 

[Dale_M]

You know, there are four other issues that we, as Catholics, cannot compromise on. Abortion is the fifth. I can’t for the life of me understand why one would want to quibble about these issues when the Church has made it quite clear where She stands on each of these.

Mary, I think you are referring to the “five non-negotiables” which is a list devised by Catholic Answers (before it spun off Catholic Answers Action). Those five issues are simply the ones that CA (or CAA) thinks are most relevant to the United States today.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

PREEMPTIVE WARNING:
Please keep all posts free from endorsements / criticisms of particular candidates – even in a veiled form. Should such comments be made, the offending post(s) will be deleted and the thread closed.

ALSO:
Please keep the charity level of your posts at a maximum. Uncharitable posts will result in conduct action and possible suspension of posting privileges.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[estesbob]

Mary, I think you are referring to the “five non-negotiables” which is a list devised by Catholic Answers (before it spun off Catholic Answers Action). Those five issues are simply the ones that CA (or CAA) thinks are most relevant to the United States today.

Per the Vatican ,at least with abortion and euthanasia, these are the issues that are most relevant to the WORLD today. The Church has s made it clear that no issue or combination of issues trump abortion. There simply is no wiggle room when considering a candidate who is pro-abortion ,

 

[SoCalRC]

You know, there are four other issues that we, as Catholics, cannot compromise on. Abortion is the fifth. I can’t for the life of me understand why one would want to quibble about these issues when the Church has made it quite clear where She stands on each of these. What’s the problem?

FWIW, the Church actually gives 10 examples of “moral principles that do not admit of exception” when discussing the subject of voting and Catholics in public life:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

 

[melensdad]

FWIW, the Church actually gives 10 examples of “moral principles that do not admit of exception” when discussing the subject of voting and Catholics in public life:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

I read the article. I can’t find the list of 10. Help! There were lots of points made, many more than 10. To which 10 are you specifically referring?

Is this the paragraph to which you refer? Highlights are mine, but there are only 9 of them.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged».[21] Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always «the work of justice and the effect of charity».[22] It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.​

 

[SoCalRC]

I have no idea what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

If you don’t understand what I am saying, how can you be certain it is not relevant? That is another of the common tactics that I have already highlighted.

The key is in your own statements, “How typical of a liberal…” Life in the bubble consists of demonizing mythical, wholly evil, liberals. But such straw men seldom exist in the real world.

For example, I am quite likely more conservative on a wide range of Church Teachings than you. That is the basis of my argument, that the GOP is utterly failing the Catholic faith on a wdie variety of issues, including abortion. I haven’t just made this assertion wildly, I’ve provided a substantial number of specific examples and Church writings.

Research apparently tells us that self identified political conservatives have a harder time processing and applying such examples:

abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3580747&page=1

Personally I think that the media hype of such research is overblown. The demonstrated phenomena, in this example a lower probability of correctly identifying simple data on a computer screen, is interesting. But I suspect that further research will show that the causal factors are nuanced and fairly complex. For example, it would not surprise me if the consistancy of content findings in U.C. Davis M.I.N.D. institute studies is applicable. Even factually erroneous information on Fox News programs and talk radio is remarkably consistant.

But, regardless of the cause(s), I have confidence that Jesus’ message, and the light of his teachings that the Church has carried through the ages, will eventually triumph.

Just look at the news. In the last 24 hours we’ve had another GOP gay pedophile problem pop up in Wisconsin and Bob Jones III, who just a few years ago declared that Catholicism and Mormanism are “cults which call themselves Christian” is throwing his support behind Morman, pro-abortionist, GOP hopeful Mitt Romney.

If we go back a week we have General Sanchez’s scathing remarks about Iraq, horrifying revelations about Blackwater, childrens health care and a organized and dishonest attack on a 12 year old brain damaged boy, and the publication of comprehensive research by the WHO which indicates that using prohibition to battle abortion has been a spectacular failure around the world.

Everyone has a threshold. Rather it is a war that the Pope describes as evil, the heartless corrupt fiasco that was Katrina, forced abortions and profiteering in a US protectorate, or simply children’s health care. Sooner or later everyone must decide which they love more, their faith or their political party. As St. Paul noted, we can hide in the shadows, but sooner or later everyone must face the light.

 

[SoCalRC]

Abortion is an activity that directly contradicts a fundamental moral principle - and no compromise is acceptable.

Precisely. I am asking why you (and others) are so willing to compromise on an infallible teaching.

If someone wants to vote wholly on abortion, fine. I think that elevating abortion at the expense of other fundemental Church teachings is an error, since doing so appears to discard the underlying argument of the teaching itself. But that does not mean that I am correct.

However, if you do elevate abortion to be a sole litmus test in your voting, honor it. Accepting lip service has led to what we have now, a political party that has failed to deliver on its promises, has serious problems with morals, and now parades pro-abortionists with a new coat of pro-life paint as viable candidates.

Personally, I want to vote my Faith on a wide variety of issues, with abortion being just one. But, again, if you are going to vote on abortion, how about at least holding politicians accountable for the travesty in Saipan? Does it really not bother a ‘well formed Christian’ mind to have the stench of human trafficing and forced abortions behind a garment marked “Made in the USA”?

 

[fix]

Precisely. I am asking why you (and others) are so willing to compromise on an infallible teaching.

If someone wants to vote wholly on abortion, fine. I think that elevating abortion at the expense of other fundemental Church teachings is an error, since doing so appears to discard the underlying argument of the teaching itself. But that does not mean that I am correct.

However, if you do elevate abortion to be a sole litmus test in your voting, honor it. Accepting lip service has led to what we have now, a political party that has failed to deliver on its promises, has serious problems with morals, and now parades pro-abortionists with a new coat of pro-life paint as viable candidates.

Personally, I want to vote my Faith on a wide variety of issues, with abortion being just one. But, again, if you are going to vote on abortion, how about at least holding politicians accountable for the travesty in Saipan? Does it really not bother a ‘well formed Christian’ mind to have the stench of human trafficing and forced abortions behind a garment marked “Made in the USA”?

I am not a member of either party and I have a question. If abortion is not a primary issue which issues are equal to it or trump it?

 

[SoCalRC]

I read the article. I can’t find the list of 10. Help! There were lots of points made, many more than 10. To which 10 are you specifically referring?

Is this the paragraph to which you refer? Highlights are mine, but there are only 9 of them.

You found 9 which are in italics in the original. But there is one more. It isn’t a new teaching, but one which received a lot of emphasis in the 20th century. Hint: it is prominent in Pope Pius XI’s most famous encyclical and appears in multiple Vatican II documents.

FWIW, rather we never agree on a single point or not, I am very impressed by the effort you are putting into your own understanding of our Faith.

 

[SoCalRC]

I am not a member of either party and I have a question. If abortion is not a primary issue which issues are equal to it or trump it?

All infallible teachings of the Church, such as Euthanasia and Murder. However, I accept the Magesterium’s teaching that conception to natural death is a single, coherent teaching based on the proper recognition of the human person.

So I personally, cannot accept a number of other issues either, such as a war I believe to be unjust, modern slavery, or even the corruption of certain institutions which I belief are mandatory to meet the Church’s definition of an acceptable form of democracy.

In other words, I accept the Church supposition that to compromise on torture for the sake of abortion is morally incoherent and a detriment, since it errodes the underlying principle on which both teachings rest.

 

[estesbob]

I am not a member of either party and I have a question. If abortion is not a primary issue which issues are equal to it or trump it?

For the Church none. For many Catholics looking for an excuse to vote for pro-abortion candidates their personal views on the war, the death penalty or their personal interpretation of Catholic social justice trumps all. You see a lot on these forums-they post quotes from church documents talking about social justice and then claim only one party supports it. The fact that that party also supports abortion, homosexual marriage, euthanasia etc. is irrelevant to them because by gosh at least those who support all this hate George Bush and oppose the war.

Nearly 20,000 children have been killed since this thread began.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

While I may disagree with you on a point here or there, substantively I agree with you and applaud your character in honestly I think assessing the American system.

Mostly what I was trying to get across was the enormity of problems facing the country. Abortion, homosexuality, and other issues of sexual behavior are surely important. They are not the only issues before us. I’m not going to support someone soley on one issue if I think someone else can do an overall better job. I have to be alive first in order to work on any issue.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

For the Church none. For many Catholics looking for an excuse to vote for pro-abortion candidates their personal views on the war, the death penalty or their personal interpretation of Catholic social justice trumps all. You see a lot on these forums-they post quotes from church documents talking about social justice and then claim only one party supports it. The fact that that party also supports abortion, homosexual marriage, euthanasia etc. is irrelevant to them because by gosh at least those who support all this hate George Bush and oppose the war.

Nearly 20,000 children have been killed since this thread began.

Isn’t it against forum rules to assume that you know what another poster is thinking? I think it is.

Could it be that opposition to a certain right-wing political party is just that…opposition to that particular party?

You say that you wouldn’t vote for anyone who is pro-choice and I’m absolutely down with that. I don’t vote for people who are pro-choice, either.

HOWEVER, just because someone SAYS that they’ re pro-life and not pro-choice doesn’t mean that they get my vote. My standard is a bit higher than just being against abortion.