M
MacMcCarver
Guest
Is it morally acceptable to vote for somebody if they don’t have the best pro-life record but are more experienced than any of the other options?
- Status
G
GRATEFULONEjim
Guest
No.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
you cannot vote for anyone who explicitly supports and promotes abortion as a solution to social problems or defends it as a “right” when it is clearly banned in the constitution which guarantees a right to life. Such a person is unfit to serve in public office because they have rejected the fundamental supporting principle of the constitution they swear to defend. Besides being a political oxymoron, a “right to abortion” candidate is also of course upholding a position in defiance of natural law and God’s law and so no Christian or god-fearing person could support him.
M
MacMcCarver
Guest
So, we shouldn’t vote? I mean, both sides deny the right to life for certain people. I am strongly in support of the prolife position but I also support the immigrants’, the poor’s, and the Palestinians’ causes, as well. Voting today is choosing the lesser evil. So, should we support a candidate who is a good leader but ambivalent on abortion issue or should we support the pro-life candidate with no experience who takes several adamant stands that would do great harm to the nation and beyond?
G
GRATEFULONEjim
Guest
If the 68 million Catholics in America took a stand and demanded a candidate or for that matter sponsored a candidate, we would not have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. We could have a candidate that supported traditional marriage, was against abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty. We could have a candidate that supports Israel and will stand by our only true ally in the Middle East. We can have a candidate that will uphold the immigration laws and help those that want to come here legally with the process. We can have a candidate who will inspire new business start ups with a reduction in business tax’s and needless restrictive legislation. One who will control spending and bring our troops home. We as Catholics could do a lot. We need to use our numbers and power to get the point across.
M
MacMcCarver
Guest
I agree that Catholics have a history of bloc voting and that we could again use it to our advantage for the pro-life cause and traditional marriage defense. However, you seem to confuse Catholics with Conservatives. Many Catholics are dynamic liberals because of their faith. A truly Catholic candidate would, of course, support the pro-life movement, but he would be at odds with you on the rest of your list. A Catholic president would support Israel only if it gave a significant amount of land BACK to the Palestinians who had inhabited it for centuries and who deserve their self-determination. A Catholic candidate would repeal tax cuts and make corporate campaign donations illegal. He would place stricter environmental standards on all businesses and penalize those who don’t comply. To solve the deficit, he wouldn’t be afraid to spend to stimulate the economy, building modern train-tracks and tram-ways, etc. Many troops could be brought home by closing unnecessary military bases and trying to actually solve the problems of the Middle East, instead of confusing the war as a “holy war” or as a war to keep oil prices low. A truly Catholic candidate would not and could not be a Conservative. He’d be too smart for that!
G
GRATEFULONEjim
Guest
I see that you are only interested in the liberal ideology and I do not wish to go down that path as I disagree completely with everything that you imply. I can see that further discourse will more than likely not be fruitful so I will end this here. I will pray that your position on these issues will change. Not only for the sake of our country, but for the sake of the whole world. God BlessI agree that Catholics have a history of bloc voting and that we could again use it to our advantage for the pro-life cause and traditional marriage defense. However, you seem to confuse Catholics with Conservatives. Many Catholics are dynamic liberals because of their faith. A truly Catholic candidate would, of course, support the pro-life movement, but he would be at odds with you on the rest of your list. A Catholic president would support Israel only if it gave a significant amount of land BACK to the Palestinians who had inhabited it for centuries and who deserve their self-determination. A Catholic candidate would repeal tax cuts and make corporate campaign donations illegal. He would place stricter environmental standards on all businesses and penalize those who don’t comply. To solve the deficit, he wouldn’t be afraid to spend to stimulate the economy, building modern train-tracks and tram-ways, etc. Many troops could be brought home by closing unnecessary military bases and trying to actually solve the problems of the Middle East, instead of confusing the war as a “holy war” or as a war to keep oil prices low. A truly Catholic candidate would not and could not be a Conservative. He’d be too smart for that!
M
michelleds
Guest
M
MacMcCarver
Guest
Your “I know better than you” smugness disturbs me. I certainly hope you realize that your position could be just as wrong as you seem to think mine is.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Mac
**
I certainly hope you realize that your position could be just as wrong as you seem to think mine is. **
Do you think your position could be just as wrong as you think his seems to be?
**
I certainly hope you realize that your position could be just as wrong as you seem to think mine is. **
Do you think your position could be just as wrong as you think his seems to be?
M
MacMcCarver
Guest
My position could be wrong! Of course! That’s why I’m on a FORUM. To discuss and find out the thinking behind how others view the world and its problems.Mac
**
I certainly hope you realize that your position could be just as wrong as you seem to think mine is. **
Do you think your position could be just as wrong as you think his seems to be?
I might also point out that “GRATEFULONEjim” made the thread what it became. I was asking a legitimate question, and I was hoping someone with a reasoned answer would put in their insight.
M
michelleds
Guest
I think that the thread went off the originally stated OP topic when the OP brought up other issues as if they were pro-life issues. while immigration, the middle east, etc are all issues that require thoughtful consideration, they are not pro-life.
If the OP’s question is a one of not voting at all or voting for a candidate who is pro-abortion, then I think the only moral choice is to not vote.
But I would add that we all need to be getting involved in ways to support pro-life candidates by feeding their coffers, showing up at their rallies, telling ppl to vote for them, etc etc. or maybe run yourself for an office!!
M
MacMcCarver
Guest
You almost answered my question! My question wasn’t a black and white question of morality, it was very much a gray area. My question is, if the candidate that is the best man for the job is pro-choice, is it morally acceptable to vote for him? If every other candidate, though pro-life, is not suited for the job, how can I morally vote for them? I can’t choose one issue to base my vote on. Every issue must be considered. Can the total force of several issues (which would affect many more people than the pro-life/pro-choice issue) outweigh a pro-choice stance? Should we as Catholics base our vote on one group and one movement? I am pro-life to the core, but I would be guilty voting for a politician just because he was pro-life. I really need some serious discussion on this, considering the big election looming in a little over a year.
M
michelleds
Guest
It is a good question, good discussion topic. in my opinion, and that’s all it is, I think you have to put the issues into a hierarchy of sorts. First, what issues as a Catholic can I not support? abortion, gay marriage are the hot ones right now (I haven’t seen any candidates advocating Ba’al worship). Okay, so that eliminates the pro-choice and pro-gay marriage candidates. Now, I have to look at who is left, as if the candidates just eliminated are not even running.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
Republicans are simply NOT pro-life. They just use the abortion issue to get votes. Once the baby is born, they do not care one whit what kind of a life that baby or mother has. Many millions of mothers and families need Medicaid to assist them to provide decent housing, food, clothing and medical care. If you’re against Medicaid, you are not pro-life. Millions of seniors have NO way to obtain medical care without Medicare. If you are against Medicare, you are not pro-life. IF you vote for a Republican solely because he or she is anti-abortion, you have become an obsessive fanatic and should get counseling. While I agree with the church’s teachings on abortion, this is not the most important issue facing this nation. We need to rebuild our bridges, roads, cities; we need affordaable education which will prepare our grand children and great-grandchildren to compete in the future global economy; we need to protect our seniors; we need to feed our hungry, clothe our naked, have compassion for our prisoners.If we do not, then within 100 years, this nation will sink to the level of a third-world country. Only the Democrats seem to realize this fact. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, have compassion for our prisoners, care for the widow… funny, isn’t that what Jesus told us to do? Perhaps He was the first liberal or at least the prototype.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
Interestingly enough, abortion was NOT a priority of Jesus or of the Old Testament law. If Jesus had considered it a priority, He would have addressed it while on earth. There is absolutely nothing in either the Old or the New Testaments that specifically addresses the abortion question. “Thou shalt not kill” and “Be fruitful and multiply” arguably include abortion. However, oddly enough, the Jews don’t believe a fetus obtains a soul until it is born. “Love your neighbor as yourself” should be interpreted to include your unborn neighbor. But again, abortion was not the primary concern of Jesus and it should not be the determining factor here in America when we vote. What should be the primary factor considered when we vote: Which party seeks to “promote the general welfare,” that is, which party seeks to better the lives of all Americans, not merely the rich and the corporations. Clearly it’s the Democratic party that puts into effect those so-called “liberarl” programs which accomplish what Jesus commanded us to do for our neighbor.
G
GRATEFULONEjim
Guest
These are all things that CAN BE DONE OUTSIDE OF THE LONG ARM OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The only thing the Democrats realize is that if they keep the American people believing that they need the Government to do these things, they can continue to grow BIGGER and BIGGER and BIGGER. You are correct. Jesus did want US to do these things. **NOT A GOVERNMENT. **These are all things that the private sector, charities, the churches and other organizations, can take care of. This is called federalism and is how our country is designed to work. That is the way our founding fathers intended it to work. Jesus did not say " turn your money over to Caesar so he can do it." He told US to do it.
M
MacMcCarver
Guest
My point, exactly, minus the international affairs. I’m just wondering if it’s morally acceptable to vote for a Democrat who supports these things even though he may be pro-choice.
If these things could be done without the federal government, we would have done them years ago. We the People make up the government. Don’t try to make the government seem like some impersonal military office (though I must say they like to fight wars… military manufacturer monies perhaps…). Despite the efforts of the various churches and charities, the federal government is the only entity with the resources to provide all the programs needed. No one knows exactly what our Founding Fathers intended and it doesn’t matter. We control the future of our country, not the Founders. It’s high time to actually apply Catholic social teaching to our understanding of government and politics.
G
GRATEFULONEjim
Guest
The Federal Government is 14+ Trillion Dollars in debt. They no longer have the ability or the means.
History tells us the exact meaning of federalism and our Founding Fathers intentions for our Nation. Read Benjamin Franklin. Please try to learn our history instead of re-writing it to suit your ideology.
The Church does not teach us to have the Federal Government run our Social programs. These programs can be run with a much more localized and efficient method in our communities and by the private sector and organizations more cheaply and efficiently without the need of the Federal Government.
The Federal Government can no longer afford to run these programs. It is going to be up to the Church and other religious organizations, and the many charitable organizations. Along with participation by each and every American in body, not just tax money.
Infrastructure can most certainly be done by the private sector. Get the Government red tape out of the way, and it will be much more cost effective too. This will also give a boost to the economy as well.
It is Conservatives who see that the Federal Government is bloated and needs to be downsized to control spending and get out from under the enormous burden of debt we are currently faced with. Conservatives have confidence in the local communities and local governments and organizations being able to run these programs. The American people have become too complacent over the years and that has cost us our freedom. People have to stop looking at the Government as their caretaker. Americans feel that as long as I open my wallet and pay tax’s that they are no longer obligated to care and love their neighbors and the elderly and disadvantaged. That is not what Jesus taught. He wanted us to be involved on the front lines. Not being hidden by Big Governments outstretched arm. It is going to take the Church to help spearhead these changes as well as a considerable human presence from all of us. We have sat on our backsides long enough. It is time to become part of the solution instead of adding to the problem. God Bless.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
Deficits and surpluses come and go. Clinton left Bush with a surplus of around 3 trillion, which was projected to reach 6 trillion. Bush spent all of it on his Iraq war. Deficits are also necessary when recovering from a financial meltdown. They have a way of working themselves out; when more people are educated, when more are employed, when we get out of the middle east wars, the deficits will drop and we will see surpluses again.
- Status