Rarely do people who advocate death for the unborn admit that’s what they intend. It’s always obscured in some way. Context, however, means something, and it’s always said in defense of abortion or its supporters, most notably the Dem party.
.Let’s see what Pope Francis actually says here on values:
He is not downplaying any values, he is upholding the Church’s teaching on values.
The taking of innocent life is a violation of a fundamental value. The Church is not indifferent as to the relative gravity of various evils. While the good values the Church upholds are all non-negotiable, some actions and are more evil than others and cry for more immediate action.
The statement speaks for itself. If it is constructed of straw, then so be it.
Honestly, it’s terrifying.
I’m not asking you to speak for others. Just speak for yourself. Do you feel obligated to oppose evil in** every** way you are able? That was the statement you made, wasn’t it?
Of course I do, to the extent I perceive them, know how, and to the extent my inborn status as a sinner can be overcome. That’s everyone’s obligation, not just mine. Imaginably I do so more than your statement suggests one might anticipate from just looking at posts on CAF.
Have you gone to see a movie in the last year? Or have you bought yourself an ice-cream cone? Or have you spent money on any other leisure activity? Of course you could have foregone any of those pleasures and spent that money and/or time on promoting pro-life causes. You could have erected pro-life lawn signs on your front lawn, or painted them on your commercial vehicles. Maybe you already did some of these things, but whatever it was you did, I venture to say that you probably were able to do more. You were “able” to oppose evil to a greater extent than you did. But it is not reasonable to demand that anyone spend 100% of his time or resources on opposing evil. Don’t you agree?
Leaf, thank you.
Agree on everything except for the Queen. I won’t be voting for either candidate if they’re our two options. I’ll be voting 3rd party.
Even Jesus didn’t spend 100% of His time opposing evil, but He did oppose it when it presented and sometimes when it didn’t. It may be noted that He ate and drank and had friends whose company He kept. He also delivered that oft-quoted line about “The poor you shall always have with you…” and provided good wine to those at Cana.
In that case you WILL be voting for one of them.
You can draw whatever moral lesson from this that you think is appropriate. But you obviously agree with me that it is not mandatory to oppose evil at every possible opportunity. As you said, not even Jesus did that, and in so doing, He did not sin.
I didn’t say Jesus failed to oppose evil when confronted with it. I said He did things that served the enjoyment of life. That does not preclude His having opposed evil when He could.
True. Back when I was a Democrat activist getting out the vote, we always considered a third-party candidate vote, one for “Mickey Mouse” or simply not voting a “half vote” for the opponent.
Now you are qualifying your earlier statement with the qualifier “when confronted with it”. That is an important distinction, because that is exactly what is not clear in the issues we are discussing. Does the fact the someone is running for office who is pro-choice constitute “being confronted” by evil? That is not entirely clear. I maintain that the situation is a little more like someone choosing to go out of their way to confront evil that was not confronting them. Sort of like deciding whether sanctions against South Africa during apartheid were called for. The evil in South Africa was not confronting us. We could choose to oppose it or not. Opposing it is a good thing. Not opposing it might be neutral, depending on the circumstances, but is not necessarily a moral failing.
That is not always what is at stake. In the case of Trump, we have only his recent untested declarations that are contrary to his past positions. In that case, voting for him over Hillary might produce an infinitesimally better chance of preventing abortions, but a much bigger chance of destroying the country through his mad policies. That is just my opinion, and I don’t ask that you share it. But it does come down to a matter of opinion.
Are you saying that every time we go the the movies was are sinning? There is always an opportunity to oppose evil, and it is unreasonable to demand that we do so all the time.
This is the equivocation that allows evil to happen.
I would disagree. Voting for a third party allows the major parties to identify issues that are not represented by either party. The third party votes for Mr. Perot in 1992 pushed both parties to take on fiscal policies that resulted in a balanced budget.