Trump or Hillary?

[Good_Tidings]

She isn’t “forcing” any of those issues, she is in favour of legalizing them. I take particular exception to the sentence I’ve highlighted, namely that according to the US constitution, you are allowed freedom of belief, but so long as the state remains secular.* You do not have any right whatsoever to introduce religious laws.* Not actively legislating for your beliefs does not amount to an attack - it amounts to a rightful removal of religious privilege.

Any action you find objectionable, like same-sex marriage, but that only has a direct effect on the individual, or consenting adults, is not within the purview of any civilized society to legislate against. Forcefully prevent abortion and gay marriage will achieve none of the ends you think it will - it does not address the causes for abortion, and so will drive those desperate to obtain one to illegal, unsanitary black-market esque clinics, and much the same applies to euthanasia. By not allowing those who might undergo such procedures freedom of volition, you are preventing any sort of rational discussion on the subject in which you might present a reasoned case against such acts, and prevent them through education, not ignorance. I struggle to understand why conservatives can be so anti-statist under the pretext of championing the individual, but when it comes to morality, have no faith in the individual whatsoever. Sin is based on volition - and legislation against personal sin denies it.

Additionally, the supreme court ruling concerned secular gay marriage. It was not a change to the definition of marriage used by the Church. That the supreme court does not enforce a religious definition of marriage does not mean they are making attacks on the Church.

All you’re doing in voting for Trump is promoting sectarianism and racism, regressing your society to 1960s levels of bigotry, indifference to poverty and to the environment.

I can’t disagree with your counterpoints Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

She isn’t “forcing” any of those issues, she is in favour of legalizing them. I take particular exception to the sentence I’ve highlighted, namely that according to the US constitution, you are allowed freedom of belief, but so long as the state remains secular.* You do not have any right whatsoever to introduce religious laws.* Not actively legislating for your beliefs does not amount to an attack - it amounts to a rightful removal of religious privilege.

Any action you find objectionable, like same-sex marriage, but that only has a direct effect on the individual, or consenting adults, is not within the purview of any civilized society to legislate against. Forcefully prevent abortion and gay marriage will achieve none of the ends you think it will - it does not address the causes for abortion, and so will drive those desperate to obtain one to illegal, unsanitary black-market esque clinics, and much the same applies to euthanasia. By not allowing those who might undergo such procedures freedom of volition, you are preventing any sort of rational discussion on the subject in which you might present a reasoned case against such acts, and prevent them through education, not ignorance. I struggle to understand why conservatives can be so anti-statist under the pretext of championing the individual, but when it comes to morality, have no faith in the individual whatsoever. Sin is based on volition - and legislation against personal sin denies it.

Additionally, the supreme court ruling concerned secular gay marriage. It was not a change to the definition of marriage used by the Church. That the supreme court does not enforce a religious definition of marriage does not mean they are making attacks on the Church.

All you’re doing in voting for Trump is promoting sectarianism and racism, regressing your society to 1960s levels of bigotry, indifference to poverty and to the environment.

One hardly knows where to begin with this, and I don’t have time to address all of it. But I will say that anyone who does not think religious beliefs form the law doesn’t know much about the law. There was a time in history when the judges admitted it. They haven’t for some time, but the precedents laid out previously by those who did are largely still in place. And legislators, of course, don’t knowingly legislate against the religious beliefs of what they think is the majority of voters.

It is not accidental that the “landmark” anti-religious cases have been made by one person or two among the elites. Legalization of abortion and homosexual “marriage” both turned on the will of one person only. One person. The HHS Mandate was devised by Obama. The congress itself didn’t even read the Obamacare bill and many admitted it.

When the laws are determined by the people or their representatives, they do tend to follow religious precepts, whether knowingly or not. Rule by a handful of elites is what many object to…and should.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

One hardly knows where to begin with this, and I don’t have time to address all of it. But I will say that anyone who does not think religious beliefs form the law doesn’t know much about the law. There was a time in history when the judges admitted it. They haven’t for some time, but the precedents laid out previously by those who did are largely still in place. And legislators, of course, don’t knowingly legislate against the religious beliefs of what they think is the majority of voters.

It is not accidental that the “landmark” anti-religious cases have been made by one person or two among the elites. Legalization of abortion and homosexual “marriage” both turned on the will of one person only. One person. The HHS Mandate was devised by Obama. The congress itself didn’t even read the Obamacare bill and many admitted it.

When the laws are determined by the people or their representatives, they do tend to follow religious precepts, whether knowingly or not. Rule by a handful of elites is what many object to…and should.

The purpose of a democracy is consent to rule and freedom of scrutiny, not mob rule. There was a time when the majority of the country was full of anti-black bigots, and yet it was no more just or legitimate to enforce Jim Crow laws. The beliefs of the masses are not objective, and in most cases, have not been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. The “tradition” that forced those views on people is more conducive to control by an “elite” than individual politicians - see feminist theory and the like. Allowing yourself to be ruled by the biases inherited by your population prevents rational debate and lawmaking, and causes societal stagnation.

I would go as far as to say that simply enforcing the wealth of public opinion without challenging it is how elite remain in power. If nobody had questioned monarchy, the US would not exist.

I find it obtuse when people claim tradition to justify these laws - the United States constitution mandates personal liberty and freedom of volition, as well as staunch secularism. Legislative morality is the only think I can think of that is “Un-American” in character.

Regardless, here’s a history of Gallup polls on Gay Marriage:

gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

And abortion:

gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

 

[Crossbones]

Glen Beck was not on last week. He has been in the Middle East rescuing Christian refugee families to bring them to America.

So no. I didn’t hear from Glen himself if he liked the speech or not. It was his replacement who used the word buffoonery.

We’ll have to wait until next week then. I am going to predict he didn’t like it.

 

[7_Sorrows]

We’ll have to wait until next week then. I am going to predict he didn’t like it.

if I happen to catch his response to the Obama Oval Office speech on terrorism I will let you know. I predict the same.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

One hardly knows where to begin with this, and I don’t have time to address all of it. But I will say that anyone who does not think religious beliefs form the law doesn’t know much about the law. There was a time in history when the judges admitted it. They haven’t for some time, but the precedents laid out previously by those who did are largely still in place. And legislators, of course, don’t knowingly legislate against the religious beliefs of what they think is the majority of voters.

It is not accidental that the “landmark” anti-religious cases have been made by one person or two among the elites. Legalization of abortion and homosexual “marriage” both turned on the will of one person only. One person. The HHS Mandate was devised by Obama. The congress itself didn’t even read the Obamacare bill and many admitted it.

When the laws are determined by the people or their representatives, they do tend to follow religious precepts, whether knowingly or not. Rule by a handful of elites is what many object to…and should.

 

[SuperLuigi]

TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCKS - IT DOESN’T MAKE ANYONE WANT TO READ IT ANY MORE!!!

I find it amusing that you think “voting like Jesus” is to vote for discriminatory racial laws that sound remarkably like nazi Germany’s, which will, as history has proven time and again, deepen the divides that allow extremeism to flourish in the first place. Perhaps, also, you’re forgetting that Jesus was of Middle-Eastern origin, certainly not white.

Voting on the basis of race, especially paranoid, trumped-up charges of racism against the party, is very problematic when that same party is for abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and against traditional marriage.

Every single Catholic teaching and voting guide I have seen says not to do this. I guess that’s why some folks on here and elsewhere shout at us about racism and “helping” the poor (even they really aren’t benefiting in the long term).

In any case, Islam is not a race.

Also, republicans and conservatives can hardly be compared to NAZI Germany. Most NAZIS were atheist and wanted Hitler to go after Christianity, but couldn’t because over 95% of Germany was Christian and he didn’t want a rebellion along with the resistance in his backyard.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

Voting on the basis of race, especially paranoid, trumped-up charges of racism against the party, is very problematic when that same party is for abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and against traditional marriage.

Every single Catholic teaching and voting guide I have seen says not to do this. I guess that’s why some folks on here and elsewhere shout at us about racism and “helping” the poor (even they really aren’t benefiting in the long term).

In any case, Islam is not a race.

Also, republicans and conservatives can hardly be compared to NAZI Germany. Most NAZIS were atheist and wanted Hitler to go after Christianity, but couldn’t because over 95% of Germany was Christian and he didn’t want a rebellion along with the resistance in his backyard.

I was referring to Trump’s treatment of immigrants.

I also think it is absolutely legitimate to compare Trump to Hitler, following his comments on forcing Muslims, including 3rd or 4th generation Americans, to register themselves - ala the “JUDE” badge in Nazi Germany.

I further think that comparing the GOP in general to nazis is legitimate, given their rampant nationalism and use of nationalistic rhetoric. I would compare even moderate or benign, thoughtless nationalism to Nazism since, in extreme social conditions, empty patriotism generally evolved into far-right sympathies.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe that Hillary would further move Obama’s policies further left and directly attack the Catholic Church

I think I’m starting to see why people speak of a “Catholic ghetto mentality”.

 

[tweedlealice]

TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCKS - IT DOESN’T MAKE ANYONE WANT TO READ IT ANY MORE!!!

I find it amusing that you think “voting like Jesus” is to vote for discriminatory racial laws that sound remarkably like nazi Germany’s, which will, as history has proven time and again, deepen the divides that allow extremeism to flourish in the first place. Perhaps, also, you’re forgetting that Jesus was of Middle-Eastern origin, certainly not white.

Hi,
I responded on a PM because my phone doesn’t have a post reply. Besides this site is for prayers and we all get tempted to get on our soap boxes. Jeb Bush is a converted Catholic. He had a successful governorship in Fla. The military generals support him. He is gentle on Mexican illegals. No Republicans want to throw granny off the cliff. They do have other ideas for health care. Most people who paY their insurance have had their fees increased.
. I just saw an Imam agree with Trump and check out Mosques in America. He was expelled from his mosque and is getting death threats. It is a temporary pause in immigration until vetting can be secure. It is for security.When a city is hit, opinions will change.
“CREATE IN ME A CLEAN HEART, OH ,LORD.” SEEK YE FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE ADDED UNTO YOU. " IF YOU ASK GOD FOR WISDOM, HE WI’LL GRANT IT TO YOU." LORD, YOU KNOW ME. I AM NOT A RACIST. I PRAY FOR SECURITY AND OUR NATIONAL DEBT PAID OFF. I WANT LEGAL IMMIGRATION.JESUS, YOU SAID," GIVE UNTO CAESAR WHAT IS CAESAR’S AND TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD’S. WE ASK FOR YOUR FORGIVENESS AND MERCY FOR ANY WRONG ATTITUDES ANY OF US HAVE.BE WITH US IN THE ELECTION BOOTH. IN YOUR MOST PRECIOUS NAME, JESUS.

If I am not in the state of grace, please bring me to your grace. If I am in the state of grace, leave me there. St. Joan of Arc.
St. Anthony, the wonder worker of miracles, please pray for us, Bring us together as a nation.
As the Pope asks us to vote for life, help us be obedient. We are not to receive communion if
We are disobedient. Bring us to unity of mind and spirit and bring our prayers to Jesus to bring before Our Father.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
I USE CAPS FOR SCRIPTURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THOUGHT. OCCASSIONALLY, MY EYES NEED CAPS TO SEE. I apologize for caps being painful for others to read. I am not an angry person and pray for God to take the anger away. The candidates sacrifice much to try and serve us.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Voting on the basis of race, especially paranoid, trumped-up charges of racism against the party, is very problematic when that same party is for abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and against traditional marriage.

Every single Catholic teaching and voting guide I have seen says not to do this. I guess that’s why some folks on here and elsewhere shout at us about racism and “helping” the poor (even they really aren’t benefiting in the long term).

In any case, Islam is not a race.

Also, republicans and conservatives can hardly be compared to NAZI Germany. Most NAZIS were atheist and wanted Hitler to go after Christianity, but couldn’t because over 95% of Germany was Christian and he didn’t want a rebellion along with the resistance in his backyard.

And yet Republicans saw nothing wrong with comparing a President who also is not an atheist and who was baptized in one of the mainline Christian denominations, to Hitler and the Nazis.

 

[FractalFire]

And yet Republicans saw nothing wrong with comparing a President who also is not an atheist and who was baptized in one of the mainline Christian denominations, to Hitler and the Nazis.

I think you know perfectly well that a minority of people in both major political parties have done so for practically every president since Hitler. That does not justify the comparison, nor is it true. If you have a problem with the practice, you should stop practicing it yourself.

 

[Peter_J]

And yet Republicans saw nothing wrong with comparing a President who also is not an atheist and who was baptized in one of the mainline Christian denominations, to Hitler and the Nazis.

I’m a Republican and I see something wrong with it.

 

[Leo2014]

And yet Republicans saw nothing wrong with comparing a President who also is not an atheist and who was baptized in one of the mainline Christian denominations, to Hitler and the Nazis.

Why does every discussion end with a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis?

Sadly, as voters, we don’t know what we want. I think we throw in to the “moral clause” just to make ourselves feel good about a poor decision. Unfortunately, the most highly regarded moral leader that I can think of - at lease within my lifetime - was Jimmy Carter. He professes his faith, still married to the same woman and is active within his church. Yet, Americans don’t regard him as an effective leader.

Yes, I too am a recovering Republican.

 

[DeniseNY]

Why does every discussion end with a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis?

Godwin’s law

 

[punisherthunder]

Jimmy Carter banned all Iranians from the country in 1979.

Trump would want to ban Muslims from coming in UNTIL the security and immigration departments can be straightened out. If another terrorist shooting happens in the USA before the primaries, it would just reinforce what Trump is saying.

Clintons have been on the scene since 1992, have accomplished nothing, and are overexposed.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think you know perfectly well that a minority of people in both major political parties have done so for practically every president since Hitler. That does not justify the comparison, nor is it true. If you have a problem with the practice, you should stop practicing it yourself.

The minority must have been covered a lot then back in the days of the Republican healthcare townhalls. But anyway by your “wink” I’m assuming by “yourself” you did not mean me personally.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Why does every discussion end with a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis?

Sadly, as voters, we don’t know what we want. I think we throw in to the “moral clause” just to make ourselves feel good about a poor decision. Unfortunately, the most highly regarded moral leader that I can think of - at lease within my lifetime - was Jimmy Carter. He professes his faith, still married to the same woman and is active within his church. Yet, Americans don’t regard him as an effective leader.

Yes, I too am a recovering Republican.

I don’t know. I was merely responding to SuperLuigi saying Republicans and conservatives can’t be compared to Nazis. Neither should Obama and Democrats and liberals was my only point.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

Jimmy Carter banned all Iranians from the country in 1979.

Trump would want to ban Muslims from coming in UNTIL the security and immigration departments can be straightened out. If another terrorist shooting happens in the USA before the primaries, it would just reinforce what Trump is saying.

Clintons have been on the scene since 1992, have accomplished nothing, and are overexposed.

This is simply an excuse to inhumanely deny asylum to those in desperate need. You vastly overestimate the organisational power of ISIS. They do not operate sleeper cells nor do they possess the sophistication to operate them. They rely entirely on the radicalisation of existing US citizens to aid them, and radicalisation is enabled by the alienating policies of trump.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t know. I was merely responding to SuperLuigi saying Republicans and conservatives can’t be compared to Nazis. Neither should Obama and Democrats and liberals was my only point.

I agree. I think groups like “Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust” are actually doing harm to the pro-life movement.