First, the church isn’t saying anything specific through this voter’s guide. Second, whether one is Democrat, Republican, or nothing at all, there are passages in the “guide” that support one’s positions regardless of what they are. The problem with this guide is the problem that has existed since it was first drawn up: it doesn’t actually provide guidance. What it provides is justification for doing as one pleases.
In my own family, voting for Democrats was traditional for generations. No one questioned it. It took me three or four presidential election cycles to finally realize that the party of my youth was no more. It had transformed itself into the party of abortion and the party of sexual license while retaining the old name. It put pro-abortion principles into the party platform in ever stronger language, till finally I could no longer ignore it.
Nope, from my point of view, only a madman or madwoman would vote for a pro-libertarian party like the Republicans. It’s very naive to think that just because they oppose abortion, they’re you’re best bet for preventing it. A pro-market party will never address directly the underlying social issues that drive many to choose abortion. As for gay marriage and the like, I find “conservatives” views on this subject very contradictory, you would actively legislate against this, and legislate for morality, but you refuse to legilslate economically, trustingly blindly in charity. It seems just as absurd as its opposite.
Catholicism hasn’t really been treated warmly in the UK since the 1500s. The Nationalists are habitually hostile to it, many people make anti-catholic slurs, and the people around my age are far too liberal to tolerate the Church. If some of the views tabled by British Catholics were as severe as those I’ve read on these fourms, I doubt anything other than open hostility would be put forward by the public, because I’m horrified by a lot of what I read (specifically about Muslims, Women and gay people).
I found the original guide quite informative. I am sure many who actually read I through with an open mind also found insight in it. I am sorry you did not.
Whatever positions one had before reading the guide would be unaltered after reading it. The only change would be a strengthening of the convictions with which one held them, being even more convinced than before that the church would support one’s choices. As I said, there is virtually no position one could take on any issue which could not be justified by reference to some part of that document. I agree with JimG’s comment: “I suspect that these 84 pages will not do much except to help politicians cherry-pick the passages they like” except I would extend it to include every voter who reads it.
I personally have found this to be untrue. I have learned from it and believe it has made me a more moral voter. Perhaps it is may age. I am not so old to be set in my ways and I have outgrown the stage where I think I know everything.
I asserted that I can find statements in that document I can use to justify supporting a politician who takes any position on any issue. You can challenge me by suggesting a particular position on a particular issue. I think it will become quite clear just what that document does and does not say.
Regarding Catholicism, I have said nothing whatever about it; I was addressing this one particular document. Nor have I discouraged anyone from listening to bishops. What I have said is rather more direct: this document is most useful to those who need moral justification for supporting politicians who have taken positions on issues that directly contradict church doctrines. There is no justification for your accusations.
The fact that a document can be misused is not a sufficient reason to discount the value of the document in general. Any document can be misused given enough creativity. Since you are not advising that we shouldn’t listen to the bishops, I assume your observation was meant only as a warning against misuse of an otherwise valuable message, and not meant to discount the message.
Well, your post remains for public perusal.
A “known position of ignorance”? Please. Your criticism itself is uninformed, as you have no idea who has and has not read it, as is your hypothesis of the background and methods of partisan political filters of the citizenry. Perhaps you should speak for yourself, as you may actually know something about that.
It has not been released. I deemed it a safe assumption that no one here has read something that has not been released. It would be like we were critically evaluating the new Star Wars movie.
One cannot confuse the republicans with libertarians. Libertarians believe in economic freedom and limited government. Republicans believe in big government and the welfare state. They just pretend to want small government.
Really?
Could’ve fooled me (though I would think it would only be moral for someone to support welfare state - i’d say that’d be the smallest of the small).
One thing that should be clarified in our mind is what our goal is, and by goal, I mean primary end that we seek. Is it to reduce abortion as much as possible, or is it to make abortion as illegal as possible. We must know where we are going in order to get there.
Yes, republicans did not cut the size of government when they controlled the house, senate and white house. So they have no real credibility when they say they want smaller government. They also support our two biggest welfare programs, medicare and social security.Really?
What’s there to cut? The US has almost no public sector for social issues. It’s almost inhumane.
It must be a burden, carrying about all those assumptions. Carry on…
We spend about $1.5 trillion on social security and medicare alone. There is plenty to cut there, starting with the idea of personal responsibility. If you are able to work and provide for yourself, there is no reason why you should be collecting the dole.