US Catholics back bishops on religious freedom, but still favor Obama, poll shows [CWN]

[eightandsand]

Not voting for Mr. Romney is a vote for Mr. Obama. That is a fact. I pray that you will reconsider and vote for Mr. Romney. Our very freedom of religion depends upon it. I don’t understand how people are not seeing that!

God bless.

-Paul

I will repeat what i have written elsewhere:

Not voting for Romney is not voting for Romney. I fail to see how voting for “the lesser of two evils” is BETTER than not voting for either of the two evils.

I think the record is clear on Obama. A practicing Catholic can’t vote for him. But that doesn’t mean that they can vote for Romney just to save us from Obama.

Romney’s RECORD on pro-life issues is abysmal. In 2005, when it mattered, he caved under pressure, flip-flopped, and stabbed Catholics and the Constitution in the back. Romney insists and promises that he is now pro-life and that, if elected, he promises to govern as a pro-life President. But, his record belies that promise. As Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.” Romney is an uninteresting opportunist who says one thing and then, when he is in power, caves to pressure and does things differently. His record demonstrates that he is a calculating opportunist. His rhetoric conveniently changes whenever he is up for election or reelection. I am concerned with the record one has while in office, while in power. I care very little about campaign promises or campaing rhetoric. I am concerned with how the product performs, not with the fancy packaging.

I wish there was a candidate that could represent Catholics this Fall, but Romney is not that candidate and I will refuse to vote for him simply because the alternative is that much worse. Primum non nocere. Voting for a fake conservative is much worse than not voting at all. Those that vote FOR Obama will have to answer for it, not those that don’t vote for Romney. I realize that many people actually do believe what Romney says rather than what he does, and vote accordingy. I simply refuse to ignore what the man did while in power when it counted. I refuse to sugarcoat Romney just because his opponent is the Obamination. I refuse to subscribe to the anti-Catholic notion of the “lesser of two evils.” This Machiavellian logic is why we are in this mess. It is why things will only get worse. It’s akin to a frog boiling slowly in water.

The political process has its limitations. Sometimes, given all options, a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for either option. We are Catholics first, Americans second. Sometimes prayer and fasting is our only option.

 

[seekerz]

Have you not been paying attention for the last 4 years, most importantly this past year when the HHS Mandate has gone into effect?

Again, this is the most anti-Catholic, anti-religion President in the living memory. How can you be blind to that? There is a full out assault on religion and the Catholic Church in this country, the person in charge of setting that agenda that completely disrespects and disregards our deeply held belief and faith…Barack Obama.

God bless.

-Paul

How can I be blind to the fact that those “deeply held beliefs” are ignored by the vast majority of -]Catholics/-] Christians I know, almost anywhere in the world I’m familiar with? Which is exactly the reason he judged that he had more to gain than lose by imposing the mandate…Faith CAN NEVER be destroyed from without - it has to be an inside job.

Speaking of jobs, I fully understand the parameters of a president’s job outside the context of a theocratic state…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, this is the most anti-Catholic, anti-religion President in the living memory. …There is a full out assault on religion and the Catholic Church in this country, the person in charge of setting that agenda that completely disrespects and disregards our deeply held belief and faith…Barack Obama.

I will only say that I think Obama’s view is that most of the country (sadly) agrees with him. I do not think his intent is to destroy religion in America, or Catholicism in particular. I think he assumes that most other Americans view religion as mostly irrelevant to the issues in modern society, and that religion should accommodate to modernity. I think the result of that worldview is anti-religion and anti-Catholicism, yes.

 

[PJD1987]

How can I be blind to the fact that those “deeply held beliefs” are ignored by the vast majority of -]Catholics/-] Christians I know, almost anywhere in the world I’m familiar with? Which is exactly the reason he judged that he had more to gain than lose by imposing the mandate…Faith CAN NEVER be destroyed from without - it has to be an inside job.

Speaking of jobs, I fully understand the parameters of a president’s job outside the context of a theocratic state…

The fact that most Catholics/Christians do not live out their faith is irrelevant. Not to mention those polls do not distinguish between practicing and non-practicing Catholics, so the numbers are always skewed. Regardless, it takes away the ability for those that do, to do so, and we should all strive to be those that want to live out our faith. So, I don’t really understand that point. Truth is not a majority vote, if it is wrong, it is wrong. My ability to practice and live out my faith is not a majority vote. Again, I don’t understand the point being made.

Why do you want to vote for someone who wants to deny me the right to practice my faith, even if you do not?

God bless.

-Paul

 

[PJD1987]

I will only say that I think Obama’s view is that most of the country (sadly) agrees with him. I do not think his intent is to destroy religion in America, or Catholicism in particular. I think he assumes that most other Americans view religion as mostly irrelevant to the issues in modern society, and that religion should accommodate to modernity. I think the result of that worldview is anti-religion and anti-Catholicism, yes.

I don’t see a distinction between the two? Because you believe his intent is not to destroy it, the fact that he is destroying it is minimized?

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Bitternolonger]

That is a distrubing trend.

I understand that there is this idea that the Democratic party does more to help the homeless and poor. I am not so sure that is true. Maybe it once was.

But I do not understand aligning ourselves with people who mock and despise us and believe that we are simpletons for believing in God.

We should shake the dust of the Democratic party off our feet and move on.

 

[PJD1987]

I will repeat what i have written elsewhere:

Not voting for Romney is not voting for Romney. I fail to see how voting for “the lesser of two evils” is BETTER than not voting for either of the two evils.

I think the record is clear on Obama. A practicing Catholic can’t vote for him. But that doesn’t mean that they can vote for Romney just to save us from Obama.

Romney’s RECORD on pro-life issues is abysmal. In 2005, when it mattered, he caved under pressure, flip-flopped, and stabbed Catholics and the Constitution in the back. Romney insists and promises that he is now pro-life and that, if elected, he promises to govern as a pro-life President. But, his record belies that promise. As Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.” Romney is an uninteresting opportunist who says one thing and then, when he is in power, caves to pressure and does things differently. His record demonstrates that he is a calculating opportunist. His rhetoric conveniently changes whenever he is up for election or reelection. I am concerned with the record one has while in office, while in power. I care very little about campaign promises or campaing rhetoric. I am concerned with how the product performs, not with the fancy packaging.

I wish there was a candidate that could represent Catholics this Fall, but Romney is not that candidate and I will refuse to vote for him simply because the alternative is that much worse. Primum non nocere. Voting for a fake conservative is much worse than not voting at all. Those that vote FOR Obama will have to answer for it, not those that don’t vote for Romney. I realize that many people actually do believe what Romney says rather than what he does, and vote accordingy. I simply refuse to ignore what the man did while in power when it counted. I refuse to sugarcoat Romney just because his opponent is the Obamination. I refuse to subscribe to the anti-Catholic notion of the “lesser of two evils.” This Machiavellian logic is why we are in this mess. It is why things will only get worse. It’s akin to a frog boiling slowly in water.

The political process has its limitations. Sometimes, given all options, a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for either option. We are Catholics first, Americans second. Sometimes prayer and fasting is our only option.

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your feelings, I fear we will have to agree to disagree on the conclusion you’ve come to.

I continue to pray for all Catholics that we will not do anything, through commission or omission that will help Mr. Obama be re-elected.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[St_Francis]

How can I be blind to the fact that those “deeply held beliefs” are ignored by the vast majority of -]Catholics/-] Christians I know, almost anywhere in the world I’m familiar with? Which is exactly the reason he judged that he had more to gain than lose by imposing the mandate…Faith CAN NEVER be destroyed from without - it has to be an inside job.

Speaking of jobs, I fully understand the parameters of a president’s job outside the context of a theocratic state…

Totally aside from *what *he did, there is also the matter of *how *he did it. Telling everyone he was for conscience protection, etc. then coming out just a few days after the last time he said that with the HHS mandate.

of course, we are just dumb hicks bitterly clinging to our guns and religion because we don’t like the fact that blacks are no longer segregated even tho some of us are black, so I guess he thought we wouldn’t notice.

 

[St_Francis]

I think Elizabeth originally posted the thread she started in Apologetics. For those who are interested, it seems to have been moved to the Back Fence forum.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t see a distinction between the two? Because you believe his intent is not to destroy it, the fact that he is destroying it is minimized?

God bless.

-Paul

Because this was in response to my post, Paul, let me explain:

It is often said on CAF that Obama’s “intention” is to destroy religion, destroy Catholicism, etc. I just don’t see him as that malicious or intentional. I think he is cut from the same cloth as the modern secularists who dominate politics today (more the Democrats than the Republicans, but the mainstream Republicans can be pretty secular as well).

I didn’t say or imply that therefore the result will be minimized. I said that I think that secularists consider religion to be secondary to secular culture in any case, so they are not particularly invested in whether religion thrives as a major force in society. Shall we call it Benign Neglect? Yes, the effect is the same; I was just shifting the emphasis away from intention to effect.

I am most troubled by the runaway train of nonstop social engineering and social experimentation (both), with the government enabling that, in opposition to the stability of proven structures.

Anyone who read the NYT article this weekend on the special project (actually a struggle) to get single young impoverished mothers who are high school dropouts to care again about life, and to begin to reflect on choices for the first time in their life has got to ask themselves what promotes the “progress” of society to hand out contraceptives to teenagers like candy, giving them the message that fornication, for a person with not much of a future, is just routine and inevitable, The irresponsibility and implied injustice of that “message” is just massive to me. It’s an additional form of bad parenting by the government, piled on already poorly parented youth. It really is the equivalent of the historical introduction of crack cocaine into poor urban neighborhoods.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think Elizabeth originally posted the thread she started in Apologetics. For those who are interested, it seems to have been moved to the Back Fence forum.

Oh thanks, St. Francis. I think I was wondering where it went. That’s very kind of you.

 

[PJD1987]

Because this was in response to my post, Paul, let me explain:

It is often said on CAF that Obama’s “intention” is to destroy religion, destroy Catholicism, etc. I just don’t see him as that malicious or intentional. I think he is cut from the same cloth as the modern secularists who dominate politics today (more the Democrats than the Republicans, but the mainstream Republicans can be pretty secular as well).

I didn’t say or imply that therefore the result will be minimized. I said that I think that secularists consider religion to be secondary to secular culture in any case, so they are not particularly invested in whether religion thrives as a major force in society. Shall we call it Benign Neglect? Yes, the effect is the same; I was just shifting the emphasis away from intention to effect.

I am most troubled by the runaway train of nonstop social engineering and social experimentation (both), with the government enabling that, in opposition to the stability of proven structures.

Anyone who read the NYT article this weekend on the special project (actually a struggle) to get single young impoverished mothers who are high school dropouts to care again about life, and to begin to reflect on choices for the first time in their life has got to ask themselves what promotes the “progress” of society to hand out contraceptives to teenagers like candy, giving them the message that fornication, for a person with not much of a future, is just routine and inevitable, The irresponsibility and implied injustice of that “message” is just massive to me. It’s an additional form of bad parenting by the government, piled on already poorly parented youth. It really is the equivalent of the historical introduction of crack cocaine into poor urban neighborhoods.

Well, Elizabeth, whichever way you slice it, a vote for Mr. Obama would be a perpetuation of those policies, that result in the destruction of our freedom of religion, regardless of intent. And as someone who truly loves my faith and cherishes it as my rock and foundation for being on this planet, I resent anyone who would vote to deny us of that. I am appalled at the thought that even some of my own brothers and sisters in Christ, who are in the Catholic Church would consider voting for the man. It defies logic, no matter what justification is used. If there are nominal Catholics who simply don’t care about their faith, fine. But don’t actively sabotage my freedom to religion and live out my faith. Obama has plenty of mindless supporters, this is going to be a close election, he does not need anymore help from Catholics who should know better and, as the commercial says, vote the values that will stand the test of time: family, life, freedom.

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate, btw.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know where to begin…

-with your previous assertion that universal health care impoverishes countries when

• in REALITY, for many developing countries, even the pitiful level of universal health care their governments can manage is all that stands between them and much higher infant/maternal mortality, vitamin-deprived anemic kids who can’t learn and the uncontrolled spread of vaccine-preventable diseases. Nothing an Aspirin could fix in case you’re wondering…the best health care the Third World ever had was not curative but preventive.

• with your assertion that Cuban health care is “atrocious” on the basis of an article that seems to have no parameters for health care quality other than the personal ‘yuck’ factor, when,

*in REALITY, many developing countries struggle to get near to Cuba’s standards of health care. Like I said before, the level of economic development definitely limits what these countries can afford to provide their citizens in terms of health care but the poorer/sicker a country the more health care access contributes to its economic development - not the other way around - by increasing the productivity of its populace. That’s the main reason international financial institutions like the World Bank INVEST in the health systems of the countries they lend to.

-your admission that the US also has a two-tier health system is very interesting, though I would question the assertion that this will be exacerbated by Obamacare

• in REALITY, based on my personal experience any patient who gets through the door of a US medical facility gets pretty much the same treatment (I’ll admit there are some anomalies between population subgroups) as anyone else with same health condition. The real problems lies in getting through the door - not in what happens once you’re inside.

As for the rest, we could go back and forth. To my knowledge, drug-resistant TB gets that way because too many people fail to complete treatment. Regarding hospital infections, I provide no evidence for an assertion that I already stated was based on my personal experiences and observations. From the anecdotal nature of the article you linked to, personal experience seemed good enough to base my own argument on.

Perhaps our comparisons would make more sense if countries of similar levels of development were compared to each other, because the availability of drugs, services or equipment in a middle-income or high-income country is decidedly different from that in a low-income one. Nevertheless, I stand with the World Bank and the IMF in seeing health care access as central to relieving poverty rather than being detrimental to that end.

I think you hit the straw man right between the eyes. I did NOT say socialized medicine is the sole cause of poverty in the third world. I did assert that socialism, generally, causes poverty. I also asserted that Obamacare will be a burden on the economy here. Even the CBO acknowledges that. If its predictions of the cost of the burden are correct, and if the gdp growth rate for the last quarter remains, Obamacare alone will cause a recession.

Hospital-acquired infections are much higher in the third world. epinews.com/Newswire/2011/02/07/developing-worlds-hospital-infection-rates-at-least-three-times-as-high-as-u-s-europe/

In theory, everybody who gets in a clinic door gets the same treatment. But it isn’t possible for some to get into doors that others can get into. That has been true, but only modestly so, for a long time. But the “treat everything to the max” approach to medicine in the U.S. is one of the reasons healthcare costs in the U.S. are so high.

I’m not opposing that. But we’re going to see it change to a more clearly defined “tier” system, and we’ll also see fewer doors open to the poorest Americans.

 

[seekerz]

I think you hit the straw man right between the eyes.

Uh, uh - you accomplished that feat all by your self.

I did NOT say socialized medicine is the sole cause of poverty in the third world.

I never accused you of saying that.

I did assert that socialism, generally, causes poverty.

Where? Here are you exact words:

I am unaware of any teaching of the Church that universal healthcare is a moral imperative even if it impoverishes the population to do it.

You most definitely asserted that it universal healthcare has the potential to impoverish a population. Not socialism, not communism, but “universal healthcare”. Socialized medicine can of course exist in democratic countries with free market economics, so it is NOT synonymous with a specific position on the ideological spectrum or the economic one for that matter.

In actual fact, as I already pointed out, the great promoters of free market economics worldwide, hold that the access of a population to health care is integral and central to development.

I also asserted that Obamacare will be a burden on the economy here. Even the CBO acknowledges that. If its predictions of the cost of the burden are correct, and if the gdp growth rate for the last quarter remains, Obamacare alone will cause a recession.

We’ll see…I can conceive of no reason that we should expect the GDP to remain unchanged but I’m no economist. What I am is a realist but never, ever a defeatist. This is not the first time the country has faced economic challenges and overcome, so the idea of simply retreating from reaching for higher and better things is sort of alien to me…

Hospital-acquired infections are much higher in the third world. epinews.com/Newswire/2011/02/07/developing-worlds-hospital-infection-rates-at-least-three-times-as-high-as-u-s-europe/

Based on your article, that does appear to be the case. Point taken.

In theory, everybody who gets in a clinic door gets the same treatment. But it isn’t possible for some to get into doors that others can get into. That has been true, but only modestly so, for a long time. But the “treat everything to the max” approach to medicine in the U.S. is one of the reasons healthcare costs in the.

You won’t get any disagreement from me here, particularly about the ‘treating to the max’. The whole idea of socialized medicine as I know it, is focusing on ‘preventing to the max’ but the claim that this results in savings in the long run, has been hotly contested and the last word had not yet been said in that debate.

I’m not opposing that. But we’re going to see it change to a more clearly defined “tier” system, and we’ll also see fewer doors open to the poorest Americans.

Fewer doors than insured minimum wage workers are able to open right now? Can’t say I look forward to that or that I understand your basis for this prediction…

 

[seekerz]

The fact that most Catholics/Christians do not live out their faith is irrelevant. Not to mention those polls do not distinguish between practicing and non-practicing Catholics, so the numbers are always skewed. Regardless, it takes away the ability for those that do, to do so, and we should all strive to be those that want to live out our faith. So, I don’t really understand that point. Truth is not a majority vote, if it is wrong, it is wrong. My ability to practice and live out my faith is not a majority vote. Again, I don’t understand the point being made.

Why do you want to vote for someone who wants to deny me the right to practice my faith, even if you do not?

God bless.

-Paul

I’d thank you to not make assumptions about me and my faith. If I vote and who I vote for would happen to be my choice - not yours.

The idea that the contraceptive debacle is going to “destroy Christianity” is simply ludicrous because if the faith depended on the use/non-use of contraceptives, we should be busy administering CPR, not looking to Obama to do it for us…s’all I’m saying.

 

[PJD1987]

I’d thank you to not make assumptions about me and my faith. If I vote and who I vote for would happen to be my choice - not yours.

The idea that the contraceptive debacle is going to “destroy Christianity” is simply ludicrous because if the faith depended on the use/non-use of contraceptives, we should be busy administering CPR, not looking to Obama to do it for us…s’all I’m saying.

I made no assumptions, I’m basing my analysis on what you have said. And it’s not ludicrous at all if you pay attention to what’s going on.

I continue to pray for all Catholics, that they will vote for the values of their faith, the values that stand the test of time: family, life, and freedom. None of those values are shared by Mr. Obama.

I will continue to encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ to vote for Mr. Romney, to stop the all out assault on people with beliefs, and I reiterate my point from my previous post that is directed at all Catholics that may consider voting for Mr. Obama: Why do you want to vote for someone who wants to deny me the right to practice my faith, even if you do not?

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Dominique1234]

Cognitive dissonance much?

Ha ha! Love it! Some people are just… as the Bible puts it… fools.

 

[Dominique1234]

Exactly. I’m in a swing state and was just polled this wk by phone. I said I was voting for Barack Obama. Next question was am I definitely voting for Barack Obama or probably going to or could I change my mind. Nope I’m definitely voting for Barack Obama. Then there were a series of other questions such as how much I approved of President Obama’s healthcare plan. Strongly, somewhat, or did I somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove? I didn’t go with strongly but went with somewhat approve because I think it should have gone further. Public option or something and I may have been more inclined to go with strongly. Then near the end of the poll for statistical purposes I was asked my religion, race, gender and age range. I couldn’t answer the religion question by saying for instance I was a fundamentalist so I had to think back to where I was baptized and what religion I’m considered a member of by the church I was baptized in. I don’t think liberal Christian was an option. Nor was non practicing for any Catholic being polled. And after the religion question the poll asked how often one attends church. It has been since my Confirmation and even since Easter 2012.

So what you’re saying is the poll is bias. Thanks!

You’ve just made the media look like idiots. MUCH appreciated. God bless.

 

[Jeffrey]

obama

Some candidate wants to end my religion? Really? Who is he? What is his religion?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

It does give them the right when they’re footing the bill. If forcing people to contribute to the pot means that footing the bill will be more manageable, then that’s what they should do. Part of living in a community means putting money into that community for funds that manage that community. The Amish have gotten out of paying for taxes because they don’t draw on any perks gained from the outside community. If enough Catholic people got together and formed such a community and provided for themselves with resources from within that community, they could do the same and not worry about where their money went. But they won’t because they like having their garbage collected, and they like having the streets fixed, and they like being able to apply for medicaid when things go wrong. As long as the government is managing funds, the government gets to direct how it’s being managed.

The Catholic laity is called to live in the world and spread the Good News. That is the reason we do not withdraw, not because we like services.