Voting and Social Justice

[IvanKaramozov]

I am having trouble with some social justice issues, and how this applies to chosing which canidate to vote for.

1-Abortion: I agrea that abortion is evil, however I don’t see how this affects voting for the president, the matter is settled in Judicial law and the president coulden’t override this even if he wanted to. A republican wants Roe V Wade overturned, a democrate wants abortions reduced and limited but beleives it is a matter of personal choice, why does it matter considering how little power the president has over this issue. It seemes like the only way we are going to end this abomination is by populist appeal, so why vote for a canidate who is opposed to abortion, simply for that reasone, when he or she could not overturn it even if they wanted to. The only way they have any say in this matter is supream court judges, however even if a conservative judge get’s on the bench, conservatives usually want to honor set precident, and Roe v. Wade has really been set in as precident. Besides that we have congress proposing a constitutional ammendment, this is extraordionairly unlikely considering popular oppinion. So why allow this to factor in? It seemes like abortion will only be ended when we convince the nation of it’s wickdness, but not by the legal avenue

2-Same sex unions/marriages-I don’t support the Church condoning them, but why does the Church care about what we do with civil marriages? Divorced people may not remary in the church, but marry constantly in the civil arena, so why not a ban on voting for cannidates who don’t promise to bad divorced people from remarrying?

I may have some more later on, but I guess those are the big ones for now.

I will be arguing but that is my way, I bull dogishly defend a view and see every possible response aghinst it, if I perpetually argue that dosen’t mean I’m not listining or that your points arn’t affecting me, that’s just how I mesh out arguments.

But this is an issue that is tormenting me to be honest and would appreciate help.

thanks.

 

[vern_humphrey]

1-Abortion: I agrea that abortion is evil, however I don’t see how this affects voting for the president, the matter is settled in Judicial law and the president coulden’t override this even if he wanted to. thanks.

Presidents appoint judges. And Roe vs Wade was based on a wild, untenable reading of the 14th Amendment. With a strong pro-life component, the Court may well revisit Roe vs Wade and overturn it.

Presidents propose laws and have considerable influence on what congress passes. There are many good laws that can restrict abortions, and many bad ones being proposed (like taxpayer-funded abortions.)

Congressmen and Senators are also elected. Those who favor abortion will support laws extending abortion, those who favor human life will seek to restrict this evil.

Look at the title of the thread: “Voting and Social Justice.” How can any society be just when it massacres the most innocent to the tune of millions per year?

 

[pnewton]

Besides that we have congress proposing a constitutional ammendment, this is extraordionairly unlikely considering popular oppinion. So why allow this to factor in?
thanks.

Something you may want to consider is that this line of thinking could be used to vote for or not vote for anything. After all, voting is an expression of popular opinion and if we only vote on the basis of agreeing with popular opinion there is no point in voting at all.

In regards to the presidency, no on becomes a supreme court judge without a presidential nomination. And if you think Roe v. Wade can not be overturned you are mistaken. After all, any time a precident is set, it overturns the previously law. Since Roe v. Wade was set by a 5-4 vote, that says four judges dissented. It is entirely possible that the issue of abortion could be returned to the oversight of the states, as per the 10th amendment, if we get five judges that believe in interpretting the constitution as opposed to making law.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am having trouble with some social justice issues, and how this applies to chosing which canidate to vote for.

1-Abortion: I agrea that abortion is evil, however I don’t see how this affects voting for the president, the matter is settled in Judicial law and the president coulden’t override this even if he wanted to. A republican wants Roe V Wade overturned, a democrate wants abortions reduced and limited but beleives it is a matter of personal choice, why does it matter considering how little power the president has over this issue. It seemes like the only way we are going to end this abomination is by populist appeal, so why vote for a canidate who is opposed to abortion, simply for that reasone, when he or she could not overturn it even if they wanted to. The only way they have any say in this matter is supream court judges, however even if a conservative judge get’s on the bench, conservatives usually want to honor set precident, and Roe v. Wade has really been set in as precident. Besides that we have congress proposing a constitutional ammendment, this is extraordionairly unlikely considering popular oppinion. So why allow this to factor in? It seemes like abortion will only be ended when we convince the nation of it’s wickdness, but not by the legal avenue

2-Same sex unions/marriages-I don’t support the Church condoning them, but why does the Church care about what we do with civil marriages? Divorced people may not remary in the church, but marry constantly in the civil arena, so why not a ban on voting for cannidates who don’t promise to bad divorced people from remarrying?

I may have some more later on, but I guess those are the big ones for now.

I will be arguing but that is my way, I bull dogishly defend a view and see every possible response aghinst it, if I perpetually argue that dosen’t mean I’m not listining or that your points arn’t affecting me, that’s just how I mesh out arguments.

But this is an issue that is tormenting me to be honest and would appreciate help.

thanks.

The President appoints Supreme Court Justices. If Roe vs Wade is ever to be reversed, it will be reversed by the Supreme Court and no one else. The last two appointments clearly appear to be prolife. Scalia and Thomas are prolife. So the next appointment could be the crucial vote. If any democrat is elected, it will be a pro-abortion appointment. Clear as clear gets. There is enough bad reasoning in Roe and its progeny to allow a prolife court to overturn it on that basis alone. And Supreme Courts do reverse prior decisions. Most definitely.

When it comes to Congress, the Senate has to approve presidential appointments to the Court. We need a prolife president and a prolife Senate. No question about it. Right now, it doesn’t look likely. But it doesn’t excuse my voting for a pro-abortion outcome with my vote for President and Senators.
I am a “cradle democrat”, but I’m not going to have voting for abortion supporters on my conscience. Life is 'way too short for that.

The same-sex marriage thing is complicated, and I don’t have time to address it right now; perhaps later.

But one should not be misled when it comes to “social justice issues”. Neither party has done anything for the unfortunate for decades, and there is little likelihood either will in the near future, despite the rhetoric. The last time anyone did was the earned income credit, which was a Reagan initiative. What both parties now do (dems more than repubs) is promise “middle class” benefits, because middle class people vote more than others do. The problem is, most of the “middle class benefit” programs sound good, but are illusory. In any event, the middle class and upper classes also pay all of the taxes, so “middle class benefits” are a ponzi scheme, by and large.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Right, and I understand that the Presiden’t ability to appoint justices is a powerfull tool, however I think you all are chasing a false hope, Roberts may well be pro-life, however he stated that Roe.v Wade is settled law.

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land… There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey.”

-Justice John Roberts

Most restraintist judges like Roberts honor Stari Decisis, and Roe V. Wade has stood for nearing half a century and has had a plethora of additional supporting cases, liberal justices think it’s a constitutional right, conservative judges don’t think it’t their right to toutch it.

Though I admit that’s not a rule

“Dissent:
(Rehnquist, joined in part by White, Scalia, and Thomas)
The joint opinion, following its newly minted variation on stare decisis, retains the outer shell of Roe v. Wade, but beats a wholesale retreat from the substance of that case. We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases. We would adopt the approach of the plurality in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), and uphold the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute in their entirety.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Right, and I understand that the Presiden’t ability to appoint justices is a powerfull tool, however I think you all are chasing a false hope, Roberts may well be pro-life, however he stated that Roe.v Wade is settled law.

Plessy vs Ferguson, which declared that “separate but equal” schools were constitutional was also “settled law.” But it was overturned by Brown vs The Board of Education.

 

[alessandro]

From a related thread, It’s Voting Season!

Without naming specific candidates (which is against forum rules), please allow me to suggest that all voters start to inform themselves about the different candidates.

• [Campaign 2008: Foreign Affairs (http://www.miserere.org/m/archivedposts/269) – A closer look at the foreign policies each candidate would espouse if elected to office in 2008. Excellent articles from Foreign Affairs, the premiere journal on the subject.
• Many forum users are already familiar with Catholic Answers’ “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics,” which is an excellent resource that delineates five non-negotiable moral standards by which to judge political candidates (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning and homosexual ‘marriage’). In “Make it SIX non-negotiable issues,” I proposed the addition of a sixth criterion for Catholic voters.
• [First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/) – The journal of religion, culture and public life. Also check out their [First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/blog/) blog.
• [Catholics in the Public Square (http://thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/) – This well-written and informative blog principally discusses Catholic politicians and their stances on moral and political issues, although all Campaign 2008 candidates (Catholic or not) are fair game.

 

[VARC]

I agree that voting Republican for pro life causes is a waste of time. Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. The Act declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.

With a republican House and a republican Senate the bill didn’t even make it out of commitee. So much for the pro-life GOP.

Not to mention that since Roe v Wade, 5 of the 7 presidents we have had were republicans. In over 30 years with a republican majority in both houses for years, with republican presidents, NO real progress has been made. It’s time to wake up and realized that you’re being manipulated by the GOP.

 

[markomalley]

As far as social justice, you need to look at it all…

For too long, we Catholics have considered the evils of abortion, but have seemed to somehow ignore the evils of socialism.

Looking at a candidate who considers all of the elements of social justice…to include subsidiarity…is vital, as well.

One thing that all Catholics participating in public life (whether running for office or voting for one running for office) should consider is the whole contents of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

 

[Scottgun]

Right, and I understand that the Presiden’t ability to appoint justices is a powerfull tool, however I think you all are chasing a false hope, Roberts may well be pro-life, however he stated that Roe.v Wade is settled law.

I think the trouble you (and perhaps others) are having is that this is (unintentionally) consequentialist thinking. That our voting has to be *effective. *Obviously we would want someone who could be effective at ending abortion but ultimately we can neither predict nor control what happens at that point. Where we do have control is in our chosen acts. If our chosen act is voting for someone who supports something objectively evil, that is wrong in and of itself. Imagine someone in the 1800’s saying, “Well, since slavery is settled law, presidents can’t really do anything about it, so it is ok if I vote for a pro-slavery candidate, and besides, he is right on the other social issues.” At this point, some protest that there is no such thing as the perfect candidate. That is neither here nor there because there are candidates who do not support objective evils. The only way one can squeeze the you-have-to-look-at-it-all social justice part into this is if there was an actual candidate who supported something evil like rounding up the poor and forcing them into concentration camps, or forbidding health care to be provided by anyone federal or private. No such serious candidate exists (so far.)

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Plessy vs Ferguson, which declared that “separate but equal” schools were constitutional was also “settled law.” But it was overturned by Brown vs The Board of Education.

That was after a massive civil war, social upheavel and several constitutional ammendments

 

[IvanKaramozov]

I agree that voting Republican for pro life causes is a waste of time. Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. The Act declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.

With a republican House and a republican Senate the bill didn’t even make it out of committee. So much for the pro-life GOP.

Not to mention that since Roe v Wade, 5 of the 7 presidents we have had were republicans. In over 30 years with a republican majority in both houses for years, with republican presidents, NO real progress has been made. It’s time to wake up and realized that you’re being manipulated by the GOP.

Amen

Politicians have us in a vice, they don’t get ride of abortion and they know that without abortion the Catholic vote would scatter and they wouldn’t have a monopoly on Catholics, they dangle this slab of meat in front of starving hounds knowing they’ll claw after it it total detriment and absence of attention to everything going on around us.

Well, I for one am sick of being used and abused by inept, empty headed career politicians. If the republicans were inclined or able to end abortion they have had ample opportunity.

They were given a Senate, a House of Representatives, a Presidency, and a Supreme Court and they have done next to nothing. They have betrayed our trust because we have allowed them. They do nothing but dangle it in front of us and occasionally throw some scraps in our direction while our civil liberties are being trampled upon, terror is being unleashed in our name, children are going to bed hungry and without proper medical care, workers are being manipulated and used, the minimum wage is a disgrace, the planet is being destroyed by pollution and wast, torture is being used in this, “war on terror”, we allowed them to win us over even when they start a war two Holy Fathers spoke against, and on and on. Yet we turn a blind eye to this is the promise that, contrary to all precedence and empirical data, they will bring an end to abortion.

The only way abortion will end is if we show people how wicked it is, intellectual argument and piety will bring an end to that monstrosity, the chances of the government ending it are almost non-existent.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

I think the trouble you (and perhaps others) are having is that this is (unintentionally) consequentialist thinking. That our voting has to be *effective. *Obviously we would want someone who could be effective at ending abortion but ultimately we can neither predict nor control what happens at that point. Where we do have control is in our chosen acts. If our chosen act is voting for someone who supports something objectively evil, that is wrong in and of itself. Imagine someone in the 1800’s saying, “Well, since slavery is settled law, presidents can’t really do anything about it, so it is ok if I vote for a pro-slavery candidate, and besides, he is right on the other social issues.”

Lincoln would not have been able to end slavery in the absence of a civil war, and he was not elected on an anti slavery canidate, The court never reversed slavery because it was settled law, only the thirteenth ammendment ultimately ended slavery.

There is absolutly no reasone to beleive that will happen in this case.

At this point, some protest that there is no such thing as the perfect candidate. That is neither here nor there because there are candidates who do not support objective evils.

Bush, so far as we know, has no objection to, and likely uses, BC as do most pro life canidates and senators, this is seen as an objective evil by the Church.

 

[VARC]

Amen

Politicians have us in a vice, they don’t get ride of abortion and they know that without abortion the Catholic vote would scatter and they wouldn’t have a monopoly on Catholics, they dangle this slab of meat in front of starving hounds knowing they’ll claw after it it total detriment and absence of attention to everything going on around us.

Well, I for one am sick of being used and abused by inept, empty headed career politicians. If the republicans were inclined or able to end abortion they have had ample opportunity.

They were given a Senate, a House of Representatives, a Presidency, and a Supreme Court and they have done next to nothing. They have betrayed our trust because we have allowed them. They do nothing but dangle it in front of us and occasionally throw some scraps in our direction while our civil liberties are being trampled upon, terror is being unleashed in our name, children are going to bed hungry and without proper medical care, workers are being manipulated and used, the minimum wage is a disgrace, the planet is being destroyed by pollution and wast, torture is being used in this, “war on terror”, we allowed them to win us over even when they start a war two Holy Fathers spoke against, and on and on. Yet we turn a blind eye to this is the promise that, contrary to all precedence and empirical data, they will bring an end to abortion.

The only way abortion will end is if we show people how wicked it is, intellectual argument and piety will bring an end to that monstrosity, the chances of the government ending it are almost non-existent.

I agree 100% and my vote in 2006 reflected it. So will my 2008 vote.

 

[pnewton]

For too long, we Catholics have considered the evils of abortion, but have seemed to somehow ignore the evils of socialism.

While I do not believe the economics of socialism, I do not think it is considered and evil by the Church, not in the sense of communism.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Amen

Politicians have us in a vice, they don’t get ride of abortion and they know that without abortion the Catholic vote would scatter and they wouldn’t have a monopoly on Catholics, they dangle this slab of meat in front of starving hounds knowing they’ll claw after it it total detriment and absence of attention to everything going on around us.

Well, I for one am sick of being used and abused by inept, empty headed career politicians. If the republicans were inclined or able to end abortion they have had ample opportunity.

They were given a Senate, a House of Representatives, a Presidency, and a Supreme Court and they have done next to nothing. They have betrayed our trust because we have allowed them. They do nothing but dangle it in front of us and occasionally throw some scraps in our direction while our civil liberties are being trampled upon, terror is being unleashed in our name, children are going to bed hungry and without proper medical care, workers are being manipulated and used, the minimum wage is a disgrace, the planet is being destroyed by pollution and wast, torture is being used in this, “war on terror”, we allowed them to win us over even when they start a war two Holy Fathers spoke against, and on and on. Yet we turn a blind eye to this is the promise that, contrary to all precedence and empirical data, they will bring an end to abortion.

The only way abortion will end is if we show people how wicked it is, intellectual argument and piety will bring an end to that monstrosity, the chances of the government ending it are almost non-existent.

Nonsense. The “Catholic vote” is already scattered. Basically, there is no such thing as a “Catholic vote” because do NOT vote in unison on the basis of non-negotiable principles.

No matter which way you vote, Ivan, there will be no real change in social policies, except as dictated by those who contribute the most money. Remember Bill Clinton? He did nothing for the elderly, the ill, the mentally disturbed, etc. Nor will Hillary Clinton do it, or end the War in Iraq; certainly not until a second term. Remember that the Emirates have paid her husband millions, and they SUPPORT the war. I’m not encouraging a Republican vote either for “social justice” reasons, because the Republican Party doesn’t care about your Sixth Criterion either. Your 2008 vote is about abortion, not about social justice. Don’t fool yourself. With Repubs there is a chance for a prolife S.C. appointment. With Dems there is none. Oh yes, the last Dem appointee to the Supreme Court supports lowering the age of consensual sex, both hetrosexual and homosexual, to 12. That’s what you’re voting for, Ivan.

 

[markomalley]

While I do not believe the economics of socialism, I do not think it is considered and evil by the Church, not in the sense of communism.

*4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy.

1. … Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
2. … The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.
3. … Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal.*

• Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

1. The principle of subsidiarity protects people from abuses by higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfil their duties. This principle is imperative because every person, family and intermediate group has something original to offer to the community. Experience shows that the denial of subsidiarity, or its limitation in the name of an alleged democratization or equality of all members of society, limits and sometimes even destroys the spirit of freedom and initiative.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”…

In order for the principle of subsidiarity to be put into practice there is a corresponding need for: respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family; ever greater appreciation of associations and intermediate organizations in their fundamental choices and in those that cannot be delegated to or exercised by others; the encouragement of private initiative so that every social entity remains at the service of the common good, each with its own distinctive characteristics; the presence of pluralism in society and due representation of its vital components; safeguarding human rights and the rights of minorities; bringing about bureaucratic and administrative decentralization; striking a balance between the public and private spheres, with the resulting recognition of the social function of the private sphere; appropriate methods for making citizens more responsible in actively “being a part” of the political and social reality of their country.*

• Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

I’d say socialism is pretty roundly condemned by the Magesterium.

Sorry for the long quotes above, but I wanted to assure that you would see that this is not reflective of my word alone, but has been the fairly consistent teaching of the Magesterium.

One thing that many folks don’t see is that it is the State’s function to set up an **environment **that respects the dignity of the human person, to set up an **environment **that promotes the common good, to set up an **environment **to support solidarity among people, to set up an **environment **with the full participation of the populace, but that those key principles must be promoted with full regard for the principle of subsidiarity, so that the higher social structure (the State) does not usurp the responsibility **and **dignity of the lower.

As Pope Pius XI stated in his Encyclical, Divini Redemptoris,

*38. … There would be today neither Socialism nor Communism if the rulers of the nations had not scorned the teachings and maternal warnings of the Church. *

 

[Scottgun]

They were given a Senate, a House of Representatives, a Presidency, and a Supreme Court and they have done next to nothing. They have betrayed our trust because we have allowed them. They do nothing but dangle it in front of us and occasionally throw some scraps in our direction while our civil liberties are being trampled upon, terror is being unleashed in our name, children are going to bed hungry and without proper medical care, workers are being manipulated and used, the minimum wage is a disgrace, the planet is being destroyed by pollution and wast, torture is being used in this, “war on terror”, we allowed them to win us over even when they start a war two Holy Fathers spoke against, and on and on. Yet we turn a blind eye to this is the promise that, contrary to all precedence and empirical data, they will bring an end to abortion.

So don’t vote for them. but you still can’t in good conscience for a supporter of abortion.

 

[Brendan]

That was after a massive civil war, social upheavel and several constitutional ammendments

Plessy vs Ferguson happened in 1896, all the Consititutional Ammendments that pertained to Civil Rights were already in place.

What civil war happened between 1896 and 1954, when Brown overturned it?

 

[mary_bobo]

Lincoln would not have been able to end slavery in the absence of a civil war, and he was not elected on an anti slavery canidate, The court never reversed slavery because it was settled law, only the thirteenth ammendment ultimately ended slavery.

There is absolutly no reasone to believe that will happen in this case.

Bush, so far as we know, has no objection to, and likely uses, BC as do most pro life canidates and senators, this is seen as an objective evil by the Church.

This is pure conjecture and has no place in a discussion of this nature. President Bush is not a Catholic and it is a fact that many protestant religions find no fault with birth control. How do you plan to “teach” others the wrong they are committing when we have been less than successful in having Catholics obey this teaching of the Church?