Voting for Liberty vs Conservatism

[Kevin_B]

Faith and morals. Not politics. Who can or can not get a tax break is neither faith nor morals, and civil unions are nothing more than a tax break. Therefore, the church’s opinion on them is not infallible.

 

[guanophore]

Faith and morals. Not politics. Who can or can not get a tax break is neither faith nor morals, and civil unions are nothing more than a tax break. Therefore, the church’s opinion on them is not infallible.

Faith and morals are the core of our function as persons in society. Our Catholic faith is to influence our whole lives, including politics and the marketplace. Jesus calls us to be salt and light to the world.

God’s intention for the human family is most certainly an issue of faith and morals.

I do agree with you that civil unions are sought for a tax break, but it is also much more than that.

The Church does not have an “opinion” about these things, but the infallible and inerrant revelation of God. You may choose to believe that what God has revealed is not relevant for you, and that is your perogative, but to claim that God has not revealed eternal Truth to mankind is an error.

 

[Kevin_B]

“Faith and morals are the core of our function as persons in society. Our Catholic faith is to influence our whole lives, including politics and the marketplace. Jesus calls us to be salt and light to the world.”

Then we should make “not going to church” illegal, since it negatively affects others just as much, if not much more so, than same-sex marriage. In fact, if our Catholic faith is supposed to influence our whole lives, then everything immoral in our faith should be illegal.

"God’s intention for the human family is most certainly an issue of faith and morals.

I do agree with you that civil unions are sought for a tax break, but it is also much more than that."

But that’s the thing: civil unions have no implications of family. They aren’t “much more than that”. Read one. They are simply a grouping of tax breaks and legal rights you give to another person. They have no implication of love or commitment at all.

All I am saying is that, in my opinion, it should not be illegal for a man to sign a document which confers numerous legal procedures on another man, like tax breaks, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights. Yet somehow this is against the natural law? How are tax breaks part of natural law?

“The Church does not have an “opinion” about these things, but the infallible and inerrant revelation of God. You may choose to believe that what God has revealed is not relevant for you, and that is your prerogative, but to claim that God has not revealed eternal Truth to mankind is an error.”

Actually, the Church only has the infallible revelation of God on matters of faith and morals. It does not have infallible revelation in matters of science or politics

 

[katholikos12]

Actually, the Church only has the infallible revelation of God on matters of faith and morals. It does not have infallible revelation in matters of science or politics

The thing is a lot of what we vote upon is based on 'faith and morals". Therefore our votes should go along those lines, and hence my conviction.

 

[InJesusItrust]

The real question is what God would say about setting up social institutions that permit evil.

As to the founding fathers being Libertarian I find the whole notion that they intended the first amendment to be used to defend Penthouse ludicrous. It seems more like they intended to allow people to civilly discuss controversial ideas.

We must please God, not men. Why legalize something morally corrupt?

 

[starshiptrooper]

But that’s the thing: civil unions have no implications of family. They aren’t “much more than that”. Read one. They are simply a grouping of tax breaks and legal rights you give to another person. They have no implication of love or commitment at all.

All I am saying is that, in my opinion, it should not be illegal for a man to sign a document which confers numerous legal procedures on another man, like tax breaks, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights. Yet somehow this is against the natural law? How are tax breaks part of natural law?

Issues like this are one of the many reasons I favor secular conservatism over religious conservatism.

You are saying that it should not be illegal for a man to sign a document when confers numerous legal benefits on another man. My question is, why should Joe and Steve be allowed to sign such a document? How will their civil union benefit society?

We give legal benefits to heterosexual marriages, because this is the only sort of marriage that can procreate. More kids means more soldiers and taxpayers, in other words, survival of the state.

I don’t really see how homsexual marriages, or unions will help society. Therefore, there is aboslutely no reason whatsoever to encourage them through legal benefits.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Thank you for this!

I feel a conviction recently to vote my morals and along Church beliefs as closely as possible.

I have a long time before I voting comes around again so much prayer will be devoted until then.

Do you mean the NATIONAL elections? There are elections for local authorities on a regular basis. Each of these votes can mean more than our vote for the President.

As for Catholic voters, there are 5 non-negotiables.

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Homosexual marriage
4. Human cloning
5. Embryonic stem cell research (products of abortion used for this)

If a candidate supports any or all of these, we are NOT TO VOTE for him or her. Period. End of discussion.

 

[katholikos12]

Do you mean the NATIONAL elections? There are elections for local authorities on a regular basis. Each of these votes can mean more than our vote for the President.

As for Catholic voters, there are 5 non-negotiables.

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Homosexual marriage
4. Human cloning
5. Embryonic stem cell research (products of abortion used for this)

If a candidate supports any or all of these, we are NOT TO VOTE for him or her. Period. End of discussion.

All elections, not just national. Voting is voting.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

All elections, not just national. Voting is voting.

Correct, I did not suggest you use these non-negotiables for just national elections. If ANY politician supports these issues, you cannot vote for him/her as a Catholic.

 

[St_Francis]

Correct, I did not suggest you use these non-negotiables for just national elections. If ANY politician supports these issues, you cannot vote for him/her as a Catholic.

This is actually not quite true. Suppose Candidate A wants to roll back all abortion-restricting laws and have the government pay for all of them, and Candidate B thinks that abortions should be limited to some degree, while still allowing some. It would be permissible in the US (where we have a 2-party system rather than a multi-party system that exists in many other cou tires) to vote for Candidate B for various reasons such as 1. in order to assure that Candidate A would not win, 2. because of the candidates’ relative positions on other issues, or because Candidate B is superior in other ways for the position for whihc he is running and his position on abortion does not matter in that position. And these issues must be proportionate; you could maybe pick Candidate A over a genocidal maniac who has promised to drop atom bombs over half the inhabited world, but not because Candidate A has a better record on, say, highway management.

The Church does recognize that politics is often the art of the possible rather than the ideal.

 

[St_Francis]

“Faith and morals are the core of our function as persons in society. Our Catholic faith is to influence our whole lives, including politics and the marketplace. Jesus calls us to be salt and light to the world.”

The Church has ever taught that forced conversion is immoral; therefore a legal requirement that people go to church would be against Church teaching.

"God’s intention for the human family is most certainly an issue of faith and morals.

I do agree with you that civil unions are sought for a tax break, but it is also much more than that."

But that’s the thing: civil unions have no implications of family. They aren’t “much more than that”. Read one. They are simply a grouping of tax breaks and legal rights you give to another person. They have no implication of love or commitment at all.

The thing is that the *point *of the government’s recognition of marriage as beneficial to society stems from the procreative aspect.

Now, I do think that the view of marriage in todays’s US society has been terribly degraded by abc and no-fault divorce, etc., but to me what should be done at this point is to have a look at marriage within our society rather than to degrade it even further by allowing people of their nature are non-procreative to legally call their relationship a marriage.

All I am saying is that, in my opinion, it should not be illegal for a man to sign a document which confers numerous legal procedures on another man,

Again, why stop at two members of the same sex? Why not more? Why not two brothers so that one can get on the other’s health insurance?

Why are the homosexual activits not satisfied with calling their legal relationship a civil union, which would presumably be open to all? Why did they say, no, it must be marriage?

like tax breaks, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights. Yet somehow this is against the natural law? How are tax breaks part of natural law?

What do you think natural law is? Natural law is what allowed the family benefits in the first placep. It is natural law which encourages progressive taxation, informs us that spousal abuse is wrong, and many other things related to legislation.

“The Church does not have an “opinion” about these things, but the infallible and inerrant revelation of God. You may choose to believe that what God has revealed is not relevant for you, and that is your prerogative, but to claim that God has not revealed eternal Truth to mankind is an error.”

Actually, the Church only has the infallible revelation of God on matters of faith and morals. It does not have infallible revelation in matters of science or politics

And politics has nothing to do with morals?

 

[Holly3278]

Are not laws against murder and theft “forcing your beliefs on others”? If so, then what is so wrong with voting for laws to forbid other evil things such as same-sex “marriage”?

 

[Graubo3]

Who are we to say what people can and cannot do?

Do you live in a warm climate? If yes, then I will be packing my family up and moving in to your house for the winter. We will squat upon you and take every advantage of you that we can. I hope you have a great job because we require much. We will be having the best building contractors build extra living space for us on your dime. I really don’t think that I want you living there anymore because you are a bad host/hostess, etc… Sounds absurd, yes, but where are the lines in the sand drawn and by whom? As you convert, I suggest you start reading as much as you can about the Catholic Faith starting with the Catechism.

 

[Graubo3]

I have a long time before I voting comes around again so much prayer will be devoted until then.

Define ‘long time’ please.

 

[fix]

I am a libertarian. I vote for freedom: socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

But this view on voting would have me voting yes for things like legalization of drugs and same-sex marriage.

My conundrum, is that i think those things are wrong, but I feel wrong about voting in a manner that tells someone what they can and cannot do with their lives/body w/e (does not include abortion the baby is a separate human being – just fyi).

Is the right thing to do to allow people to do what they wish to themselves? I feel like this is how God lets us live our lives. OR is the right thing to do to vote for the things that i believe to be true? But then am I essentially forcing my beliefs on others by voting that they cannot do what I believe is wrong?

Thoughts on this?

Voting for any of that stuff is illicit cooperation with evil.

 

[katholikos12]

Do you live in a warm climate? If yes, then I will be packing my family up and moving in to your house for the winter. We will squat upon you and take every advantage of you that we can. I hope you have a great job because we require much. We will be having the best building contractors build extra living space for us on your dime. I really don’t think that I want you living there anymore because you are a bad host/hostess, etc… Sounds absurd, yes, but where are the lines in the sand drawn and by whom? As you convert, I suggest you start reading as much as you can about the Catholic Faith starting with the Catechism.

you took what I said out of context.

I mean who are we to say what people can and cannot not do to their own bodies (not a reference to abortion; the fetus is a separate human being). If people want to destroy their bodies with drugs, why not let them? We allow it with alcohol (which was illegal at one point i remind you) and cigarettes and cigars…

 

[katholikos12]

Define ‘long time’ please.

2 years.

That’s the next local election.

 

[katholikos12]

Voting for any of that stuff is illicit cooperation with evil.

you ignored my question.

and marijuana is illicitly evil?

many more people die a year from cigarettes than from weed, yet it is legal. so cigarettes are evil? Many people die from alcoholism every year as well, is alcohol evil? I mean it was illegal at one point may be we should go back to that…

 

[Graubo3]

you took what I said out of context.

I mean who are we to say what people can and cannot not do to their own bodies (not a reference to abortion; the fetus is a separate human being). If people want to destroy their bodies with drugs, why not let them? We allow it with alcohol (which was illegal at one point i remind you) and cigarettes and cigars…

I took you out of context to show you that there is no boundaries when there is blond ‘whatever’ attitudes. How about bestiality or necrophilia? You aren’t hurting anyone else,eh? If this thread is just about smoking pot you can learn by reading hundreds of other threads. As I said before, you can learn about the Catholic Faith by reading the Catechism. In there I am sure you will come across something about your body being a temple/tabernacle and the purity of said body. Read Aquinas, he’ll make you high, naturally.

2 years.

That’s the next local election.

No odd year elections? School board type stuff??

 

[katholikos12]

I took you out of context to show you that there is no boundaries when there is blond ‘whatever’ attitudes. How about bestiality or necrophilia? You aren’t hurting anyone else,eh? If this thread is just about smoking pot you can learn by reading hundreds of other threads. As I said before, you can learn about the Catholic Faith by reading the Catechism. In there I am sure you will come across something about your body being a temple/tabernacle and the purity of said body. Read Aquinas, he’ll make you high, naturally.

No odd year elections? School board type stuff??

Wont be able to. resident of one state, living in another.

“Go read the catechism” Yea lemmie chow down on a 1000 pages official teaching and internalize it real quick.

I’m asking for people to give justification for why we (The Church) do things; not a cop out of “the church says so”. Use your brain and give me a reason, don’t tell me to go read a book.

Also, if God allows people to freedom to do as they wish, why is it immoral for us to do so? As long as it doesn’t affect another person negatively, why can’t it be allowed? necropehlia: affects the family of the deceased in a negative manner.

No one has answered this yet.