Voting

[surfinpure]

And let’s not forget the other non-negotiables: embryonic stem-cell research and gay “marriage” remain on the table as well. The right president will veto these measures. The wrong one will sign them into law.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The ban on partial-birth abortion has been and continues to be challenged by members of congress. If we elect a president who is pro-abortion, and the House and the Senate manage to overturn the ban, then the most hideous form of human evil will go back into regular practice. I’d call that a major distinction between candidates.

What is “YMMV”?

Your Mileage May Vary. It’s shorthand for reasonable people may disagree.

Choosing who to vote for is a very difficult decision for those of us who really do take the time to consider the issues.

 

[surfinpure]

Your Mileage May Vary. It’s shorthand for reasonable people may disagree.

Choosing who to vote for is a very difficult decision for those of us who really do take the time to consider the issues.

As it has been for me, but my choice is only between pro-life candidates, and I must choose who is most viable and fit. That narrows it down considerably.

 

[c659smith]

The quote from the Pope’s document does not endorse a party-the pamphlet that contains it comes thisclose.

If the group in question is considered tax exempt-they’re dancing very close to that line.

On the IRS issue remember the sword has two sides.

In the case for the so called phrase seperation of church and state which by the way is not in the constitution and neither is it an amendment or law.

Rather the constitution states govrment may make no law in reference to religion.

So the act of judges banning prayer in school violates the constitution.

Here comes the other side of the sword.

If 501 status was removed because of an offense now that would allow a church to get involved in politics as there would be no reason why not. The Catholic Church could have it’s Bishops and priests run for office in all U.S. branches of goverment, To clearly state every candidate on whom to support, and to evangelize while in these seats of goverment. Be careful on what you wish for when you cite this policy. For secularists this is a law better not pushed for enforcement as for the most part the Churches to abide.

I could just see the secularists scrambling in cities like Boston, New Orleans, etc… Not to mention the towns and states where Catholism is over 80% of the population.

The same could be interjected in the South for the Baptists.

You see it is imperative for the secularist not to push or insists an IRS law such as this be enforced totally for it would mark the beginning of the end for most secularists in political goverment as well as the promoting of their ideals.

 

[sebestt]

fitswimmer: I do take the time to consider all the issues and through prayer I believe there is no way I could ever vote for a candidate from a party that is pro-choice. God Bless!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As it has been for me, but my choice is only between pro-life candidates, and I must choose who is most viable and fit. That narrows it down considerably.

Why viable? God requires that we be faithful; He doesn’t require that we be successful.

Note 1 Samuel 13:8-14

Saul was still at Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling. 8 He waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. 9 So Saul said, “Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings.” And he offered the burnt offering. 10 As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him and salute him. 11 Samuel said, “What have you done?” And Saul said, “When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, 12 I said, Now the Philistines will come down upon me at Gilgal, and I have not entreated the favor of the LORD’; so I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.” 13 And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which he commanded you; for now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel for ever. 14* But now your kingdom shall not continue; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart; and the LORD has appointed him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you.”

Saul is condemned for seeking success rather than obedience.

 

[surfinpure]

Why viable? God requires that we be faithful; He doesn’t require that we be successful.

Note 1 Samuel 13:8-14 Saul is condemned for seeking success rather than obedience.

And if the Lord God issues a specific command to vote for Candidate X, I will certainly obey!

Viability is critical to me, because while the end does not justify the means, the end remains important. Say that Candidates A (pro-choice) and B (pro-life) are in a tight race, and then Candidate C (pro-life, with slightly favorable positions on less important issues) comes in with no chance of securing the office. My conscience requires me (notice I am speaking very personally here) to apply the only acceptable and viable means to the righteous end. If my objective is to prevent further degradation to life and morality in my country, I have a moral obligation to do whatever licit thing I can to ensure that end, which would mean voting for Candidate B, who at least has a chance at winning the election. There is nothing immoral about voting for a pro-life, pro-family candidate, so where does the condemnation come from? Or did I miss a Divine Memo?

 

[Fitswimmer]

fitswimmer: I do take the time to consider all the issues and through prayer I believe there is no way I could ever vote for a candidate from a party that is pro-choice. God Bless!

Good for you. I also do a lot of research before choosing the candidate I vote for. I wish more people did.