voting

[melensdad]

I don’t quite understand how affirming states’ rights to determine the legality of abortion is authentically prolife. To me, that’s like affirming the states rights to determine the legality of owning slaves, only much much worse.

I’d suggest you look at the voting records of some of the Libertarians.

But the pro-abortion folks gave a ZERO rating for his voting record in the US Congress

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

Scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America’s mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women’s health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization’s preferred position.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

I’d suggest you look at the voting records of some of the Libertarians.

But the pro-abortion folks gave a ZERO rating for his voting record in the US Congress

what’s up with:

Twice Voted NO on bills making it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

Twice Voted NO on bills that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime.



If only ProLifers were as uncompromising and stubbornly adamant about Pro life issues as NARAL is about death issues.

 

[melensdad]

what’s up with:

Twice Voted NO on bills making it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

Twice Voted NO on bills that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime.

Both votes are easy to explain, the first issue is not a federal issue according to the Constitution, therefor the federal government would have no legal jurisdiction but the state governments would. You can’t mandate state laws from a federal level.

Regarding the violent crime issue, there are many who also see that as a pointless issue. It is ALREADY a crime to commit a violent act against someone. It is ALREADY a crime to murder someone. Many argue that there is no need to pass additional laws that do the same thing. Further, many Catholics oppose the wording of “Hate Crime” legislation, which is typically very similar to what you are questioning, because is simply makes yet another layer of legislation that really doesn’t do anything. If you burn a church or kill a mother, you have still committed a crime. Go to jail! How many more laws do we need to write that say the same thing?

 

[RachelsAlumni]

melensdad
Both votes are easy to explain, the first issue is not a federal issue according to the Constitution, therefor the federal government would have no legal jurisdiction but the state governments would. You can’t mandate state laws from a federal level.

Not true. there are any number of crimes associated with crossing state lines. Kidnapping, drug trafficking, pornography, sex with a minor. In fact it’s one of the criteria for determining if a crime is a state crime or federal crime. For example, if an alleged crime took place in more than one state (crossing state lines) such as when someone is kidnapped and transported from one state to another or when someone sends child pornography over the internet. If the alleged criminal activity affected “interstate commerce” such as when someone uses the US Mail or an express mail service as a way of transporting illegal merchandise such as drugs or counterfeit money. Transporting a minor across state lines without a parent’s knowledge and permission is and should be against the law. Right now it’s allowable if the minor is going to have an abortion, this is an unjust law and needs to be changed. It’s kinda difficult for me to understand how someone who is authentically prolife could vote against recognizing this as a crime.

Regarding the violent crime issue, there are many who also see that as a pointless issue. It is ALREADY a crime to commit a violent act against someone. It is ALREADY a crime to murder someone. Many argue that there is no need to pass additional laws that do the same thing. Further, many Catholics oppose the wording of “Hate Crime” legislation, which is typically very similar to what you are questioning, because is simply makes yet another layer of legislation that really doesn’t do anything. If you burn a church or kill a mother, you have still committed a crime. Go to jail! How many more laws do we need to write that say the same thing?

This has nothing to do with “Hate Crime” legislation.

Prior to enactment of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the “child in utero” was, as a general rule, not recognized as a victim of federal crimes of violence. Thus, in a federal crime that injured a pregnant woman and killed the “child in utero,” no homicide was recognized, in most cases.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) recognizes the “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

With Lacy and Connor’s law (Unborn Victims of Violence Acts common reference) the murderer can now be charged with two murders instead of just one (double homicide). I’m sure Lacy Peterson’s parents are not only mourning the loss of their beloved daughter, but the loss of their grandson Conner as well and would seek justice for his death as well as their daughter’s death.

Again, this no vote on the part of this senator makes me question whether he places the “constitution” above his conscience. He won’t be getting my vote because of it.

 

[melensdad]

Not true. there are any number of crimes associated with crossing state lines. . . .

But you are confusing what you want to be law with what is law. A crime in one state may not be a crime in another state. This proposed law makes is a crime to cross state lines with the intent to do something LEGAL in another state. We may not like the other state’s laws, and we can work to change those laws. But it should not be a federal issue to make crossing state lines into states a crime.

This has nothing to do with “Hate Crime” legislation . . .

No it is a parallel type of thought. Make one crime equal two. It seems pointless when one horrible crime has already been committed. Anyway you look at it, the criminal needs to be locked up and the victim needs prayer.

I understand your dislike for some positions of the Libertarians, but you seem to treat them with a particular disdain that makes them appear worse than the Democrats and Republicans combined. Clearly there are some issues where they need to adjust their principles. The same can be said for both of the major parties as well.



The Democrats ADVOCATE abortion, cloning, fetal stem cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage. They have even tried to pass laws to have us pay for some of these things, and succeeded at passing them in some area.

The Republicans official position is to oppose each of these things but individuals within the party may support some of them. Few advocate them. Further, while the Republican party platform may oppose these things, some members actually vote to fund some of these things on state and federal levels. So they talk the good talk, but don’t always vote their platform. With the GOP, we are far better off than we would be with Democrats, but we are not assured of anything.

The Libertarians have a somewhat unique view on these things and may allow for some of them, but absolutely refuse to make them legal on the federal level so they would be state issues* (and they are typically easier to defeat on the state level)*. Further, the Libertarians absolutely refuse to use government money to support any of these things. So from a practical standpoint, under Libertarian leadership, we may find far less harm and far greater good is committed!

 

[RachelsAlumni]

melensdad
But you are confusing what you want to be law with what is law. A crime in one state may not be a crime in another state. This proposed law makes is a crime to cross state lines with the intent to do something LEGAL in another state.

Actually, since it involves transporting a minor across state lines without a parent’s knowledge or consent it should be illegal. The bill we are discussing, that this candidate voted no on, merely addresses the interstate transportation of minors, sometimes by a predatory older male or his parents, in order to circumvent valid existing State laws that require parental notification or consent. It’s about preserving the fundamental rights of parents to have knowledge about health decisions of their minor daughters. It’s about preserving and respecting State laws and those who seek to circumvent the laws of their State.

In the past few years I’ve been involved with trying to pass some parental notfication laws in my State, which is a very liberal State with a Liberal Republican Governor. In both cases the Propositions were defeated. I expect this kind of defeat from Liberals not from conservatives.

No it is a parallel type of thought. Make one crime equal two. It seems pointless when one horrible crime has already been committed. Anyway you look at it, the criminal needs to be locked up and the victim needs prayer.

Only if you don’t recognize the child ‘in utero’ as a person.

It’s not making one crime equal to two. It was two crimes against two persons. For example, OJ Simpson was arrested and tried for killing Nicole Simpson AND Ron Goldman. Two crimes against two persons.

Look at this photo of Tracy Marciniak Seavers, holding the body of her son Zachariah. The photo was taken at Zachariah’s funeral. Tracy was seriously injured, and Zachariah was killed, by an assault during the ninth month of the pregnancy. Do you think this photograph shows one victim, or two?

I don’t have any *particular disdain *for any of these political parties. They have their good points and their bad points. They all have their good, bad and ugly candidates. Some candidates are good in some areas and bad in others and some are IMO downright evil.

The candidate we are discussing is favorable in many areas of prolife issues, and not so favorable in others. I do have the ability to look at these complexities and evaluate them based on what my conscience and the Church teaches me without having to resort to false reasoning.

 

[Listener]

Here are some thoughts I have regarding voting for pro-choice candidates.

1. The Catholic Catechism says we should vote. Voting in a frivolous manner is not really voting, in my book.
2. In many cases, all of the candidates are likely to be pro-choice.
3. The candidate who represents “the lesser of two evils” is pretty hard to determine. We aren’t blessed with the gift of reading someone else’s mind.
4. Even with the current abortion laws, no one is dragged kicking and screaming into an abortion provider’s office. If every woman made the choice not to have an abortion, there would be no abortions.
5. If you look on the USCCB Web Site, you will see that the statistics show that the top reason that a woman chooses abortion is lack of money.
6. The government says that all children have the right to a public school education. It does not, however, say that all children have a right to medical care.
7. A big part of not being able to afford children is not being able to afford medical care and medical insurance.

If both candidates are pro-choice, my vote will go to the candidate who believes in providing medical insurance to children. It will also go to the candidate who believes in a living wage for honest work.

 

[mary_bobo]

I disagree. I think it is OK to refuse to vote if there is no candidate who meets your personal criteria that you want a candidate to meet.

I think most of us would be hard pressed to find a candidate that meets all of our personal criteria. But by not voting, you are, in essence, not casting a vote for the lesser of the evils in which case, perhaps the most evil one will win. I guess I am old-fashioned, but I think it is our civic duty to vote. Guess that may be an odd concept these days.

 

[Listener]

I think most of us would be hard pressed to find a candidate that meets all of our personal criteria. But by not voting, you are, in essence, not casting a vote for the lesser of the evils in which case, perhaps the most evil one will win. I guess I am old-fashioned, but I think it is our civic duty to vote. Guess that may be an odd concept these days.

They say the one way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Just convince all of them to give up voting (they can’t vote because their standards are too high).

 

[RachelsAlumni]

QUOTE=Listener

Originally Posted by mary bobo
I think most of us would be hard pressed to find a candidate that meets all of our personal criteria. But by not voting, you are, in essence, not casting a vote for the lesser of the evils in which case, perhaps the most evil one will win.

They say the one way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Just convince all of them to give up voting (they can’t vote because their standards are too high).

Refusing to vote for someone that is a proponent of gravely immoral acts i.e. abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, torture, and unjust war is not ‘good men doing nothing’. It is good men opposing evil.

IMO casting a vote for someone who is proponent of evil is ‘doing nothing’ to stop them.

I realize no man/woman is perfect, but I have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and for me that line is abortion. Refusing to vote for such a person is a form of protest. That protest is doing something. It’s a loud & clear message to political parties that if they want my vote as my representative then they’re going to have to earn that by showing that their policies are representative of my values.

If I just continue to go along with whatever they choose for me then I’m like a lemming heading for the cliff.

I’ll do what I can in the Primaries to get an authentically prolife candidate elected to represent me. I will, in the General Election, vote for a candidate that represents me regardless of their percieved ability to win or party affiliation. If there are absolutely no candidates who meet my minimum requirements, authentically prolife, then I will submit a protest vote by not voting for an unaccetable choice.

 

[Brownginger]

I did not have the time to read through all of the posts here, so please forgive me if I repeat what has already been posted. The Priests for Life website (priestsforlife.org) states that we must vote, we must vote for the pro-life candidate where possible, and where not possible, we must vote for the candidate who will do the most to protect life.

Several years ago, I posted that I would never vote for anyone who was pro-choice. That was an ideal that most probably cannot be lived up to in this election. I have always liked Fred Thompson, even though he has a lot of baggage, but he just hasn’t been able to keep the fire going. There is time left for him to do so, but it is running out. It looks like Rudy will win the nomination.

I saw that there was discussion in this Forum about one Party having the right to the pro-life vote. That is probably correct, although it sounds almost undemocratic (small “d”). There are very few elected officeholders who are Democrats who can buck the Party as does Sen. Lieberman. For instance, the Democrat Governor of my State was a Catholic lay missionary, has a large family, all of the assets that should make a person someone for whom Catholics should vote. But he is pro-choice, unabashedly.

Perhaps it is something in the person’s background that causes him or her to join the Democrat Party; but, with very rare exceptions, once that person runs for political office, if that person truly aspires to victory, he or she must eventually support abortion.

It saddens me to see that the Republican Party has national candidates who are pro-choice in any form. But I cannot throw in the towel and let Hillary or Obama get elected without my voting against them. That will be what I will be doing – voting against the Democratic candidate. The ideal of never voting for a pro-choice candidate may make me feel good about myself for a while; but when the Democrat President begins the pro-choice agenda in all its ignominy, I would wish that I would have cast my vote against that person.

If the Republican Party were to split up and there is a third Party, that will spell total victory for those who want abortion. They will rejoice over the bones of the pro-lifers who held to their ideal while the unborn children are left to their fate.

 

[mary_bobo]

I did not have the time to read through all of the posts here, so please forgive me if I repeat what has already been posted. The Priests for Life website (priestsforlife.org) states that we must vote, we must for for the pro-life candidate where possible, and where not possible, we must vote for the candidate who will do the most to protect life.

Several years ago, I posted that I would never vote for anyone who was pro-choice. That was an ideal that most probably cannot be lived up to in this election. I have always liked Fred Thompson, even though he has a lot of baggage, but he just hasn’t been able to keep the fire going. There is time left for him to do so, but it is running out. It looks like Rudy will win the nomination.

I saw that there was discussion in this Forum about one Party having the right to the pro-life vote. That is probably correct, although it sounds almost undemocratic (small “d”). There are very few elected officeholders who are Democrats who can buck the Party as does Sen. Lieberman. For instance, the Democrat Governor of my State was a Catholic lay missionary, has a large family, all of the assets that should make a person someone for whom Catholics should vote. But he is pro-choice, unabashedly.

Perhaps it is something in the person’s background that causes him or her to join the Democrat Party; but, with very rare exceptions, once that person runs for political office, if that person truly aspires to victory, he or she must eventually support abortion.

It saddens me to see that the Republican Party has national candidates who are pro-choice in any form. But I cannot throw in the towel and let Hillary or Obama get elected without my voting against them. That will be what I will be doing – voting against the Democratic candidate. The ideal of never voting for a pro-choice candidate may make me feel good about myself for a while; but when the Democrat President begins the pro-choice agenda in all its ignominy, I would wish that I would have cast my vote against that person.

If the Republican Party were to split up and there is a third Party, that will spell total victory for those who want abortion. They will rejoice over the bones of the pro-lifers who held to their ideal while the unborn children are left to their fate.

There is wisdom in much of what you say. I am going to be interested to see what affect the Bernard Kerik indictment will have on Rudy’s campaign. There are three pro-life candidates on the GOP roster. Perhaps one of them will come forward before it is over with.

 

[bobzills]

I think most of us would be hard pressed to find a candidate that meets all of our personal criteria. But by not voting, you are, in essence, not casting a vote for the lesser of the evils in which case, perhaps the most evil one will win. I guess I am old-fashioned, but I think it is our civic duty to vote. Guess that may be an odd concept these days.

My opinion is different. I think it is my civic duty to refrain from voting when there is no suitable candidate for that office.

 

[LilyM]

Refusing to vote for someone that is a proponent of gravely immoral acts i.e. abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, torture, and unjust war is not ‘good men doing nothing’. It is good men opposing evil.

IMO casting a vote for someone who is proponent of evil is ‘doing nothing’ to stop them.

This can only possibly make sense if the candidates all know exactly why you’re refusing to vote. Only if you TELL them in exactly so many words - person to person - why you’re not voting for them. Send 'em each a letter or email or something.

Otherwise there’s no difference between you and those who fail to vote because they can’t be bothered or what have you.

Mind you to be consistent you must refuse to pay taxes to these perpetrators of evil. That supports them too, of course. And if you refuse to pay taxes you must also refuse all of the benefits these perpetrators of evil give you, since you have no right to them.

You must insist on paying full value for every medical service, every educational course, must never use public transport, must never use public libraries and avoid every other government-subsidised thing.

 

[melensdad]

If both candidates are pro-choice, my vote will go to the candidate who believes in providing medical insurance to children. It will also go to the candidate who believes in a living wage for honest work.

Interesting. Especially since the same candidates that propose universal health care are also in favor of public funding of abortions and public funding of fetal stem cell research and public funding of human cloning research and support the radical gay agenda and support euthanasia

Hmmm, all of those are NON-NEGOTIABLE points. So you are willing to ignore 4 of the 5 non-negotiable points in favor of a living wage, which is something that no politician has actually ever been able to define in real monetary terms!?!

Oh, and both major parties support health care for people living in poverty.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

LilyM
This can only possibly make sense if the candidates all know exactly why you’re refusing to vote. Only if you TELL them in exactly so many words - person to person - why you’re not voting for them. Send 'em each a letter or email or something.

Otherwise there’s no difference between you and those who fail to vote because they can’t be bothered or what have you.

Actually the major parties are very well aware that prolifers and/or social conservatives are opposing the nomination of a candidate that doesn’t match with the parties platform. There’s been quite alot of discussion about it in the news to the extent that they’re predicting this election may result in the winner receiving <40% of the vote.

There has also been quite a bit of debate that if social conservatives go along with a proabortion candidate then we will lost the party altogether. It’s not exactly an ‘unknown’ so no letter will be necessary. Just a refusal to cast my vote along with other social conservatives in masse will do the trick.

Mind you to be consistent you must refuse to pay taxes to these perpetrators of evil. That supports them too, of course. And if you refuse to pay taxes you must also refuse all of the benefits these perpetrators of evil give you, since you have no right to them.

The above is nothing more than a non-sequitur and false reasoning. One does not follow the other.

There’s a HUGE difference between refusing to vote FOR a candidate that supports, defends, promotes grave evil and paying taxes. In the first place I have no choice in paying taxes, as I do in voting. I am not legally bound to cast a vote as I am legally bound to pay taxes. If I were going to refuse to pay taxes for the sake of principle then I would have done that long ago rather than have my hard earned $$ go to providing abortions, torturing innocent people, and funding an unjust war. Unfortunately, I’m not given that choice.

I am bound by God, however, to follow my conscience and do what’s right. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s; give to God what is God’s.

 

[bobzills]

There’s a HUGE difference between refusing to vote FOR a candidate that supports, defends, promotes grave evil and paying taxes. In the first place I have no choice in paying taxes, as I do in voting. I am not legally bound to cast a vote as I am legally bound to pay taxes. If I were going to refuse to pay taxes for the sake of principle then I would have done that long ago rather than have my hard earned $$ go to providing abortions, torturing innocent people, and funding an unjust war. Unfortunately, I’m not given that choice.
.

This post makes a lot of sense to me. If there were a legal obligation to vote, then of course, in order to stay out of jail I would have to vote. But presently, voting is not obligatory by law. On the other hand, failure to pay taxes can result in a lengthy jail sentence, so it is better to pay your taxes, which I always do.
Also, if people refused to vote standing on their principles, then there would be only a few people voting. That could be taken as an indication of dissatisfaction with the slate of candidates and choices.

 

[LilyM]

Actually the major parties are very well aware that prolifers and/or social conservatives are opposing the nomination of a candidate that doesn’t match with the parties platform. There’s been quite alot of discussion about it in the news to the extent that they’re predicting this election may result in the winner receiving <40% of the vote.

There has also been quite a bit of debate that if social conservatives go along with a proabortion candidate then we will lost the party altogether. It’s not exactly an ‘unknown’ so no letter will be necessary. Just a refusal to cast my vote along with other social conservatives in masse will do the trick.

But who the heck knows that YOU, RA, aren’t voting because YOU are a social conservative? It’s not like you get ‘social conservative’ or ‘prolifer’ stamped on your drivers’ licence or tattooed on your forehead so that it’s on public record or something.

If YOU don’t make YOUR individual position clear to the politicians then you’re no better nor different in any way from the great unwashed who don’t vote because they can’t be bothered. A protest is only a protest - or at least only a sensible and effective one - if those you are protesting against know that you’re doing it!

There’s a HUGE difference between refusing to vote FOR a candidate that supports, defends, promotes grave evil and paying taxes. In the first place I have no choice in paying taxes, as I do in voting. I am not legally bound to cast a vote as I am legally bound to pay taxes.

If I were going to refuse to pay taxes for the sake of principle then I would have done that long ago rather than have my hard earned $$ go to providing abortions, torturing innocent people, and funding an unjust war. Unfortunately, I’m not given that choice.

No choice? Someone’s holding a gun to your head forcing you to pay taxes are they? Of course you have a choice. You can refuse to pay and take the consequences. It’s a hard choice, of course, such as the martyrs of Rome made when they refused to worship pagan gods. But the truth is you support those politicians you dislike so much way more effectively with your tax $$ than your vote.

I am bound by God, however, to follow my conscience and do what’s right. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s; give to God what is God’s.

And you owe Caesar, in return for the goodies he provides, your participation in the political process. Either by voting or by making a genuine, principled and public protest. Not by merely failing to vote - you think any politician even notices if you merely don’t show up as long as someone does show up, let alone caring???

This post makes a lot of sense to me. If there were a legal obligation to vote, then of course, in order to stay out of jail I would have to vote. But presently, voting is not obligatory by law. On the other hand, failure to pay taxes can result in a lengthy jail sentence, so it is better to pay your taxes, which I always do.
Also, if people refused to vote standing on their principles, then there would be only a few people voting. That could be taken as an indication of dissatisfaction with the slate of candidates and choices.

‘Could be taken’ that you’re dissatisfied? Wishy-washy. Politicians will not even bother trying to find out why people don’t vote unless the people tell 'em why.

Governments have run quite smoothly in the past with no voting happening at all, let alone with a small number of people voting - and I suspect many of them see voters as being rather in the way than anything else.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

But who the heck knows that YOU, RA, aren’t voting because YOU are a social conservative? It’s not like you get ‘social conservative’ or ‘prolifer’ stamped on your drivers’ licence or tattooed on your forehead so that it’s on public record or something.

The news sources I’ve been reading have been talking a great deal about the split in the Republican Party’s base. How do they know this? Have all these social conservatives been writing and calling since they don’t have it stamped on their licenses and foreheads? Some news sources say that around 36% will either vote for a third party or not vote at all. How do they come up with that number? Since I’m a registered Republican and have voted in every election so far I’m sure that I will be included in that 36% that didn’t give the Republicans my vote in 2008 if there’s no true prolife, social conservative on the ticket. They know that out of X number of registered voters in this or that district that only X% actually turned out to vote. How do they know that?

I will, however, be sure I let the party know when they call my house to ask for my vote exactly what my concerns are.

And you owe Caesar, in return for the goodies he provides, your participation in the political process.

Actually I owe God for the goodies He provides. It’s not my government that provides, it’s God. Jesus said “Give to Ceaser that which is Ceasar’s; Give to God that which is God’s”.

My government does not make voting in an election compulsory so why are you? and any benefits I receive by living in the US aren’t dependent on my participating in that process. A felon is not allowed to vote yet a felon still receives the benefits of living in this country. I’m not following your reasoning on this one at all. It is not a crime to refuse to vote. It’s actually my right to vote, or not!

you think any politician even notices if you merely don’t show up as long as someone does show up, let alone caring???

I don’t care whether they care or not. It’s more a matter for me of following my conscience and exercising my rights.

They do notice however.

‘Could be taken’ that you’re dissatisfied? Wishy-washy.

I don’t care ‘how that’s taken’. In my book, wishy-washy is someone who doesn’t stand by their convictions and will vote the party line regardless.

Governments have run quite smoothly in the past with no voting happening at all, let alone with a small number of people voting - and I suspect many of them see voters as being rather in the way than anything else

I disagree. Otherwise they wouldn’t spend billions to get our votes, have televised debates, travel around the country moblizing their base and ‘getting out the vote’. Especially in such close elections as the past decade has experienced. But in any event your argument doesn’t make sense. On one hand you are saying my vote counts, but on the other hand you’re saying my vote doesn’t count.

 

[LilyM]

The news sources I’ve been reading have been talking a great deal about the split in the Republican Party’s base. How do they know this? Have all these social conservatives been writing and calling since they don’t have it stamped on their licenses and foreheads? Some news sources say that around 36% will either vote for a third party or not vote at all. How do they come up with that number? Since I’m a registered Republican and have voted in every election so far I’m sure that I will be included in that 36% that didn’t give the Republicans my vote in 2008 if there’s no true prolife, social conservative on the ticket. They know that out of X number of registered voters in this or that district that only X% actually turned out to vote. How do they know that?

I will, however, be sure I let the party know when they call my house to ask for my vote exactly what my concerns are.

God doesn’t care about percentages. God cares about you as an individual proclaiming His truth. Can you really expect to stand before Him with a straight face and say 'oh but I was one of the 36% that they can logically deduce didn’t vote etc etc… ’ Not nearly good enough when you’re talking about fighting legalised murder of the unborn.

My government does not make voting in an election compulsory so why are you?

Because the CHURCH has made it compulsory. The Catechism says in black and white that we’re all obliged to vote.

and any benefits I receive by living in the US aren’t dependent on my participating in that process. A felon is not allowed to vote yet a felon still receives the benefits of living in this country. I’m not following your reasoning on this one at all. It is not a crime to refuse to vote. It’s actually my right to vote, or not!

Every Catholic is morally obliged TO vote. The Catechism makes this abundantly clear. Therefore it’s a moral failing to not vote. Legal rights don’t matter when it comes to your moral obligations. It isn’t a crime to have an abortion either, and it’s actually your right to have one (legally speaking). Does that mean it’s morally OK for you to have one? Not a sin? Of course it isn’t, neither is it morally OK to not vote.

And felons DON’T ‘have the benefits of living in this country’. Not by a long shot. They have no liberty - no choice in where to live or what to do with their time - for one thing. Their choice of job, when they leave prison, is severely restricted, many many places simply won’t hire former felons. They may be denied passports or be unable to travel in many parts of the world. And as you yourself said, they can’t vote - which in itself is a benefit of living in the US!!!