J
JimG
Guest
You mean as in solidly supporting abortion? Some do, but I don’t vote for them. All the Dem presidential candidates are pro-abortion. I voted for JFK, and for Ronald Reagan; neither was pro-abortion.
Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?
- Thread starter Willing_Spirit
- Start date
- Status
M
Metis1
Guest
The issue of abortion is important, no doubt, but it’s not the only moral teaching by the Church that we need to consider.
What all too many on the religious right are doing is using abortion as a smokescreen to cover their right-wing and largely secular political agenda to defend the utterly depraved actions and words of Donald J. Trump.
So, I’ll set up a choice: Trump or Jesus: pick 1. To say both implies that Trump is basically as moral as was Jesus. Or, as a former priest at our church used to say: “Joe thought he was going to heaven for what he did on Sunday, but he went to hell for what he did on Monday”. IOW, Trump’s overall actions simply cannot be defended if one truly believes in Jesus and his Church.
To put it another way, it is unethical to defend Trump’s behavior by claiming that abortion is the litmus test and that all other Church teachings simply don’t much matter in comparison.
What all too many on the religious right are doing is using abortion as a smokescreen to cover their right-wing and largely secular political agenda to defend the utterly depraved actions and words of Donald J. Trump.
So, I’ll set up a choice: Trump or Jesus: pick 1. To say both implies that Trump is basically as moral as was Jesus. Or, as a former priest at our church used to say: “Joe thought he was going to heaven for what he did on Sunday, but he went to hell for what he did on Monday”. IOW, Trump’s overall actions simply cannot be defended if one truly believes in Jesus and his Church.
To put it another way, it is unethical to defend Trump’s behavior by claiming that abortion is the litmus test and that all other Church teachings simply don’t much matter in comparison.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
This sounds like the “seamless garment” approach, which has been such a dismal failure. All it did was to keep the Church quiet about abortion, because after all, killing a million innocent unborn children is not the only thing.
D
drcube
Guest
45 years of legal abortion and you’re calling the seamless garment approach a dismal failure. Please. Tying abortion to a single party and demanding everyone vote for that party is the dismal failure.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Sounds like having your cake and eating it, too.
Since “seventy percent of voters in the nation wants abortion safe, legal, and rare” abortion laws are safe from both parties. Yet, if one party or individual states attempt any kind of change at all, that is merely “some showy things around the margins.”
Either way current abortion laws are unassailable, the impression being that abortion laws are quite safe from change because they are protected BOTH from 1) small changes that, according to you, have no impact, and 2) wholesale dismantling that the “seventy percent” majority doesn’t want.
Must make the advocates of abortion do the happy dance knowing that even Catholics who oppose abortion are so helpless to make any difference, abetted by Catholics who decry any change whatsoever as “showy things around the edges.”
“The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.” ~Confucius
“He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” (Luke 16:10) ~Jesus
Stairs are climbed step by step. ~ Kurdish Proverb
A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. ~ Japanese Proverbs
Small steps are showy things around the margins. ~@dvdjs
Also @dvdjs: Make no moves on the abortion issue because such moves are always merely disguises for “tax cuts for rich, increasing deficits, and driving a wedge on immigration.”
So, no big changes because “the substantial majority” won’t permit them, and no small changes because they are merely political wedges which amount to voting for a Godot who will never show up.
How is your view not merely creating your own wedge to push forward Democrat policies as if tax cuts, controlled immigration, a healthy economy, freedom of religion, deregulation, smaller government, etc., should only be viewed negatively through the eyes of a progressive leftist Democrat?
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
I’m not tying abortion to a single party. The Democrats did that. It would be nice if they would at least allow diversity on the issue. But that hasn’t happened for decades.
P
pnewton
Guest
Really? Then do you often vote third party so the stance on abortion is the only issue? Would you not allow at least one other issue, that of electability could enter into one’s decision?
Why does this matter? Because if what is desired is to stop as many killings of babies as possible, and if whether a candidate is one of the two major parties deemed more electable is a practical consideration, then at minimum it demonstrates that practical means of stopping abortion might take precedence for some Catholics.
P
pnewton
Guest
Sad, but true. However, there are occasional exceptions and I would hope for the good of breaking this devilish bond those few pro-life Democrats receive support.
J
JimG
Guest
They will, but not from the party leaders.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
In Chapter 11 there is something called the “absolute priority rule”. If the owner(s) want to keep ownership, they have to pay everybody in full. That doesn’t mean they can’t contest bogus or exaggerated claims. This time, really look it up.
Written contracts? If your state requires them for a lien, then it’s harder on contractors than you think Trump is. Of course, “written agreement” could be nothing but an “account stated”. It is in some contexts.
Trump is a businessman and a large target. At present there are about 500 cases pending against Walmart alone. Lowe’s is somewhere around 200. Most of them will be dismissed eventually.
Written contracts? If your state requires them for a lien, then it’s harder on contractors than you think Trump is. Of course, “written agreement” could be nothing but an “account stated”. It is in some contexts.
Trump is a businessman and a large target. At present there are about 500 cases pending against Walmart alone. Lowe’s is somewhere around 200. Most of them will be dismissed eventually.
D
drcube
Guest
It’s interesting to me that you are defending Trump as an honest businessman when I have seen it pointed out to you many time by many posters with many links on how he is not. And yet you go back to defending Trump despite this evidence. Do you not remember that people have pointed evidence out to you already when you make posts like this or do you somehow reject them as invalid? Or something else? I’d love to hear your explanation.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence no matter how many anti-Trumpers call him names. The burden is not on me to prove he is innocent of all imaginable crimes. It’s on those who claim he has committed crimes. If you think you can prove he committed a crime, go ahead. Nobody else has done so yet, despite Dems working on it for nearly four years now.
No vague generalities, please, facts and the law(s) broken only.
No vague generalities, please, facts and the law(s) broken only.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This thread is not about finding Trump legally guilty of crimes. It is about individuals’ opinions of him for purposes of voting. Voters do not need to prove their case in a court of law. They do not need to find Trump guilty of a crime to decide that in their opinion he is a clear danger to this country, and the most corrupt President in US history. People can make up their own minds based on what they believe is true. If you want to change their minds, you need to do so on a level that they find persuasive. Demanding legal proof of a crime is not persuasive.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
So you agree that this whole impeachment scam is really about changing public opinion re Trump so as to sway the 2020 election in the Dems favor?
Since they don’t have a solid platform or any candidates capable of swaying votes they have to resort to underhanded measures to do so.
What a sad commentary on their ethics,or lack thereof I should say.
Since they don’t have a solid platform or any candidates capable of swaying votes they have to resort to underhanded measures to do so.
What a sad commentary on their ethics,or lack thereof I should say.
D
drcube
Guest
No, it’s about Trump extorting Ukraine by withholding US taxpayer money earmarked for the Ukraine by Congress until they investigate his political enemies.
D
drcube
Guest
Haven’t I answered this question at least three times? Do you not read my posts when I reply to you?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I wasn’t referring to impeachment at all. I was trying to get the thread back on the track started with the first posting. It was about voting, not impeachment. And it asked for personal opinions.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Duly noted
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I responded appropriately to another’s post.
Since you seem to think Trump is a clear danger to the country, do you care to tell us the basis of that in concrete, non-speculative, terms?
And what corrupt acts has he performed as president?
Since you seem to think Trump is a clear danger to the country, do you care to tell us the basis of that in concrete, non-speculative, terms?
And what corrupt acts has he performed as president?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I do think that, but it is my opinion and I am not pushing it on anyone else.
- Status