Why I Was Pro-Kerry (What Makes This So Wrong?)

[Karynna_Raye]

I was recently reviewing posts off of the Life Teen website, as I’ve not been able to do so in awhile, and I came across the usual political debates on this years election. Although most Catholics say that to have voted for Kerry was religiously wrong, I find, however, that I vehemently disagree. Are church and state not to be kept seperate? I realize that as only a returning Catholic, my viewpoints may hold extreme errors, and ask that any reading this please bear with me. I have copied and pasted my post from Lifeteen here, which I hope none will take offense to as it’s written in a more forceful way than I would use with anyone on these message boards.Feel free to comment and correct any flawed logic, as I am posting this here for that sole purpose.

Originally stated by Remnance on LifeTeen:
I would first like to clarify that while I am not trying to re-initiate any arguments on these message boards (especially since the election has long since past), I was finally able to find time to look through all of the posts that I have been missing and found some of them rather offensive. It isn’t that others share a different viewpoint than I, that I celebrate and even encourage, as long as an informed decision was made. Kerry was NOT pro-abortion, he was pro- CHOICE, and the two hold entirely different meanings. Kerry has made statements to the effect that while he believes that abortion is wrong, he also believes that in the U.S., one does not have the right to tell another what sort of choice they must make. As wrong as abortion may be, I, nor Kerry, or anyone else can force another person to make the right, informed decision. As for his support of StemCell research, should abortion be allowed to take place, it would be better to have something good come of the evil than nothing good at all, and nothing good from abortion exists on its own. StemCell research would help to save lives, and while it certainly would not condone or make up for the young lives lost, it would create progress in another area of life. Again, neither I, nor Kerry am pro-abortion, we are simply pro-CHOICE. And really, what greater gift did God give us but the freedom of choice? Of course, it is our responsibility as individuals to make the right choice, but as I’ve stated before, no one can control the actions or degenerate choices of others. On the subject of the war on terrorism, I can see very little that Bush has done that would constitute actual progress. All that I have seen so far is useless bloodshed, reminiscent of how Vietnam started (if you’ll notice, Missouri, a state full of Vietnam Vets voted decidedly Kerry). Not only that, but the people who were most affected by the 9-11 attacks (i.e. NYC citizens) are abhorred by the actions Bush took, and rightfully so. He took on a war that need not happen, a war that is taking no real direction and has instead only served to gain us the ill will of countries who once held little qualms about the U.S. Ever more revealing, the very place where Bush resides, and the very people who he would come into contact with most often (the nation’s capitol, D.C.), voted Kerry in a landslide. It seems to me as though they must know something even more unsavory and untrustworthy about our current President. (Continued in Next Post)

 

[Karynna_Raye]

(Continued from above)
As for the right to Gay Marriages, the issue is not rather or not gay marriage is morally right, for as most Catholics, I believe Gay Marriage is in fact wrong (though I do put into practice the idea of hating the Sin, and not the person committing it), but instead rather or not they should be allowed to be LEGALLY married. This is not a marriage before God, but instead a way in that all citizens of the U.S. be treated fairly and equally, and without a legal document stating that the couple is, in fact, married, homosexuals are denied many of the benifits that are given to other married couples in the U.S. To deny homosexuals these rights is to give into blind prejudice and nothing more. Many religious groups argue that to see a homosexual couple together would be disrespectful to their beliefs, when this argument is proven invalid by way of hypocrisy. If you are saying that the Constitution states Religious beliefs not be imposed upon, then why are you trying to impose upon theirs? And not only that, but they are NOT imposing on your beliefs because they are simply LIVING their beliefs unashamed, which the Constitution staes they have the right to do, and not imposing at all. Finally, the Constiution states that Church and law remain seperate, and NOWHERE does any legal document state that marriage is between a man and a women. Your moral beliefs hold no ground here, as the law is not based off of morality. Finally, in the second Presidential debate, Bush deliberately lied (or was embarrassingly misinformed) to the Nation by denying that he owned a logging company when, in fact, CNN was able to find proof that he did, like Kerry had stated, own a logging company. If our President would lie to us about something like that, then what else have we been told out of dishonesty? As Ralph Nader stated, “Bush is an oversized Corporation disguised as a man.” I agree with this statement in full, and would like to add that had Nader held any chance at winning the election, I would have been behind him in full, not because of his statement of Bush, but because his intellect is quite impressive.This type of intellect is needed so that informed, decisions are made off of an objective viewpoint that allows the whole truth to be seen, and not clouded by personal beliefs. That said, I would like to close by stating that I would like to have a President who is smarter than, if not as smart, as I am, and as one should be able to see in the disorganization of his addresses to the public (when the address is impromtu and the speeches not pre-written by someone other than Bush himself), Bush fails to fit this bill. I do not believe that to be Pro-Kerry was to be anti-Catholic and will stand firm in this belief until adequate reaonsing or evidence is given that would convince me to do otherwise.

Love Always and From,

Karynna Raye

 

[Vincent]

Here’s an edited version of my reply to an email I received recently:

It’s reasonable that the government allow people to make their own choices. However, it’s equally reasonable that the government make certain choices illegal, like rape, theft and the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. And I think you would agree that such choices ought to be made illegal not because they fundamentally at odds with the Catholic faith, but because they are fundamentally at odds with our humanity, which any one of us, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, can recognize using reason alone.

If we can conclude, using reason alone and without resorting to any religious tradition, that abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being and that the deliberate killing of an innocent human being should be made illegal, then we can conclude that abortion should be made illegal.

 

[St3746]

Karynna_Raye:

All that I have seen so far is useless bloodshed, reminiscent of how Vietnam started (if you’ll notice, Missouri, a state full of Vietnam Vets voted decidedly Kerry)

I don’t really have the time to reply to everything, but I would like to point out that Missouri voted for Bush, not Kerry (53% vs 46%).

news.yahoo.com/electionresults

I will leave everything else in the capable hands of everybody else on this forum.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Im not here to judge your decision. If you felt in your heart you made the right decision using Godly wisdom who am I to say it was wrong.You are not responsable to me for your actions.Each one of us will approach the throne room before our Lord. It is to Him you will justify your actions. The past is now behind you and you need to stop dwelling on it. You can only change what is to come. Just remember there is no condemnation for those who are in Jesus Christ. God Bless.

 

[Karynna_Raye]

Origianally posted by St3746:
don’t really have the time to reply to everything, but I would like to point out that Missouri voted for Bush, not Kerry (53% vs 46%).

This I must apologize for, after reading your post I re-checked my sources and am rather frustrated to find that they posted a retraction on that particular piece of information only very recently. But thank you for the correction .

Originally posted by SPOKENWORD:
The past is now behind you and you need to stop dwelling on it. You can only change what is to come.

I’m not trying to dwell, I only feel that if I’ve made a mistake, I need to know exactly why so I will not make it again when I make those future decisions.
.

 

[Makerteacher]

Separation of church and state is one thing. However, one cannot and must not separate one’s faith from one’s actions in the world. A Catholic must be a Catholic in ALL that they do, from how they parent to whether they take home paperclips from their offices, including in voting. Our Magisterium has made it very clear that abortion is murder, period, and that we must do all we can to fight abortion. Therefore, supporting a candidate who backs the so-called “right to choose” violates one’s Catholicity.

No doubt I will take some heat for this, but to me it is loigical and reasonable to expect Catholics to follow their Church’s clearly stated positions, even in the voting booth, even in the bedroom, even at work, in the way they invest money, in the way they do business, EVERYWHERE.

That said, I may disagree completely with your support of Kerry, but I applaud you for voting and for caring and for pursuing more understanding on this.

 

[chicago]

I would also take issue with the idea that John Kerry is not pro-abortion. It was clear that his position was that he would actively commit himself, as President, to doing things which would further solidify and likely increase (or at least perpetuate) abortion in the U.S. rather than either taking steps to possibly reverse the trend or doing no more than simply tolerating what already exists. Minimally, (were he truly, as you say, “pro-choice”) he might have offerred the same rhetoric as George Bush did about not making a judge’s position on Roe V Wade a litmus test for appontment to the Supreme Court. Yet Kerry was adament that any appointment he might make would only be for someone who he was confident would uphold the decision. His position on embryonic stem cell research (which requires the direct killing of an growing person) is also abhorrant and would, necessarily, increase the killing (rather than merely making use of what would already happen through natural death as you seem to errantly suggest).

In any case, it really is not even permissible for a Catholic to be merely “pro-choice” as this amounts to an abandonment of our pregnant sisters who are going through a time of trial rather than reaching out to them, even with legal deterrants, to help them in a time of need.

 

[Karynna_Raye]

Originally posted by chicago:
His position on embryonic stem cell research (which requires the direct killing of an growing person) is also abhorrant and would, necessarily, increase the killing (rather than merely making use of what would already happen through natural death as you seem to errantly suggest).

I have to wonder at your use of the word errantly, for it sounds as though you are far too disugusted with my current oppinions on Kerry and abortion (which are, through logical deduction, currently undergoing a slow but persistent change…) to not take offence. If this isn’t so, than I ask that you exscuse my presumption, but if it is, in all fairness, I did admit in my first post that I have been away from the Catholic faith and therefore may not be as well informed as needed. Not only that, but my whole reason for posting my views here is so that I may obtain a clearer and more truthful vision of the issue at hand, instead of relying on the oppinions of those who I live with (all decidedly Kerry, my mother being distant from the Church and therefore not available to unbiased teachings of the Catholic faith which may have prevented any ignorance that I have regarding the church and what it really means to be, and follow, the Catholic teachings).

 

[Karynna_Raye]

Originally posted by chicago:
His position on embryonic stem cell research (which requires the direct killing of an growing person) is also abhorrant and would, necessarily, increase the killing (rather than merely making use of what would already happen through natural death as you seem to errantly suggest).

My position was not that stem cell research would make use of natural death, but, should the law state pro-choice, the inevitable deaths of those who are aborted through the morally incorrect, but nonetheless free, choice of the mother. If abortion were to remain legal to preserve the right for others to make a decision based off of their own personal, moral beliefs, then StemCell research would ensure, however horrible the deaths may be, that the child did not die in vain. To use only the already deceased would provide for the research, therefore making more killing unecessary.

 

[Karynna_Raye]

Originally posted by chicago:
His position on embryonic stem cell research (which requires the direct killing of an growing person) is also abhorrant and would, necessarily, increase the killing (rather than merely making use of what would already happen through natural death as you seem to errantly suggest).

I have to wonder at your use of the word errantly, for it sounds as though you are far too disugusted with my current oppinions on Kerry and abortion (which are, through logical deduction, currently undergoing a slow but persistent change…) to not take offence. If this isn’t so, than I ask that you exscuse my presumption, but if it is, in all fairness, I did admit in my first post that I have been away from the Catholic faith and therefore may not be as well informed as needed. Not only that, but my whole reason for posting my views here is so that I may obtain a clearer and more truthful vision of the issue at hand, instead of relying on the oppinions of those who I live with (all decidedly Kerry, my mother being distant from the Church and therefore not available to unbiased teachings of the Catholic faith which may have prevented any ignorance that I have regarding the church and what it really means to be, and follow, the Catholic teachings).

---

 

[chicago]

Karynna_Raye:

My position was not that stem cell research would make use of natural death, but, should the law state pro-choice, the inevitable deaths of those who are aborted through the morally incorrect, but nonetheless free, choice of the mother. If abortion were to remain legal to preserve the right for others to make a decision based off of their own personal, moral beliefs, then StemCell research would ensure, however horrible the deaths may be, that the child did not die in vain. To use only the already deceased would provide for the research, therefore making more killing unecessary.

Yes, I understood your position perfectly. What I believe that you are failing to understand is the nature of how such embryonic stem cells are procured. It is not a matter of being able to use for potential good something which is the remains of an abortion that occurred through the (supposed) free choice of a woman. (Most women who have abortions will relate that the reasons they aborted amounted to feeling that they had no freedom and no other choice). Rather, the embryo dies specifically as a result of the procuring of the cells. So your entire basis, is therefore, unfounded as the only and entire reason for the death of the embryo is directly in order to procure the cells.

 

[chicago]

Karynna_Raye:

I have to wonder at your use of the word errantly, for it sounds as though you are far too disugusted with my current oppinions on Kerry and abortion (which are, through logical deduction, currently undergoing a slow but persistent change…) to not take offence. If this isn’t so, than I ask that you exscuse my presumption, but if it is, in all fairness, I did admit in my first post that I have been away from the Catholic faith and therefore may not be as well informed as needed. Not only that, but my whole reason for posting my views here is so that I may obtain a clearer and more truthful vision of the issue at hand, instead of relying on the oppinions of those who I live with (all decidedly Kerry, my mother being distant from the Church and therefore not available to unbiased teachings of the Catholic faith which may have prevented any ignorance that I have regarding the church and what it really means to be, and follow, the Catholic teachings).

---

My use of the word “errantly” is in relation to, as I outlined in my last response, what apperas to be an errant understanding on your part of how these stem cell lines are procured. It is, then, a matter not so much of understanding the faith, but the science which I was touching upon.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Karynna_Raye:

This I must apologize for, after reading your post I re-checked my sources and am rather frustrated to find that they posted a retraction on that particular piece of information only very recently. But thank you for the correction .

I’m not trying to dwell, I only feel that if I’ve made a mistake, I need to know exactly why so I will not make it again when I make those future decisions.
.

The only mistake we make is when we go against what God says.

 

[St3746]

Karynna_Raye:

This I must apologize for, after reading your post I re-checked my sources and am rather frustrated to find that they posted a retraction on that particular piece of information only very recently. But thank you for the correction

Don’t worry about it - I’ve done the same thing a number of times. But as someone who got a little too emotionally involved in this election, I felt that I had to set the record straight.

 

[Karynna_Raye]

Originally posted by chicago:
Rather, the embryo dies specifically as a result of the procuring of the cells. So your entire basis, is therefore, unfounded as the only and entire reason for the death of the embryo is directly in order to procure the cells.

Ah, I see what you’re saying now. Thank you for the clarification, it seems I’m in need of alot of it, if I’m to be perfectly honest with myself.

I also see what you’re saying, SPOKENWORD, as I’m beginning to understand how seperating Church from State is more difficult than I originally thought, if one is to remain loyal to their faith…Which leads to more confusion on my part about where I should really stand… …??? (though I understand all of your points, I must begin to wonder if I’ve been avoiding the truth of the situation for other reason(s).)

 

[mtr01]

Karynna_Raye:

I also see what you’re saying, SPOKENWORD, as I’m beginning to understand how seperating Church from State is more difficult than I originally thought, if one is to remain loyal to their faith

Also keep in mind that nowhere does the Constitution describe a “separation between church and state”. This is a common fallacy. The Constitution does have an anti-establishment clause…that is it prohibits the founding of a “state church”, but the main point was to make sure everyone could worship the way they wanted. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits an elected official from bringing their religious convictions with them into office, and acting accordingly.

 

[quintessential5]

Karynna_Raye:

Your moral beliefs hold no ground here, as the law is not based off of morality.

I’ve always wondered about this. So what is the law based off of? What we think will be best for society? What is best for society? To do that which is moral.

I ask this out of honest curiosity to anyone…What else could be the basis for law? I have struggled to find the best criterion for evaluating what should or should not be legislated and this is the best I can come up with.

 

[quintessential5]

Karynna_Raye:

As for the right to Gay Marriages, the issue is not rather or not gay marriage is morally right, for as most Catholics, I believe Gay Marriage is in fact wrong (though I do put into practice the idea of hating the Sin, and not the person committing it), but instead rather or not they should be allowed to be LEGALLY married. This is not a marriage before God, but instead a way in that all citizens of the U.S. be treated fairly and equally, and without a legal document stating that the couple is, in fact, married, homosexuals are denied many of the benifits that are given to other married couples in the U.S. To deny homosexuals these rights is to give into blind prejudice and nothing more. Many religious groups argue that to see a homosexual couple together would be disrespectful to their beliefs, when this argument is proven invalid by way of hypocrisy. If you are saying that the Constitution states Religious beliefs not be imposed upon, then why are you trying to impose upon theirs? And not only that, but they are NOT imposing on your beliefs because they are simply LIVING their beliefs unashamed, which the Constitution staes they have the right to do, and not imposing at all.

There are a few corrections to make here. Marriage is not some secular institution, it is inherently a religious one. It wasn’t that the state set up some stipulations for what a marriage entails, rather the state definition of marriage is based on a religious institution. I believe all religious traditions would agree that marriage is a calling. No one has a “right” to be married. It is rightly a vocation. It is just like the priesthood… a woman cannot say she is called to be a priest as Christ through her church has taught. Likewise, a homosexual couple cannot say they are called to be married, as God has designed marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Moreover, I don’t think the problem is simply seeing a homosexual couple. The reason the state has given tax breaks and such to married couples is that it is universally recognized that the family is the building block of society. One can assert that a child statistically will grow up better if they have a strong and healthy family life. That is not to say that a child in a dysfunctional family will grow up completely messed up, only that healthy marriages do society a great service.

The overarching point is that many people believe that our stances on morality can be derived solely from the natural law. For a good book on this, see The Clash of Orthodoxies by Robert P. George.

 

[Karynna_Raye]

Originally posted by quintessential5 :
I’ve always wondered about this. So what is the law based off of? What we think will be best for society? What is best for society? To do that which is moral.

While morality might be best for society overall, the law is based off of what will give the country progress in a way that none other can: the purpose is to be sure that the country has a basis, a set way of how things should be that will work for all. As an example, even those who would do something as abhorrent as take the life of another (and here I must thank Vince for changing my views on pro-choice, as I believe I may soon be swayed to pro- life, though I don’t see how I could have missed the sound logic in your position in the first place) are still granted the same and equal rights that more respectable citizens hold. If that could occur from something as morally incorrect as murder, then I fail to see why homosexuals should not be able to keep their rights on equal stance with* everyone* elses. Unfortunately, in many cases, the law does not protect you morally, but in a very detached, unemotional way: i.e. it doesn’t matter if your morality is protected individually, but only that society has the general appearance of being so.I hope this is clear…I simply mean to say that law, in its current form, is not meant to serve any individuals stance on right or wrong, but meant to see things in an objective light: to be sure that even those who carry less conventional views on moral issues will still hold as much power as those whose views are (even if they are, in fact, only wishing for the common good of society) more conservative in their viewpoints. It is designed to ensure the personal choice of everyone, and as no one holds exactly the same viewpoint of what right or wrong really is, morality cannot be used but in only the most elementary ways, ways that most everyone agrees on, such as murder or rape. The other issues are far too varied, and too easily argued from either side, if the law began to start to take into account every varying moral argument, and choosing their side off of their own oppinions, then no one in socitey would hold equal power or equal freedom with those next to them. Things could be swayed for the worse: for example, if someone was to get a law voted in that stated that every person must hold the exact same beliefs, and as a result, everyone must become protestant (there is nothing wrong with being protestant, I mean “changed for the worse” simply in the way that no one would have the freedom to make their religious denomination decision on their own accord) because the person who would create such a law believed that, say, Catholics, held faith in what was morally wrong, and therefore could no longer practice it, then virtually the same thing that is happening to homosexuals is going on there. The fact remains that the law must remain impartial to moral/religious beliefs to ensure that the rights of everyone are protected, no matter what they may believe.
I hope this was helpful, and feel free to comment further…