Yep that makes perfect sense…right along the lines of those who claim Obama is pro life and supports religious freedom. Too bad George Orwell is dead. He could use today’s political climate to write a new version of l984…up is down, black is white and Obama is pro life. A vote for Obama is a vote for healthy babies! Indeed!
Ones political philosophy has nothing to do with adhering to the teachings of the Church. Go back to the posts were he made the ridiculous assertion that obama was pro-life, gave as evidence an article in an non-catholic magazine and then dismissed the direct refutation of that idea from two bishops and the Pope, and now you, to my great surprise, dismiss those who challenge him as being nothing more a conservative dogmatists. you actually paint him as the victim!
Archbishop Chaput adresses that also:
This is a plain disingenuous comment. How about calling Ron Paul supporters fanatics? You have REPEATEDLY mocked perhaps the most pro-life member of Congress and don’t even bother stating reasons why. If you feel that his supporters are duping you, can you at least specify how you come to that conclusion?
Bob, I’m not going to get into a discussion or argument with you over the statements of a third party. I’ll let the poster defend himself. I was just pointing out to him, in a lighthearted way, that many on this Forum are conservative in their politics; I did not use the words dogmatic or even ideological.
Sorry Posted before I thought
I wasnt talking about Ron Paul.
Apology accepted, but really no need: we all do that.
I’m starting to think you’re less interested in civil discussions and more interested in poking with sticks. I’ve stated numerous times that I support neither Democrats nor Republicans, I never tried to convince anyone that Obama is pro-life (in fact I quite plainly state that he is pro-choice), and until he says “everyone has to be athiest” I’ll stand by my statement that he supports religious freedoms (talk about hyperbole). I never said anything that’s not in line with the infallible teachings of the Church (feel free to scroll back through posts to prove me wrong).
I mean, honestly, it’s getting harder and harder to take you guys seriously. I never attacked Church teachings, I never said Obama was pro-life. I said he wasn’t pro-abortion, therein lies the difference. You’ve continually misinterpreted things I’ve said and then continued to paint me in a negative light. I’m not assailing the Church, I’m disagreeing with you. Oh, and the bishop too, I disagree with him quite a bit. But I’m well within my rights as a Catholic to do so, the bishop is not incorruptible, what he says is not the pope speaking ex cathedra.
OK TI, tell me what speck of evidence indicates he is NOT pro-abortion? We have provided you with many examples of his philosophy being not simply pro-choice which I attribute to ignorance rather than an understanding of what is actually happening in an abortion.
TI, actually I know you don’t support Republicans or Democrats. The majority of your early posts were on the subject of creating some sort of “Catholic” party. However you have been very obvious in your support for Democrat positions on the area of taxation, massive government social programs and giving the party a ‘pass’ on abortion because they are willing to tax some of us to IMO buy a voting bloc consisting of those who have become dependent on the government either for goodies or to protect their business interests.I’m starting to think you’re less interested in civil discussions and more interested in poking with sticks. I’ve stated numerous times that I support neither Democrats nor Republicans, I never tried to convince anyone that Obama is pro-life (in fact I quite plainly state that he is pro-choice), and until he says “everyone has to be athiest” I’ll stand by my statement that he supports religious freedoms (talk about hyperbole). I never said anything that’s not in line with the infallible teachings of the Church (feel free to scroll back through posts to prove me wrong).
Lisa, you say you vote on a basis of individuality. Does that mean you completely ignore the fact that the parties act as collectives? Would you at least admit that the Republican party is not in line (not even close) with the Church’s social teachings? You can say it is on abortion and sexuality all you want (I’m still not convinced, still waiting for that evidence) but just because you perceive them as ‘correct’ in those regards doesn’t mean they’re right about anything else. How come you can demand evidence but when I ask you for a source for your claims, the response I get is “you’re not worth my time.”?
So you disagree with any members of the Magestium that disagree with your politics but wave an article you found in a magazine that supports your views like the sword of Excalibur Lets be blunt here There is nothing in the teachings of the Church that even remotely supports your views
So where in the Church teachings does it say we have to lower taxes, cut all social programs, and increase the military spending many times over? And you can call my claims outrageous if you desire, but you can’t call them unsubstantiated as I provided irrefutable evidence. Romney made millions off abortion, that is an undeniable fact. Reagan enabled genocide, that is an undeniable fact.
Bishop Paprocki added that the Democrats’ national platform supports “same-sex marriage,” deems gay rights to be “human rights” and calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman in federal law.
Again you get tangled in the weeds of methods of addressing social issues, toss in a strawman, and create a policy that doesn’t exist. The Church’s teaching is focused not on budgets or tax policy but on human interaction, what we owe God and our neighbor. The Church does not weigh in on a particular tax rate as being appropriate nor does any Republican demand “all social programs be cut…” and I don’t recall anyone running on a massive increase to the military budget. You’ve made up a bunch of claims that are little more than the very hyperbole you accuse others of exhibiting.
Please provide some realistic arguments and not a cartoonish version of the objections to Obama.
You can argue the correlation between foreign policy leaders and foreign policy end results (something that quite ironically parallels your assertions that Obama is pro-abortion. Such is the irony of life), but you simply can’t argue for Romney.