 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Kayla
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Emmitsburg, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 364 |
| First Name: | Kayla | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Atheist, kind-of Mormon, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 04:55 am |
|
Something I have been thinking about lately, especially as the presidential campaigns have been picking up...
I know of a lot of people, a lot of Catholics for that matter, who vote only upon the issue of abortion. Is the candidate "pro-life"? (And, "pro-life" is not generally used to encompass all life issues anymore, at least not politically.)
Well... I do not mean to be rude by asking this... but what does a presidential candidates stance on abortion really matter? Especially in this particular election?
If you think about it, the only way for there to be any sort of change in the laws regarding abortion, Roe v. Wade must be over-turned (and that's just the beginning!) and/or Congress must pass a new amendment.
In the first case, the President only influences the Supreme Court in so much as making appointments for justices. Bush has made two crucial appointments that may make a reversal on Roe v. Wade possible if by some miracle, the Supreme Court ever decides to take a look at such a case. Most likely, they won't. They steer clear of those cases on purposes. But more to my point, there's not going to be any openings on the Supreme Court any time soon. It's rare for it to happen, and for two openings to occur during Bush's time is really quite extraordinary. Regardless, it's not very likely that the new president will have the opportunity to appoint new justices during their term.
In the second case, the only reason for having a "pro-life" President would be for the case vetoing (or not vetoing, as it were). With a pro-life President, if Congress were ever to pass a bill making abortion illegal, there is little chance of a veto. However, the chances of Congress passing such a bill are extremely thin. Even more, we have a democrat-majority in Congress. Abortion is already legal-- what type of bill could they pass that we would need a pro-life President to veto? It's mute.
And third, a pro-life President is really only useful if they are going to use this as a major platform issue. Is this something that they're really going to push for? Or is it merely a stance that means nothing? Because at this point, that's all that I'm seeing. Stances on an issue that decides voters, even though nothing is done in either direction on the issue.
Maybe I'm missing something here... but honestly, what is the use of voting for a pro-life candidate or basing one's vote merely on the single-issue of abortion? It doesn't make sense to me. They really can't control the avenues needed in order for the laws concerning abortion to change.
Thoughts?
____________________
I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.
Jesus, I trust in You!
There's not a lot of job security for us after death. I suppose that's one advantage of being a philosopher. - Peter Kreeft
http://kayla23mount.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 770 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 10:10 am |
|
All this campaign stuff reminds me of the OLD question of, "How do you know when a politician is not telling the truth?", and the answer was, "When his lips are moving." That sums up how I feel about politicians and the election process. I feel I do more voting for the lesser of two, or more, evils. In my opinion, the only way to make an appropriate and effective selection is to look at the person's record. The person who will be the lesser of the evils will be the person whose past behavior matches what they are saying currently. Looking at the current runners, I don't see anyone whose past behavior and current rhetoric matches.
However, having said ALL that, I feel that every citizen should vote. In the past, I have been harshly criticized for voting for a person that I knew would NOT get elected. However, I thought the person for which I voted was the better person for the country and had values closer to mine than all the other runners. So, even thought my person loses, I still sleep well at night AND that is one less thing I need to take to Reconciliation.
Last edited on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 11:04 am by BodRod
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
kimdyuma
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 774 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle Anglican, Episcopal /Catholic-04/07/07 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 10:48 am |
|
| I vote like you Criff,
____________________
Adopt from your local Humane Society- Please spay or neuter your pets
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 214 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 11:10 am |
|
Kayla wrote:
But more to my point, there's not going to be any openings on the Supreme Court any time soon. It's rare for it to happen, and for two openings to occur during Bush's time is really quite extraordinary. Regardless, it's not very likely that the new president will have the opportunity to appoint new justices during their term.
Maybe I'm missing something here... but honestly, what is the use of voting for a pro-life candidate or basing one's vote merely on the single-issue of abortion? It doesn't make sense to me. They really can't control the avenues needed in order for the laws concerning abortion to change.
Thoughts?
Hi Kayla:
Well actually, it is quite possible that the next President will make Supreme Court appointments. Consider: John Paul Stevens is 87; Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 74; Antonin Scalia is 71; and Anthony Kennedy is 71.
Far be it from me to say that anyone in their 70's is old  , but those that age will be in their eighth decade by the time the next President finishes an eight year term (if re-elected), so you could say that there is a real possibility that there could be at least four appointments. It is in that Court where Roe will be overturned - if ever. If the next President appoints Judges that for sure are willing to let Roe stand, then the chances of overturning (or modifying) Roe will be impossible for many years to come.
I think it is a defining moral issue.
God's Blessings,
Last edited on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 11:12 am by JasPax
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 678 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 11:16 am |
|
Kayla wrote: But more to my point, there's not going to be any openings on the Supreme Court any time soon. It's rare for it to happen, and for two openings to occur during Bush's time is really quite extraordinary. Regardless, it's not very likely that the new president will have the opportunity to appoint new justices during their term.
OH, this is not true! I have heard that it is within reason for there to be FOUR Supremes replaced in the next 8 years. It's VERY important that our President replace them with non-activist, strict Constitutionalist judges. Two of the judges are quite old and I've heard that Thomas's health is not so great. The fourth? Not sure, but this was the considered opinion of Hugh Hewitt who was legal counsel under Reagan, now is a talk show host, but is definitely "up" on what's going on in the legal end of government. He spoke at our Right to Life banquet this past September and said that the replacement of Supreme Court justices is the THE most important consideration in our upcoming presidential election, at least as concerns the issue of abortion.
And a good chunk of the reason I vote pro-life is that I have to wonder what sort of human being, fully informed human being as these candidates are, not in ignorance, would condone the dismembering of an innocent human. It's BARBARIC. It reflects on their character, on their moral values, on their empathy, on their ability to see and understand, on their courage, on so many aspects of who and what they are that for me to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, like Giuliani, will only happen if the other likely candidate, like Clinton, is so much worse and so much more likely to lead to the deaths of more babies, that I hold my nose and do it and pray for God to forgive me if I'm doing wrong.
Jill
Last edited on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 11:17 am by JillD
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! You know me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." Psalm 139
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 272 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 12:52 pm |
|
JillD wrote: ...I have to wonder what sort of human being..would condone the dismembering of an innocent human. It's BARBARIC. It reflects on their character, on their moral values, on their empathy, on their ability to see and understand, on their courage, on so many aspects of who and what they are ...
Jill
AMEN JILL!!!! Perverse behavior like this darkens the intellect, making it harder to make rational decisions in all areas.
One issue? That is how the media likes to portray this. No, its actually HUGE with many related issues.
For me personally, I vote as pro-life as possible because I do not want blood on my hands for voting in someone who puts in legislation allowing murder. As we vote, we take on the responsibility of putting into power those with authority over life and death, and justice and mercy. I believe that those who vote against the laws of God, will suffer serious consequences.
Believe me, if having to choose between transportation and taxes, and saving lives, I am bound as a believing, practicing Catholic to give precedence to life-issues and to ignore my own needs. I'll vote pro-life. God will take care of the other details, as He sees fit.
Pope John-Paul II defined the crisis as the "Culture of Death" because once you start down this road, it permeates everything. The devil hates mankind and wants to kill us. If the jealous devil can't succeed in killing and exterminating us outright with abortion and contraception, he works tirelessly to make us suffer. This is the crux of the Culture of Death. When you buy into it, you aren't supporting mankind and the laws of God.
In short, this fight is really about empowering evil.
When you don't vote pro-life:
-empowers those who will never honor life, there is no chance of overturning existing legislation
-empowers those who will never honor life, there is less chance of voting in good judges
-empowers those to make decisions on life - Terry Schiavo would not have been murdered had a strong pro-life court and judge been involved
-enables euthanasia
-enables contraception laws that don't allow opting out by medical professionals who don't want to sell such things
-enables laws enforcing the teaching of immoral behavior in education [anti-chastity, advertising contraception, anti-family, etc]
-empowers those who don't value life in general - with this kind of disrespect for a basic law, with darkened intellect, these same people are bound to vote against other things you hold dear
-enables killing of embryos for experimentation, in-vitro fertilization, supplying medical substances
-enables experimentation on embryos to create synthetically-derived "life"
-enables the use of fetus detritus in creating other products
-enables my tax dollars to pay for things I don't believe in: false teaching on morality in schools, sending abortion money overseas, paying for the contraceptive supplies of federal workers, etc
[this list is endless - anybody care to add more??] see also http://www.priestsforlife.org/ and http://www.lifesite.net/
Do you really want to support the growth of this kind of chaos?
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 169 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19th, 2007 11:24 pm |
|
Life is the fundamental human right, everything else is secondary, - environment, education, foreign relations, economics, ......
# 49 http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 01:01 am |
|
I agree that life is the primary, non-negotiable issue.
BUT
Sometimes life isn't that simple. We must make an informed judgment.
Suppose one candidate says "I am pro-life but I do not believe I should enforce my belief on others." He indicates that he will allow legislation to become law that would provide funding for abortions. He says it is up to the legislative body do make those decisions and he will not let his "personal beliefs" cloud his actions. Legalized abortion is the law of the land, and he says he will support the law.
Another candidate says, "I am pro-choice, but I believe abortion should be rare. I do not believe government should pay for abortions. I support abstinence education and would use the funds instead to provide education and child care so that unmarried mothers can get a job and become self-sufficient." He says judges shouldn't legislate, and he will oppose any efforts to make abortions easier to obtain.
Which is the better candidate?
I think we need to look at the entire package of a candidate's beliefs and support the one we believe will do the best job of supporting life, regardless of the candidate's stated position as being "pro-choice" or "pro-life". No democrat can get the nomination who is not pro-abortion, and I believe it is unlikely any republican can get the nomination who is not pro-life (Guliani might surprise me). But what really matters is how they will act once they take office.
But if it is Clinton or Obama against Guliani or McCain, how do we vote? In order, my preferences would be McCain, Guliani/Clinton, and Obama last. I put Clinton and Guliani together in the middle because I don't trust either one of them, but I think I would take either one over Obama. I don't think he has enough experience, and I definitely don't like his pro-abortion stand.
I left the Democrat party when I ran for office in the early 90's because I could not have that party label under my name. I registered as a Republican in 2000 to vote for Dr. Alan Keyes. So I am a registered Republican today. I'm starting to lean toward Huckabee, but I'm really undecided at this point.
There is a definite chance come next November that I will have to hold my nose when I vote. But you can bet I'll vote, the good Lord willin' and the creek don't rise!
About 20 years ago in Louisiana we had a choice for governor. The Democrat was pro-choice, a known womanizer, a lifetime politician who had been indicted several times but never convicted, and who had been governor three times before. He was a free-spending gambler and it was widely believed that he accepted bribes.
The other candidate, a lifetime pro-life Republican, was a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, a former member of Nazi white supremacist groups, and the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People. He had run several times, but had only won one previous election.
The Democrat, Edwin Edwards, had bumper stickers printed which read "Vote for the Crook". The Republican was David Duke. Today, both are in federal prison.
I admit this is an extreme case, but it is real. Who would you have voted for? The pro-choice candidate, or the pro-life candidate?
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 214 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 02:00 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: Another candidate says, "I am pro-choice, but I believe abortion should be rare. I do not believe government should pay for abortions. I support abstinence education and would use the funds instead to provide education and child care so that unmarried mothers can get a job and become self-sufficient." He says judges shouldn't legislate, and he will oppose any efforts to make abortions easier to obtain.
This would indeed be an inusual person. I think the Democrats would drum her/him out of the Party. Might make it as a Republican.
The Democrat, Edwin Edwards, had bumper stickers printed which read "Vote for the Crook". The Republican was David Duke. Today, both are in federal prison. Ah, Louisiana politics! It is so much fun for those of us who live outside the Pelican State. Wasn't it Edwards who said, "The only way they'll get me is if they catch me in bed with a dead woman or a live boy." ? Regards,
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 272 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 03:58 pm |
|
| Let's vote for Kayla!
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Kayla
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Emmitsburg, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 364 |
| First Name: | Kayla | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Atheist, kind-of Mormon, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 05:26 pm |
|
Hm. I guess I didn't realize how old some of the current justices are. However, even with their ages, I can't see spots opening in this next term. Perhaps the second term, if re-elected. Still, I can only see one spot opening: Stevens. About six months ago I went and listened to Scalia speak and he's definitely running on full speed, healthy as ever.
I think the biggest difficulty that I am finding is that life issues aren't be taken as a whole. Abortion is the only issue being spoken about. What about the war? Or foreign relations (look at Darfur or other suffering countries)? Or the death penalty (Supreme cour will actually be hearing a case sometime next year that will determine whether or not lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment)? I'm not stating an opinion either way on any of these examples, but merely showing that there are plenty of other life issues that need to be looked at when considering the "pro-life" stance of a candidate. It's not just abortion.
____________________
I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.
Jesus, I trust in You!
There's not a lot of job security for us after death. I suppose that's one advantage of being a philosopher. - Peter Kreeft
http://kayla23mount.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 770 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 05:32 pm |
|
Kayla wrote: Hm. I guess I didn't realize how old some of the current justices are.
Yes, Kayla they are really old. In fact, they are almost as old as Rick!!! 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
Kayla
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Emmitsburg, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 364 |
| First Name: | Kayla | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Atheist, kind-of Mormon, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 05:40 pm |
|
BodRod wrote: Kayla wrote: Hm. I guess I didn't realize how old some of the current justices are.
Yes, Kayla they are really old. In fact, they are almost as old as Rick!!!
Oh great, I can just see the age-jokes coming now.....
But see, I am protected... I call anyone who is older than myself as "old."  It's a term of... oh let's say, relativity, rather than a term of being "old" in its connotative sense.
____________________
I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.
Jesus, I trust in You!
There's not a lot of job security for us after death. I suppose that's one advantage of being a philosopher. - Peter Kreeft
http://kayla23mount.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 770 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 05:48 pm |
|
I am at a point in life where "old" does not refer to a birth year but rather to how the person feels and/or acts. 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 08:57 pm |
|
How on Earth Can Christians Vote For Pro-Abortion Candidates?
[originally written on Thursday, March 04, 2004]
The following is derived from letters and dialogues I had with Catholic Democrats:
How can a "faithful Catholic" (or a faithful orthodox Protestant who accepts the historic Protestant doctrines and moral teachings) vote for a politician who sanctions the practice of sticking scissors in the neck of a full-term baby and sucking its brains out (let alone abortion in general)? That's not even including things like homosexual "marriage," radical feminism, fetal experimentation, assisted suicide, and suchlike.
They can try to separate their vote from the responsibility of the promulgation of abortion, but I just don't buy it. Our choices have consequences. Legal abortion arrived in the first place in large part because the Catholic Church was weak. The dissidents were already attacking the ban on contraception, heroically reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae in 1968. Contraception was legally crucial as the groundwork for Roe (the Griswold case). It paved the way, very directly. So the time was ripe.
Catholics vote for pro-abortion politicians and this allows abortion to continue. This is contrary to Church teaching. Such voters participate in a causal sense in promoting abortion if they vote in men and women who believe that it should be legal. It is an outrage. It seems to me the only way they can possibly defend this is to separate their vote for a Democrat from the causal factor of how this might perpetuate the status quo of Roe v. Wade. And I think that will be an uphill battle (to put it mildly).
One must flat-out deny what the Catholic Church teaches in order to make the assertion that one can be a "good Catholic" and also a card-carrying Democrat today, given the morally-troublesome Democratic platform and advocacy of various immoral issues. This is why I maintain that it is impossible to synthesize the two at present (it wasn't always so - before legal abortion).
I agree that the Democrats have traditionally had a more fruitful social conscience. They were in the forefront of the fight for racial equality and justice (though more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964; Al Gore's father, e.g., voted against it, along with many Southern segregationalist Democrats). They brought us social security, Medicare, and praiseworthy programs for first-time home buyers, etc. which are social goods. But that was then; now they are a force for child-killing, homosexual rights (i.e., preferential treatment), radical feminism, assisted suicide, etc.
This is the sad state of affairs that we live in today. Now we have serious debates about whether the brutal, savage slaughter of a full-term baby about to be born should moral and legally permissible [this was written over three years ago]. It's almost beyond belief. I can't even comprehend this level of moral lunacy
and outrageous injustice anymore. Yet we went into a lengthy national mourning after 9-11, which (horrible as it was) caused less deaths than a day's work in an abortion clinic. And at least those people had some sort of life before they were killed, and some chance to escape (however slight, in many cases). The baby about to be ripped to shreds has neither.
In presidential elections, it has been clear for years now that the Democrat has to favor legal abortion to run at all. So no Catholic or pro-life non-Catholic Christian can vote for such a person. It can't be justified, just as we now condemn anyone who voted for Hitler (who only killed 6 million, compared to the 50 million legal abortions in the US in 30 years). I think this is morally and ethically obvious.
I think it all comes down to the willingness (conscious or otherwise) to separate public and private morality; personal and civic virtue. That's what brought us abortion, the sexual revolution, and also the schizophrenic nonsense of being so-called "pro-choice" (i.e., "personally opposed" to abortion, but willing to allow it to continue legally).
This derives historically, I would argue, from elements of the Renaissance, the so-called Enlightenment, English Deism and rationalism, and onto more modern forms of secularist philosophy and thought (liberalism, Marxism, libertarianism, legal positivism, humanism, pragmatism, et al). They all separated things such as faith and reason, private and public morality, Christ and culture, church and state, etc. And these strains of thought have deeply penetrated into the American psyche, if not all of the western world.
That bizarre inconsistency is the foundation for millions of professed Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike) voting for people whose principles are diametrically opposed to Christianity; in fact they are often outright espousals of rank paganism and blatantly utilitarian, even at times nihilistic, ethics. Ignorance of one's own supposed religious beliefs doesn't help, either, of course.
I have lambasted Republicans also on my website. But I continue to say that a Catholic in good standing cannot possibly defend a vote for a pro-abort. I have voted for pro-life Democrats in local races, and will not vote for any pro-abort Republican. Abortion is the morally-defining issue of this generation. It is immediately morally schizophrenic to vote for a guy like Kerry, whereas one can vote for Bush without violating any Catholic precept.
It is largely a failure of consistent thinking, and of molding one's outlook in harmony with the "mind of the Church." One's view of culture and politics (indeed, all of life) must be synthesized with their religious worldview. That's what it means to be a disciple of Christ: everything (that includes politics and government) comes under His Lordship. But if someone is informed of, say, partial-birth abortion and continues to vote for the guy who upholds it, what do we conclude then? Is there not some sin in that?
A position which is the moral equivalent of Naziism is neither respectable, nor arguable in "polite circles." Many pro-lifers act as though a person can be both "respectable" and "honorable" and a pro-abort.
We don't regard the Nazis in that fashion; we loathe them because they were for wanton massacre. Yet many conservatives (e.g., Rush Limbaugh) express such admiration for, say, Colin Powell, as a "great man," even though he is a pro-abort. More schizophrenia. We must qualify his "greatness"; we can say he was a great general. But a "great man"? Not if we are pro-lifers . . . .
I am not seeking to judge any person's heart or soul. I am addressing hypocrisy and moral schizophrenia, just as Jesus did, particularly with the Pharisees. I haven't yet found a Catholic Democrat who put up any sort of reasoned defense for why they vote the way they do (particularly regarding abortion). I either get nothing, theological liberalism, or a pack of propaganda-induced lies about both the nature and motivation of Republicans and Conservatives. It gets very frustrating.
When people vote for politicians who favor abortion, they are a party to that outrageous crime. They don't get off by taking the libertarian route and simply saying that they personally oppose abortion. 4000 babies die every day. Al Gore and Richard Gephardt were pro-life at one time; so were Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson. They all caved because any Democrat running for President, or hoping to, has to be in favor of child-killing. This is the party that Christians want to support (God help us)? It can't be justified from a Catholic or a conservative Protestant standpoint. Christianity is about love and compassion and putting the little guy first: not about butchering defenseless babies. A Catholic cannot vote for a politician who supports abortion. He just can't do it. he have to choose between his Church and his political party, I'm afraid, on this issue.
And that is, of course, exactly what many Catholics do: they are much more "American" and "Democrat" and "liberal" than they are Catholic. And so they will ditch those teachings of the Church that they don't care for, such as the ban on contraception, the immorality of fornication, and of abortion. It always seems to be the sexual issues, for some strange reason.
Jesus tells us to protect the innocent. And that is why a Catholic or any sort of Christian who believes in the inspiration of the Bible cannot vote for people who sanction the slaughter of children. I've always opposed racism and prejudice and the oppression and exploitation of the poor, as a political conservative (generally-speaking); so-called "liberals" and mainstream Democrats should oppose child-killing as political liberals, since liberalism historically was in favor of the little guy and the oppressed and exploited. This is the inconsistency in the Democratic Catholic position (insofar as the person votes for a pro-abortion candidate).
The Democrats are no longer the party of JFK or FDR, because advocating abortion is not helping the "little guy" and the oppressed. It's one thing to advocate social reform along more traditionally liberal or left-leaning lines (New Deal, Great Society, unions, civil rights, equality for women and minorities, health care provisions, social security and Medicare, etc. -- much of which is very good and consistent with Catholic social teaching); quite another to adopt wholesale radical moral teachings that contradict Christianity, as formerly understood by both liberals and conservatives.
Malcolm X was a greater revolutionary than Dr. Martin Luther King, because he stressed personal behavior and ethics as well as social reform, which the latter almost solely concentrated on. I think Rev. King (much as I immensely admire the man) should have publicly taught much more biblical personal morality, but that was a function, I think, of the separation of "social gospel" from personal righteousness, which unfortunately occurred in Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant).
The theological liberals (who tended to be politically liberal) emphasized the social and institutional, while conservatives (who tended to be politically conservative as well) emphasized individual traditional Christian morals and the family. The Catholic Church brings both impulses together and refuses to separate them. That's why I consider it a "third way" -- distinct from both political parties, which have become polarized in such an unnecessary manner, and mostly secularized, too.
* * * * *
Here is also a related homily by my former parish priest, Fr. Paul Ward. The priest in my parish before him thought the same way and preached about it, too, which was virtually a feat of bravery in largely Democratic, union vote inner-city Detroit where my parish is:
Fr. Paul Ward: Catholics May NOT Vote For Pro-Abortion Politicians
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 10:17 pm |
|
Kayla wrote: But see, I am protected... I call anyone who is older than myself as "old." It's a term of... oh let's say, relativity, rather than a term of being "old" in its connotative sense.
You missed your chance, Kayla. That's where you could have said that old men look distinguished, or even cute, and how you love to kiss their bald heads.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 09:16 am |
|
At their November meeting, the U.S. bishops approved a document called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. The document is much too long to post here. It is available as a PDF file at this web site. A summary is available here.
These documents and others are also available at a special web site set up by the bishops, http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org . It is a central location for bishop's statements, Vatican documents, and other resources to help citizens determine the moral way to vote from a Catholic Christian perspective.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 169 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 05:06 pm |
|
Rick, Kayla -
That was the document I put a link to on my post of the 19th, -
"Life is the fundamental human right, everything else is secondary, - environment, education, foreign relations, economics, ......
# 49 http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf
My comment was a paraphrase of what the Bishops wrote in section # 49.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 05:49 pm |
|
mg57 wrote: Rick, Kayla -
That was the document I put a link to on my post of the 19th, -
"Life is the fundamental human right, everything else is secondary, - environment, education, foreign relations, economics, ......
# 49 http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf
My comment was a paraphrase of what the Bishops wrote in section # 49.
Thanks for the link. I had forgotten that you posted it, and you hadn't identified what the link was to, so I missed it when I reviewed the thread before my post.
I certainly agree that life is the primary issue and that everything else is secondary, but no one should vote based on labels. It's important to look to what a candidate actually stands for, their voting record, their previous comments and actions, etc.
For example, Mitt Romney says he's pro-life. When he ran for governor of Massachusetts, he ran as a pro-abortion candidate, but he says that when he actually sat down as governor, he found that he could not honor his previous commitment. He could not support a bill that resulted in the death of unborn children. I actually respect that. He admits that his earlier position was wrong. I think it's less important that a candidate claims to be pro-life or pro-choice than what they propose to do about it. Will they actually work to reduce the number of abortions? How do they plan to go about it?
Is a candidate who wants to allow abortions in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the health of the mother, a better choice than one who wants to allow abortion on demand but without public funding? Is either of those a better candidate than one who wants to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or stop getting Medicare and Medicade funds? Is a candidate really pro-life if he wants to cut funding to nursing homes? How about health care for uninsured children? Where does funding for kidney dialysis fit on the pro-life scale?
It's too simple to say this candidate is better choice if he wants to ban all abortions but really won't do anything to accomplish his goal, while another candidate wants to actively work to reduce the number of abortions but wouldn't ban them all. I think if we want to truly vote pro-life, we need to vote for the candidate that we really believe will be effective at eliminating as many abortions as possible.
A presidential candidate can claim till the cows come home that he'll support a constitutional amendment to ban abortions, but the president has nothing to do with amending the constitution. So how will his pro-life stance actually affect budgets and policies that will make a difference? President Bush supported a pro-life amendment but never did anything to accomplish it. He did, however, end public funding of abortions, end abortions in public hospitals, and take other actions that made a real difference. He also vetoed a bill that would have allowed public funding of research using embryonic stem cells. So his record on abortion is good. But he also took us to war, reduced funding for education, cut back on health care for the poor, and made some other decisions that an awful lot of people don't like. So was he a "pro-life president" or not? You decide.
So while life is indeed the single issue that trumps everything else, I still think it is much more complicated than looking at the label a candidate carries. We need to try to find out what he or she is passionate about, and vote accordingly.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 169 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 12:27 am |
|
Here's what the Bishops themselves state as they lead us in these matters - Goals For Political Life - section III, # 89
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf
|
|
|
| |
