www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Moral Voting

If God wanted us to vote, He would have given us worthy candidates.

Jason

Sharon:

In my years on this earth, I don't remember any saints who ran for the presidency from either party. I completely agree with you on that one. But you posted a list of offenses for a president you can not support. However, I remember that the last president from the other party had a lengthy list of offenses, too, and they were not so admirable, either. So Sharon, as an elderly friend once asked, in the next election should we vote for your S.O.B.s or mine? Or perhaps neither?

Jason:

Maybe God gives us the candidates we deserve.

There is a 0% chance that the candidate from the Constitution Party will win the presidency. There is also a 0% chance that any action removing abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court will be enacted on January 5, 2005, even assuming that some miracle gives the tiny Constitution Party the presidency in the November election.

--

Come to Washington, DC. Prior to welfare reform there were many families who were fourth generation and on welfare. It provided enough food to eat but discouraged education and getting a job because the jobs one starts with to gain experience left them with about the same amount of money they were getting on welfare. There was no reason for them to work. Yes. The case for enslavement is most certainly there.

Regarding �confiscatory� tax rates, it all depends on what one considers confiscatory. In Genesis the rate given is 20%. That works for me. But then, of course, those leaning towards socialism have no problem taking 50% and 60% and calling it one�s �fair share�.

I totally agree. Where we disagree is in the method of raising funds to pay debts. Cutting tax rates expands the economy and generates more income to pay our public debt. Raising taxes only succeeds in reducing the amount of money going into the public coffers. Need I mention that this past April the government tax receipts (at the new lower rates) was far higher than the previous year? As tax rates are reduced tax receipts will continue to go higher. President Kennedy proved this in the early 1960s� and President Reagan proved it again in the 1980s.

--

1. The Church has no infallible teaching on the death penalty. In fact, the Church clearly recognizes the right of the state to execute criminals as recognized once again in the Catholic Catechism (2266). While the Church always seeks that governments show mercy by choosing methods of punishment other than the death penalty its official teaching clearly recognizes the right of the state to demand the death penalty. One can certainly be totally pro-life in all the Catholic aspects while being pro-death penalty. There is a huge moral difference between executing innocent humans through abortion or euthanasia and executing humans who have willfully committed crimes against humanity.

2. Regarding stem cell research, President Bush has authorized that research may be conducted only on stem cells of already dead humans. Even with the recent request of Nancy Reagan he stood firm against allowing more human embryos to be destroyed for such a purpose. This is a very different position that that of Senator Kerry who supports the creation and harvesting of embryos in laboratories for the purpose of stem cell research.

While I disagree on allowing stem cell research on any murdered human and disagree with the President on this, one simply cannot put allowing research on already dead humans on the same moral plane as abortion.

--

The significance of such an approach is that it would reduce the number of abortions from about 1,400,000 per year to about 50,000 per year (50,000 per year being the number of abortions that even the abortionists admit is the so-called �hard cases�). It would be a very good first step.

Reluctantly dragging myself back into politics and making a somewhat off-topic post...

Diak (or anyone else who may know)-

When did the Pope or the Vatican issue a statement saying that support/participation in the war in Iraq is a rejection of the Church?

Certainly Bishop Botean did so, but when did the remainder of the Church do so, or at least insinuate a position to that effect? And by this standard, does that mean that figures such as George Wegel are out of communion wiht the Church?

[please don't read anything into this beyond a set of questions. I do not have a preformed answer on these questions and am not asking them in order to poke at anyone's argument]

Best,

LV

Dear LV, I apologize for not really understanding your question. The Holy Father made it clear he was against this war. The last time personally to President Bush just a few weeks ago. He has made it clear that this war cannot in any way be seen as just.

My point is that a Catholic respects life at all stages, cradle to grave. An unjust and unjustified war [as the Holy Father has determined this one to be] involves the needless taking of life. Abortion and euthanasia also involve the needless taking of life. As such, all should be detestable to Catholics, as well as leaders who promote the needless taking of life.

As for who is or is not in communion with the Church, I leave that to God, the individual in question, and the hierarchy. I will not presume to judge.

Admin, no vote cast in good conscience is wasted. None. That is the beauty of a democracy. Every vote counts for every person. Statistics are meaningless when it comes to conscience. Majorities are meaningless when it comes to conscience.

The Cross was in the eyes of the world a statistical loss. One man, despised by all of the major parties of His day. Neither St. John the Baptist nor our Lord would likely have had the effectiveness of ministry had they worried about "majority opinion".

Administrator, thy contradict thyself.
You said "If you vote pro-abortion when a pro-life candidate is available, you are pro-abortion." A self-definition?

You have a 100% pro-life candidate. Bush has 0% chance in California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Vermont. Why shouldnt people vote 100% pro-life in those states?

Should St John Fisher have practiced "pragmatism" over moral purity?

Unam Sanctam was the answer, but we made a wrong turn during the Endarkenment.


Viva Christo Rey

The argument has been posted that: "There is a huge moral difference between executing innocent humans through abortion or euthanasia and executing humans who have willfully committed crimes against humanity."
a) sorry - I'm not convinced of the truth of that, and the right to make up my own mind is part of the electoral process;
b) there are many cases (check out Texas) of the use of the death penalty on people who were not in fact guilty, and/or were not in a sufficient state of mental awareness to know what they had done.

Incognitus

In Oklahoma and Illinois, the death penalty has been proven to be flawed. My point was that for at least half of Catholic history, capital punishment was condoned by the Vatican. Scalia is correct, it is Vatican II that changed and his position is at the very least equal within Catholic History

On abortion, there is a Catholic position, ie, one that does not change, but is Catholic, ie universal through salvation history.

More souls are aborted in a single day than are killed in the entire history of Texas.

The Seamless Garment started with Cardinal Bernardin, winner of awards from papally proscribed freemasons and buried by tunes of the Windy City Gay Chorus as per his will and testament. I believe the late Father Malachi Martin in "The Windswept House," who alleged far worse.

Walnut40,

Thanks for the post. There is no contradiction in my post or in my position. Ask yourself which is better: to jump off the cliff with your flag held high or to get some of what you seek and live to fight another day?

The way to re-establish legal protection for innocent life is to appoint Supreme Court justices that are friendly to life. Given that the Democrats � including Senators Kerry and Kennedy � have vowed to block the possibility of pro-life justices being appointed to the Supreme Court the task is a daunting one. But when there are vacancies it is far more likely that a conservative, pro-life president like Bush can get someone on the court that at least sees Roe-vs-Wade as bad law and overturn it. This will throw the issue back to the states were laws limiting third term abortions can be enacted. Yes, not perfect, but a reasonable start.

Regarding the president�s chances of winning the states you listed, I disagree. It is unlikely that he will win all those states but the chances are not zero. His poll numbers in those states is somewhere between 30-35%. It is certainly possible that he can pick up a few of those states.

Regarding �pragmatism� and �moral purity� which is more important, to save some lives in an ongoing, incremental advancement of truth or to save no lives and pretend one is morally pure?

Admin

Incognitus,

Thanks for your post. Thanks also for clarifying that you were expressing your opinion and not official Church teaching.

I disagree profoundly with what you have written. I simply cannot imagine that you see no moral difference between a candidate who not only supports the legal murder of 1,400,000 innocent humans each year through abortion and a candidate who supports the execution of a comparatively tiny number people who willfully choose to commit crimes where the punishment is death.

Regarding the execution of people who turned out to be innocent. Sadly, there are cases of this occurring. But it is not �many� as you have written. If you oppose the death penalty on the grounds that we should not use it because someone innocent can be mistakenly executed I can respect that. What I cannot respect is the claim that the Church is anti-death penalty when, clearly, it is not. But this new reasoning you offer is much different than the issue of the Church�s acknowledgement of a country�s right to demand the death penalty for those who knowingly and willingly commit heinous crimes against humanity.

Admin

Vermont has one Congressman
A Socialist
The idea that Bush can win a state like Vermont is a bigger fairy tale than a third party candidate.

O'Connor was put there by Reagan
Souter was put there by Bush41
Bush helped militantly pro-abortion Arlen Specter beat pro-life Pat Toomey.
Why?
So he could be the next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committtee and a convenient excuse for putting White House Counsel pro-abortion Gonzalez
as the next justice and first Hispanic. Watch. When your betrayed again like on stem cell research, dont act suprised and dont claim to be shocked. Smell the coffee, Republicans use and abuse pro-life voters but act more on corporate tax breaks than life. The GOP has ALL 3 branches of govenment. They can remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the judiciary. They dont. They make a phone call in January and dupes jump for joy. We have been used.

touch�

Jason

But...we still make really great maple syrup and have awesome ski trails and fall foliage...

Yes, pro-life voters have been abused! I regret voting for Bush in 2000, and I will not make the same mistake this year. Bush is not pro-life; he is just less pro-death than Kerry or Algore.

Bush sold out over stem cells. He's appointed pro-aborts to high places. He has conviently been out of town every January 22.

Granted he signed the patial-birth abortion bill, and I'm very thankful that he did. But that was more a symbolic victory than an actual one. A federal court has alread blocked it, and it wouldn't save a single baby anyways--there are other methods that can be used instead.

This November I'm voting for Michael Anthony Peroutka [peroutka2004.com] . He not only opposes abortion, but neo-con imperialist wars as well.

Quote

We have been used.

Bingo

Jason