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

djs,

Thanks for your post.

No. You said: �What works and what is a fair share depend on our expenses and resources. I suppose, for example, that the costs of bio-medical research was comparatively modest in biblical times� Your example of the cost of bio-medical research has nothing to do with taxes. You implied that people ought to pay their fair share to support bio-medical research. If that was not your intention you might wish to restate your case.

When tax rates are raised people change their behavior to avoid paying taxes and tax revenues are lowered. Study history. History shows that whenever tax rates are lowered tax revenues rise. It�s not hype. It�s true and the facts prove it to those willing to see. The best way to pay off the national debt is to lower tax rates, which encourages people to work harder because they know there will more for them to keep. When this happens there is also more revenue for the government.

Your response makes no sense. Cheney was not suggesting that we foster debt upon some future generation. He was making that point that even though the dollar amount is the highest ever, it is a smaller percentage of our ability to pay it than it used to be. He went on to say (he always does) that cutting tax rates will spur the economy and generate more revenue with which to pay down the national debt.

Regarding reigning in spending it means that Congress will have to make cuts. The administration has recommended many cuts but, sadly, both parties in Congress are not doing enough to cut spending (or at least slow the growth of spending until the economy grows enough to overtake excess spending). But to really cut spending we will need to elect some real conservatives.

To arrogate means to take upon one�s self the moral authority of what is right and what is wrong without the right to do so. Are you suggesting that the elected government has no moral authority to determine what is right and what is wrong regarding abortion? The government arrogates moral authority every single time it passes a law (or removes one). Laws that prohibit the passing of stopped school buses, robbing banks and shooting someone are all examples of the government asserting moral authority. How can you claim the government has the right to collect taxes if you do not also give it the right to regulate various forms of murder?

Both are still offenses. One cannot ever justify either voting for a pro-abortion candidate or supporting the murder of a neighbor by direct action. One cannot give a pass to a big wrong in light of a bigger wrong. Besides, the comparisons people have made here give a pass to Kerry on abortion (something always wrong) but do not give a pass to Bush on capital punishment (something the Church recognizes as moral). I�m not sure how you intended your example to serve your point.

Please show me the examples where Bush has violated the Church�s teaching on the death penalty. The Church summarizes its teaching on the death penalty in the Catholic Catechism, paragraphs 2266 and 2267. Since you have made an accusation that he has violated the Church�s teaching you must haven specific examples you can cite where Bush knew someone to be innocent and allowed that person to be executed.

I disagree. Electing a pro-life president can make a real difference because he can nominate a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court. That can overturn Roe vs. Wade and at least start the societal debate, which would be demonstrable progress. Plus there is the bully pulpit of the presidency which can be used to advocate the pro-life position. Senator Kerry has promised to nominate only pro-abortion candidates to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. This effectively excludes all people who are believing Catholics from serving, and only serves the cause of the abortionists.

The Democrat Party abandoned any concern for human rights long before 1973. There are no human rights without the right to life and the Democrat Party opposes the right to life. We have heard the nice words about �transforming [the] level of social consciousness� for 30 years now. In this time the Democrat Party has steadily rejected more and more of our Judeo-Christian morality to the point where it is now hostile to Judeo-Christian morality. That strategy alone has clearly not worked. Also, in this time the Republican Party has steadily gained credibility in its role as the champion of human rights, be it the right to life and the outlawing of abortion or the right to freedom across the world. People now look to it as the party that fights to protect the innocent.

I agree. It�s going to take both voting for pro-life candidates and witnessing to our neighbors until we convince them. As long as abortion remains legal it will be seen by many as moral.

And as long as Christians in the Democrat Party make excuses for their leaders and refuse to elect the many fine, pro-life Democrats that are seeking higher office things in that party will not change.

Admin

Don't vote, it only encourages them! :p

There were death penalty cases in Texas where
The defense attorney fell asleep during the trial.
The defense attorney called not a single witness.
The executed were mentally retarded.
Direct Papal pleas of mercy and clemency were ignored.

Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs is correct,a vote for Kerry is a mortal sin.

But we are not called to be shrill Bush apologists and this is not a RNC website. Vote for Bush if you must, but if your not holding your nose, something is awry.

Walnut40,

Sorry, but that is not direct evidence. Direct evidence for an accusation of the misuse of the death penalty is means one provides documentation proving that the governor of a state knew clearly that the death penalty in a specific case was inappropriate (because of innocence, mental illness, etc.) and, knowing it was wrong, chose to allow the execution to go on.

I respect the pleas of mercy and clemency from the Holy Father. These pleas are made prior to every known execution worldwide. As the Church recognizes the right of the state to inflict the death penalty it also calls for non-violent punishment whenever possible.

But your point has nothing to do with the death penalty argument itself. Others here have accused the President of being immoral merely because he supports the death penalty. Opposing the death penalty because it might be misused is an entirely different point. If you are opposing the use of the death penalty until there can be a review of the related procedures to make sure it is employed fairly, I can respect that. But again, that is a different issue.

A Bush apologist? I think not.

An apologist for life and all who support life � yes!

Happy Fourth of July Weekend! Let's remember to pray for our country and all of our candidates for public office.

Admin

Like Furman v Georgia
I am not at all opposed to capital punishement.
I am opposed to how it is now carried out.
The majority of the people on death row were found to be innocent in the State of Illinois.

An affirmative action hired forsenics scientist in Oklahoma always told the police they had the right guy, but she was too embarassed to admit she didnt know how to do the proper science. Beyond a doubt, innocents were executed in Oklahoma.

Looking forward to the Nativity of St.John the Baptist. Bush's speech on life at Concordia University in Mequon, Wisconsin was a mastepiece of brillance.Too bad it was stated in the State of the Union address.

The only major party that welcomes Pro-lifers is the GOP. The convention isn't until September, still time to fix the ticket. lol

God Bless

I am a Roman Catholic, I am a Democrat, I am liberal minded. I am personally against abortion and the death penalty, however do not feel that I have the right to make those decisions for other people. I therefore am pro-choice and undecided on death penalty laws.

I am ok with fellow Christians thinking I am making errors in judgement, but I am very offended that people are saying that I cant be a Catholic. I find it rediculous to believe that God made each of us individuals, each with free will, different personalities etc, yet somehow all of the millions of people are supposed to agree on every aspect of faith and support every dogma without following their own conscience. To me, that's crazy talk.

I am a Catholic, voting for a fellow Catholic in November. Go Kerry!

Get your "intolerant" chant ready.
You can not be Catholic and pro-abortion.

How ludicrous sounds "I am against rape, but I think it is an individual choice."

Anyone who votes pro-abortion commits mortal sin and requires confession.

I wouldnt want to explain to 44 millions souls individually in purgatory why I thought their death in the womb was a matter of choice of the mother.

I am personally opposed to infanticide, but I think it should be legal for parents to kill their babies if they are unhappy with them or decide they don't want them. I don't think anyone has the right to make that decision for other people.

I find it offensive when people say that I can't be a good Catholic and still think infanticide should be legal. I am an individual with free will, etc.

Jason

And I am personally opposed to killing abortionists; I would never do such a thing. But who am I to tell those who want to kill abortionists that it is wrong for them? And who are you to tell me that I cannot be a good Catholic for being prochoice on this issue?

Why are Catholics so quick to try to excommunicate me for being anti-abortion but pro-choice. The church stands so strongly for the unborn fetus, yet once the child is born the church stands by while its own priests mentally and sexually abuse these same children. The priests don�t get excommunicated, they don�t even get reprimanded, and they get sent to another parish. It is hypocritical a pro-choice person can�t be a catholic, however the abusive clergy can not only remain Catholics, they get to keep their jobs too.


Anaheim, CA: What are Kabbalah's principles regarding pre-marital sex and abortion?

Yehuda Berg: The major part of Kabbalah is non judgmental. If a person makes a decision to do either, that's their decision. However in our world together, people have to think about the results, do we really want to have sex or because of outside forces. So we teach to focus on what you really want to do versus outside forces.

You Peroutka boys have won over this ex-Republican. I have been so much more at peace when I formally changed my affiliation with the election board.

I must first worry about my own soul and act according to my own conscience. If that involves a Machiavellian compromise, that is unnaceptable to my own soul and spiritual life.

This is coming from someone who was never defeated when he ran for Republican committeeman several elections in a row, and who is now completely disgusted with his former party.

It is simply a lie to say that the Republican party is pro-life. There are nearly as many "moderate Republicans" now on most state tickets who are openly pro-abortion as there are against it (just check out the Governor of California).

It is they who have taken the party, along with the large business-interest capitalists, and not the moral conservatives who have in fact lost it.

Having a moral plurality such as this, which is openly apparent within the Republican party, cannot logically define that party as "pro-life". Individual candidates may or may not be anti-abortion, but that brush cannot be painted on the Republican party.

Sharon is absolutely right, and it doesn't stop with labor issues. Environment, bigger government than ever, etc. etc. Quality of life issues are not limited to the fetus. Sending men to die in an unjust and unjustified war to me is a blatant disregard for life as well, and that is only one example from the current adminstration.

There simply is no higher moral ground between Kerry and Bush. All of the arguments lead to moral relativism of one form or another. There are those who try to reduce the life issue to one aspect, i.e. abortion. From a truly Catholic perspective, it is not that black and white, as that only looks at one part of life, i.e. prenatal.

As a Catholic that is not acceptable to me as life and respect for life extend from conception to adulthood to whatever age one is deemed worthy to live to by God. That includes sending men to die needlessly. That includes social policies which may deprive those in need from getting appropriate care and services. That includes environmental enforcement (non-existent in this administration) which has actually increased the amount of hazardous substances being discharged to the environment.

We are much better off having a plurality of active parties, each with their own influence on any given election. Votes have to be earned, not assumed because you have a "D" or "R" on your election card. This two party tyranny is ridiculous.

MKE,

Have you ever heard of a red herring?

Jason

All red herrings are prochoice.

This is not an easy election year to say the least. I can think of no reason any Christian could vote for Kerry in good conscience. I can see some reason for voting for Bush: whether passionate about the issue or no, he would not veto prolife legislation, judges he appoints just might once in a while be prolife, etc. And while there is not just one prolife issue, even in sheer numbers, abortion is the pre-eminent one: a million or so dead babies a year!
But as someone said, if you vote for Bush without holding your nose, there is something wrong with you. I certainly will not vote for him, I am not sure what I'll do in November.
Personally I wish the populists of the Left and Right would declare a temporary truce on the social issues [abortion, homosexual marriage, etc] run say, a Buchannan/ Nader ticket, take back the country from the oligarchs and then duke it out over the other issues. Neither side has enough votes to defeat the global capitalist behemoth alone but if we were to unite -temporarily- perhaps we could pull it off.

Diak,

It kills me every election year - Ohio's primary system requires declaring a party affiliation. I "get" why, but I am neither a true Republicrat nor a true Demlican - and if you declare "Independent" you rarely get a ballot at all. So in order to participate in the voting process at this critical stage, you must officially climb into bed with one party or t'other - at least for the few minutes it takes at the polling place.

It's uncomfortable. Not as uncomfortable as holdin' yer nose and voting for the person you think will do the least damage in the general election, but it galls me anyway.

Thanks for serving, and thanks for thinking.

Sharon

Bush lies, is pro death penalty, pro death for our military and the civilians of Iraq. Claims to be for freedom, yet wants to limit Americans civil liberties; claims to be for democracy, and yet wouldn�t go through the United Nations. He Attacked Sadam purely for revenge. Let�s not forget his anti-catholic comments. And hey.. Lets not forget he stole the last election.