Who Will You Vote For?

[Aloysius]

hey thank you vianney! i was wondering if someone would mention that.

the Church is for social justice, yes. it doesn't officially teach a clear cut way to acheive that, and the Democratic party's platform will not necessarily acheive Church teaching on social justice.

welfare needs reformed. the economy is on a turn for the better. Iraq is no longer even an issue because we already went in and both candidates agree we cannot pull out and leave it in a mess. Bush did what he saw as the right thing to do, i see no malicious intent there, and now that it's happened talking till you're blue in the face about how wrong it was won't do a thing to change it. it's there. we're in World War III i believe, Bill O'Reilly agrees. I heard Bishop Fulton Sheen predict World War III if the world did not turn back to God in a talk about Fatima, and i think this is it, a war against terrorism. Anyway, the United States of America is at war with those who hate freedom. Sadam Hussein hated freedom.

anyway, again, Iraq is no longer an issue in this election, because either way we're gonna stick it out till the job is done. If he was just now trying to propose the Iraqui war, it could be an issue.

and Rebublican Economics do not necessarily 100% contradict Catholic Social Justice. Democratic Economics also do not necessarily 100% support Catholic Social Justice.

Democratic PRO-DEATH POLICIES DO 100% CONTRADICT Catholic doctrine about the fundamental right of HUMAN LIFE.
Bush's policies will work for imperfect legislation (which the Church has come out in favor of) to end abortion, he has already stopped partial birth abortion. He agrees 100% with the Catholic doctrine about the fundamental right of HUMAN LIFE.

summary: Iraq is no longer an issue, it's absurd to assume only the democrats can bring about true social justice, and Bush is the only choice to start the work of saving babies in the womb.

PAX OUT

[Aloysius]

oh, not to mention> Catholic Teaching regarding the upholding of society and sexual morality and the SACRAMENT of MARRIAGE.

Bush will defend a SACRAMENT that is under attack.
Kerry will not defend this SACRAMENT.

SACRAMENTS are the most important thing on this earth because they were given to us by God Almighty as channels of His Amazing Grace.

[vianney]

Thats a very good point Al, I never even thought of the fact that most Democrats are FOR homosexual unions. The sacraments are under attack, the unborn fetus is under attack.

I find it extremely hard how some ppl can rationalize voting Democrat.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Vianney, I couldn't agree more. The reason someone making $100.000 gets more back in taxes is because they paid more in. The top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of the taxes in this country. Wealth is already redistributed about as much as it can be in the U.S. Anything more and we will be going towards socialism/communism which history has shown fails nearly every time it's tried. Just because I support low taxes and allowing people to actually keep the money which they earn, does not mean I want to put anyone on the street. I just think that it is the role of every day citizens to do that, not the government. Furthermore, if the democrats social programs worked so well, why do we still have people living in poverty? Tommy Thompson reformed the welfare system in Wisconsin and it has worked wonders. We should not punish the people who work their tails off putting themselves through college only to have to get up at 5:00 or 6:00 to get their kids off to school so they can get to work on time. We certainly need to help the poor, but the policy I think some of you are advocating for is not what will best help them. A handout will only encourage people to accept more handouts. The poor need a hand up, not a hand out.

Why was the war in Iraq wrong? I'm looking for concrete reasons, exactly like what CatholicAndFanatical said.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
5/16 - Sixth Sunday of Easter

Thank you, George Gilder and Robert Nozick.

Both capitalism and communism have inherent problems within them that allow for great evils to be accomplished. The Industrial Revolution in America and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia illustrated the evils that of which these systems are capable. Pope Leo XIII (and subsequently, such eminent thinkers as Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton) supported a [i]distributist[/i] economic system in the encyclical [i]Rerum Novarum[/i]. This line of thought hasn't changed.

Distributism, according to G.K. Chesterton, is each man having his own plot of land. It also includes a redistribution of wealth. Now, [i]who[/i] is going to do this, no one knows; if the state does it, it is communism and thus not permissable.

If a man is lying in a gutter, the Church would not pass him by, even if he got himself there. For in helping him, the Church hopes to achieve his salvation, and she will never go back on people who need help, especially if they do not want help. All men deserve assistance if they are impoverished; to look the other way and say, "Sorry, buddy, we tried to help you out but it's obvious you don't want to work your way out," is un-Christian. Although Paul said that "he who does not work does not eat," that does not give us permission to leave men in the gutter.

I'll get off of my soapbox now.

[Aloysius]

you said it yourself:

Now, who is going to do this, no one knows; [b]if the state does it, it is communism and thus not permissable.[/b]

as Catholics it is our responsibility to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and help the poor. The state cannot impose this upon us.

plus, with a reformed welfare system welfare will do the job the state is required to do: help its citizens not only eat and such, but become better citizens and thus be able to eat their whole life. a welfare system that encourages them to break the poverty cycle will acheive a sulf-sustaining social justice rather than a social justice in which the state simply sustains these ppl. we should help the poor by any means possible, the state has a call to help them not to be poor anymore.

[Iacobus]

JP2Iloveyou I posted that in the draft thread but you never replied. Than PM went down. It is still there if you want I can dig it up for ya.

Neither party is a true repesation of the gospel message. Hows that?

[Colleen]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='May 16 2004, 04:27 PM'] Neither party is a true repesation of the gospel message. Hows that? [/quote]
Sounds good to me. -_-

[JP2Iloveyou]

I agree, neither party is a true representation of the Gospel, but sometimes we have to make do with what we have. In the United States, we have the Republicans and we have the Democrats. One party has as their official party platform stances that support things that are intrinsically evil. Another party, while not perfect, has no official stances that are intrinsically evil. That has to count for something.

[Aloysius]

JP2Iloveyou,Iloveyou!!!

hehehehe... yeah that was very well stated

[Iacobus]

The DP is kinda evil. At least with the failures shown in the Justice system with DNA.

[Aloysius]

no official position that is intrisically evil.

that is an imperfection, but it's official position is not intrisically evil, rather the way the death penalty is carried out causes evils to happen. That should be reformed within the democratic party and the US so that the death penalty never kills an innocent, but the policy itself is not intrinsically evil because the death penalty in and of itself is not intrinsically evil.

while abortion is intrinsically evil, and homosexual marriage is intrinsically evil. i think that's the point, the Democratic Party is in bed with intrinsically evil policies, whereas the Republican Party has its imperfections in its policies but does not have any flat out intrinsically evil policies.

[Iacobus]

What brothers me, I live in IL, is that we found 13!!!! innconet men on death row over two years. 13! men who were going to be MURDERED by the state. How is murder not intrisically evil? If you system fails ONCE and an incconet man is killed you are murdering him. The DP per se is not evil. However the DP as the end result of a legal system that can never be 100% is wrong and evil. Because it will become murder.

[Aloysius]

that's true, but the fact is, the Republican Party's position on the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Everything possible should be done to make sure those who are innocent do not get the death penalty. The Republican Party does not say that innocent people should be subject to death. The Democratic Part does say that innocent people should be subject to death (if it be the mother's choice)

the fact is, the Republican Party is just as much against the death penalty for innocent ppl. in a perfect party, they would push an agenda that makes sure the death penalty is rarely if ever used, and basically only used for those who pose a threat to society even if they are locked up. but we do not have a perfect party, we can only choose the party that does not hold any official positions that are intrinsically evil.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='May 16 2004, 02:26 PM'] I disagree with President Bush on many issues, most of the time, I think he is too liberal.  However, a lot of you are saying that he is the "lesser of two evils."  We heard that in 2000 as well.  I am just wondering, because I am studying politics, what some of those issues are. [/quote]
If I vote at all, I'll vote for Bush or some other yet unknown candidate. But that's not to say that I support everything Bush does. It's quite the contrary with me. I'll vote for him because he supports less killing than Kerry would, being that Kerry supports abortion -- the cold-blooded murder of 4,000 babies each day. I am against the war and the death penalty (under most circumstances as it is practiced in our government), but I understand that they are not on the same par as abortion.

As for the abortion issue: Kerry has said that he is personally pro-life but is politically pro-"choice" (which is a nonsensical position to hold), whereas Bush claims to be pro-life but supports abortion in the "rape, incest, and life of the mother" scenarios, which really is being pro-"choice" to a lesser degree. Kerry has also said that he plans on appointing only pro-"choice" judges, whereas Bush has actively lowered funds for pro-abortion groups. Bush has also reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which does not give federal funds to foreign "family planning" groups that provide abortions.

I'm not sure where Bush and Kerry stand on embryonic stem cell research, but I think I recall reading that Bush angered pro-lifers by sanctioning the usage of "left over" embryos for stem cell research (or something like that. Like I said, I have to look into this further).

Gay marriage: Kerry is schizophrenic when it comes to this issue. I think Bush would do a better job in keeping this from becoming a widespread reality in this country.

Euthanasia: I don't know where either of them stand. Do you?

These are the issues that are the non-negotiables for Catholics, as explained by [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp"]Catholic Answers' Voters Guide[/url].

God bless,

Jennifer

Edited May 17, 2004 by BeenaBobba