Catholic Does Not Equal Gop

[emmaberry]

Of course third parties have taken [s]party[/s] power over the course of history. People are trying to turn this into a 'third parties can win too!' thing, when nobody ever said they can't. I am saying that, in the next election, a third party will probably not win. Anyone who argues otherwise has not paid attention to any substantive polling statistics.

The Church says that, as Catholics, it's our duty to vote so as to increase good. The Church also teaches that, if the two main candidates are both pro-abortion, the faithful can vote for the one who will do the least amount of harm. So if you have a candidate who says abortion is okay only in cases of rape and incest, while the other is for widespread and late-term abortion and killing children who survive abortion, then in good conscience you can vote for the candidate who is for abortion as long as they are for 'less.'

I don't think a third party vote is 'wasted.' I do believe, in this election, the independent/third party vote will help President Obama win.. As a Catholic, I definitely don't want that. As Catholics though, you certainly have the right to vote for a third party candidate.

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346808535' post='2478526']
Emmaberry, the " fines " are to be used to cover the " tax " you would not be paying. If you refuse to pay both the tax and the fine, the only way to effectively opt out of paying for abortion and abortifacients, then you go to jail.
[/quote]

So people under the Catholic employer's illegal non-ObamaCare will still have access to contraceptives and abortifacients through this fine?[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Edited September 5, 2012 by emmaberry

[4588686]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1346787492' post='2478361']
If there's a Constitution Party on the ballot (my friend says there will be, but I haven't found any information on it), then that's where my vote's going. Otherwise, Republican. You're right, though.
[/quote]

I don't know where you live. But here in the south 'constitution parties' tend to be neo-confederate or racistish organizations.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346808031' post='2478516']
So, does this mean you morally agree with Obama or Romney ? These are your only two viable choices this election.

Obama stands for unlimited abortion even late term and killing a child who survives a botched abortion I.E. killed after live birth, the homosexual agenda, and the limiting of religious freedom.

Romney has [b]promised[/b] to repeal Obama care, he stated that it would not work on a national level due to the costs of coverage needed to be covered by increased taxes, he [b]promises[/b] to reduce government intrusions on our lives in the form of less government agencies and restrictions,[b] [says][/b] he is against the homosexual agenda of same sex marriage and being a Mormon, a faith that has seen severe persecution by the government in its short history he[b] [says] [/b]is against limiting religious freedom.

ed

ed
[/quote]

I am with you 95% Ed. I would never vote for Obama. A vote for him is a vote for death. (How is that for a slogan?) But remember Romney is a politician. He has been pro-life when it works for his career. I am certainly not putting any hope into this man turning this nation around. God alone can do that.

He is still a way better choice for a vote then Obama, or I am sorry to say a 3rd party. Although Washington may not have wanted it, it may not have always been that way, it is the way it is now. A 3rd party would not win. I do not want Obama to win. What other choice do I have, to not vote?

[BG45]

[img]http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5792/ovsr.jpg[/img]

[Ed Normile]

Missionseeker, your last post reminds me of the inexperience of youth and idealisms.

“An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it makes a better soup.”- Bertrand Russell

“God save me from idealists.”- Jim Butcher, Grave Peril

This will be a close election, make no mistake of that. This country is closely divided between liberals who believe that anythings goes, almost hedonists and they will vote no matter what or who is in their best interests which are no self responsibility either sexually or financially they will vote for a free ride.
Conservatives on the other hand although well meaning tend to be idealistic in many of their views. They will withhold their vote waiting for Jesus to run for office, which will not happen most likely. So their vote or lack of vote is actually a vote for the other candidate, so in good conscience your not voting or 3rd party vote will be for Obama's benefit.

God bless you, do whatever pleases you when it comes time to vote. Keep in mind that if many conservatives or idealists do not vote then they have no right to say they are against abortion or same sex marriage or the government controlling the church, afterall it was under Obama's orders the U.S.C.C.B. were called to Washington to be told they needed to listen to modern enlightened catholics such as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

ed

[missionseeker]

Given that you have no idea of anything about me think that's an awful lot of words spouting forth from your fingers. I didn't read it all I stopped at "god save me from idealists. "

You should read Chesterton.

Am I young? Yeah. Am I idealistic? I'll grant that to you because I do think that if more people voted what they actually believed it would make some difference. Do I think a third party candidate could win this election? No. Do I think I should vote for a candidate whose record is full of policies that are 1) contrary to what I think a presidents should be and 2) contrary to what he is currently saying his policies are/will be. Heck no.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346810618' post='2478565']
Given that you have no idea of anything about me think that's an awful lot of words spouting forth from your fingers. I didn't read it all I stopped at "god save me from idealists. "

You should read Chesterton.

Am I young? Yeah. Am I idealistic? I'll grant that to you because I do think that if more people voted what they actually believed it would make some difference. Do I think a third party candidate could win this election? No. Do I think I should vote for a candidate whose record is full of policies that are 1) [b]contrary to what I think a presidents should be and 2) contrary to what he is currently saying his policies are/will be. Heck no.[/b]
[/quote]

Okay, I will bite ! What specifically are these policies you rail against so ?

ed

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346809453' post='2478541']


God bless you, do whatever pleases you when it comes time to vote. Keep in mind that if many conservatives or idealists do not vote then they have no right to say they are against abortion or same sex marriage or the government controlling the church, afterall it was under Obama's orders the U.S.C.C.B. were called to Washington to be told they needed to listen to modern enlightened catholics such as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

ed
[/quote]
This is the biggest load of the essence of cow. The idea that if we vote, we somehow have a voice, and the idea that if we don't vote, we have no right to beesh because a lot of jackasses over whom we have no control anyway got in without us participating in the farcical ceremony of the ballot.

It doesn't matter if I vote, or not. The people with the power are going to do as they please. I do not lose my rights based on a lack of participation in this joke of a republic. My rights may be violated, but they do not disappear. Nor do a bunch of morons put into a meaningless position of power gain any rights. They have power. They will have it whether people vote, or not. It will not matter which of the two big government coppery possers gets into office.

[emmaberry]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346810618' post='2478565']
Do I think a third party candidate could win this election? No. Do I think I should vote for a candidate whose record is full of policies that are 1) contrary to what I think a presidents should be and 2) contrary to what he is currently saying his policies are/will be. Heck no.
[/quote]

This is where we differ. I, while not perfectly happy with the candidate I am voting for, would rather vote towards the lesser evil and so increase the general good, even if it is only in a small measure. Whereas you, and I am assuming other 3rd party voters, believe so strongly on the issues that you would not vote for a candidate who compromises on [s]this[/s] these issues, and see this as contributing to the greater good.

So we are both going towards the same thing in different ways.. Yours seems to deal more with your personal conscience, and mine deals more with what I perceive to be the greater good of society. Both are worthy things to cast your vote toward.

Forgive me if I am picking words out of your (and other 3rd party-ers) mouth.

Edited September 5, 2012 by emmaberry

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346811146' post='2478568']


Okay, I will bite ! What specifically are these policies you rail against so ?

ed
[/quote]

I've actually already given several quite freely.
have you looked at MAs healthcare? Romney has no problem defending it. Confusing because it's crazy similar to the one that Obama passed. So... Obama's is not ok and romneys is. At the same time.

If a person wants to make the issue of abortion important then they need to back it with their votes. If you'll notice, Romney's exception doesn't stop at "in cases of rape or incest". He also adds "or when the mother's Health is in jeopardy.". There an no explanations as to what that means/who determines that, etc.

Also did you notice during the RNC he said "I will not increase taxes on the middle class". Great. Who's getting the tax increase?
Have you ever looked at his spending policy while he was governor of MA?

And for those who think Ryan will make it better how do you justify him saying that he sometimes has to vote against his own values so that later he can vote for them. What? That doesn't even make sense.

I have no Internet, only a phone and my family's about to pray so that's all I can do for now.

[Winchester]

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/08/how-draconian-is-the-ryan-plan.html

[emmaberry]

We aren't talking about economics, though it's certainly an issue. This is about Catholic's moral vote.

Sure, Romney/Ryan may not help our debt, but they will not make the economy worse than Obama. Romney's state is doing very well financially, and while this does not mean that under him our country will be doing great, it will probably not be as bad as it right now, at least concerning unemployment and our national debt.

[u]On the morality vote. [/u]
Edit: the mentioned document is "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion" from then-Cardinal Ratzinger:

"Could it be, as is often said, that because one candidate supports abortion and another, while being against abortion, supports a war effort or the death penalty, that that would be a "proportionate reason" to vote for the pro-abortion candidate over the anti-abortion one? Cardinal Ratzinger answers the question in his document.

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia," explained the document. "For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
One suggestion offered is that a Catholic may vote for a politician who supports abortion in very limited circumstances (for instance in cases of rape), if the only other viable candidate is one who supports abortion in most or all cases.

As Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, of Corpus Christi Texas, explained in September 2004: "Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Kerry, who is completely for abortion on demand, Bush, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and Peroutka, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. [b]The Catholic can vote for Peroutka, but that will probably only help ensure the election of Kerry. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Bush, since his vote might help to ensure the defeat of Kerry and might result in the saving of some innocent human lives.[/b]"

Where does that logic come from? Pope John Paul II explained in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), "…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.""

Edited September 5, 2012 by emmaberry

[eagle_eye222001]

A few points.

Voting third party may very well help Obama win a second term...

...but that is not an excuse to vote for Romney......someone who has flipped-flopped enough to warrant no confidence in. Romney might pretend to share your values today, but his past demonstrably shows he is an opportunist and will sell you as soon as it benefits him. His only principle is to benefit himself. Everything else is up to the whims of the wind. You trust him to be different this time?

A vote for third party simply states you have no confidence in either major candidate. To give Romney your vote simply because you fear Obama more does nothing to solve the grave problems this nation faces and gives integrity to someone who deserves none as evident by his inconsistent record.


Those who still believe Obamney is going to save us, you should check out [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg"]what happened at the GOP convention[/url] (basically Romney and the RNC cheated and rigged the convention to ensure that not only Romney would win, but that future grass-root politicians would face much higher hurdles. And you trust him and the RNC???

While I am not waiting for Jesus to run third party, this does not mean I will tolerate the "lesser of two evils" to infinity. While this phrase has some legitimacy to it, it only goes so far. And frankly Romney is far enough to where I refuse to choose which demon I want my country to continually be possessed by.

Do you truly think and have legit reason to believe that Romney will actually work to limit abortions? Will he actually stop funding Planned Parenthood? Will he push for pro-life legislation? Or will he say that we need to pay attention to the economy?

America is headed for an iceberg. Romney might move the ship two inches to the left or right.........big whoop. Pat yourself on the back when America completes its crash at 100 MPH instead of 105 MPH and at nearly dead center instead of dead center.

It is time to join the Revolution. It is time to draw a line in the sand and [u]Restore America Now[/u] and not [i][b]PRETEND [/b][/i]to restore in 40 years!






At the current rate, if we want to save America as it was meant to be, it will take another Revolution. You can join now....or you can keep feeding the system and complain that the Revolution can't succeed today.....or tomorrow.....or next week....because you will still be supporting it.....along with many other people who offer the same tired argument.

[size=6][b]Don't revolt against King George.....there's not enough support yet.....[/b][/size]

[emmaberry]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1346827926' post='2478665']
While I am not waiting for Jesus to run third party, [b]this does not mean I will tolerate the "lesser of two evils" to infinity[/b]. While this phrase has some legitimacy to it, it only goes so far. And frankly Romney is far enough to where I refuse to choose which demon I want my country to continually be possessed by.[/quote]

Did you read my post? That is your personal opinion, but the Church firmly says that the Faithful can, in good conscience, vote for the lesser of two evils. You cannot judge fellow Catholics for voting for Romney in the hopes that Obama will not be re-elected, since the Church has stated that this is okay.

So you are fed up with Romney and will vote for a third party, though you don't sound too thrilled about that either. When Obama is re-elected, you will probably blame those who voted for him, and not look at the fact that your voting for a third party is supporting President Obama in his hopes for re-election. That is not me, it is a Bishop:

""Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Kerry, who is completely for abortion on demand, Bush, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and Peroutka, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. [b]The Catholic can vote for Peroutka, but that will probably only help ensure the election of Kerry. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Bush, since his vote might help to ensure the defeat of Kerry and might result in the saving of some innocent human lives.[/b]""

[missionseeker]

With bush there was reason to believe that he might actually support the legislation that he said would. With Romney and Ryan, there is absolutely none.