Canadian Government: Liberal

[crusader1234]

I'm actually not Liberal, sorry. I'm NDP/Green... and I mean don't get me wrong, if the Conservatives bothered to be pro-life I WOULD be obliged to support them, but they dont and I don't support any of their other ideas really it would be totally wrong for me to vote for them. Voting for the conservatives now would be like saying "yeah great im really glad you dropped your pro life platform".

[BeenaBobba]

How are the Canadian Socialists on gay "marriage," eh? (Haha. That "eh" was on purpose.) Had I lived in Canada, I would have voted based on this provided both Socialists and Conservatives were anti-life.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Paladin D]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 29 2004, 04:38 PM'] I'm actually not Liberal, sorry. I'm NDP/Green... and I mean don't get me wrong, if the Conservatives bothered to be pro-life I WOULD be obliged to support them, but they dont and I don't support any of their other ideas really it would be totally wrong for me to vote for them. Voting for the conservatives now would be like saying "yeah great im really glad you dropped your pro life platform". [/quote]
Please read this [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp[/url].

[crusader1234]

[quote]WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE


In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.[/quote]

[Paladin D]

Did you read the [b]5 non-negotiables[/b]? If a canidate supports one of those, he's automatically disqualified. However, if all of the canidates support some, pick the one which is less.

However, [b]George W. Bush[/b] supports [b]NONE[/b] of those. Therefore, John Kerry is out of the picture.

Or, you can refuse to vote.

[crusader1234]

last time i checked there were independent options.

[Claudine]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Jun 29 2004, 05:58 AM'] So gay marriage and abortion won the day. [/quote]
Agreed.

i didnt want them to win.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jun 29 2004, 03:52 PM'] Did you read the [b]5 non-negotiables[/b]?  If a canidate supports one of those, he's automatically disqualified.  However, if all of the canidates support some, pick the one which is less.

However, [b]George W. Bush[/b] supports [b]NONE[/b] of those.  Therefore, John Kerry is out of the picture.

Or, you can refuse to vote. [/quote]
Bush supports abortion, sorry Dallas.

[quote]Q: Would you try to overturn the FDA’s approval last week of the abortion pill RU-486?
BUSH: I don’t think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I’m worried that that pill will cause more people to have abortions. As to the drug itself, I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug.
[/quote]

A de facto support for abortion by not trying to overturn it.

And embroyta stem cell

[quote]Bush: Research would be permitted on existing stem lines-that is, on cells taken from embryos that had already been killed- but it would be forbidden on new ones.[/quote]

It doesn't matter if the lines exist already or not. Read the CCC. He is failing 2 nons. Therefore voting for Bush is a sin as much as voting for Kerry. Sorry.


[quote]WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE


In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.[/quote]

Seeing as the both fail the test. You should vote for the one closest to the Church. John Kerry is that man, according to nearly all people. Seeks peace, wants to help poor, social justice, etc. Baring abortion and gay "marraige" (marriage (as in sancity) isn't a legal issue so why should the goverment be involed anyways? IMHO) Mr. Kerry "more closer reflects the Churchs views on [b]all[/b] issues." Emphasis is mine.

[Iacobus]

And lets not boil down Catholic themes set forth by the Bishops to five things. The Church is much more complex and lovly than that. Try the real voters guide (Bishops Statement, teaching). And read the part on Human Life, some quotes.

[quote]Protecting Human Life
Human life is a gift from God, sacred and inviolable. Because every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, we have a duty to defend human life from conception until natural death and in every condition.[/quote]

[quote]Our world does not lack for threats to human life. We watch with horror the deadly violence of terror, war, starvation, and children dying from disease. We face a new and insidious mentality that denies the dignity of some vulnerable human lives and treats killing as a personal choice and social good. As we wrote in Living the Gospel of Life, "Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others".28 Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable. The destruction of human embryos as objects of research is wrong. This wrong is compounded when human life is created by cloning or other means only to be destroyed. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is never an act of mercy. It is an unjustifiable assault on human life. For the same reasons, the intentional targeting of civilians in war or terrorist attacks is always wrong.[/quote]

[quote]Catholic teaching calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding ever more effective ways to prevent conflicts from arising, to resolve them by peaceful means, and to promote post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation. All nations have a right and duty to defend human life and the common good against terrorism, aggression, and similar threats. In the aftermath of September 11, we called for continuing outreach to those who had been harmed, clear resolve in responding to terror, moral restraint in the means used, respect for ethical limits on the use of force, greater focus on the roots of terror, and a serious effort to share fairly the burdens of this response. While military force as a last resort can sometimes be justified to defend against aggression and similar threats to the common good, we have raised serious moral concerns and questions about preemptive or preventive use of force.[/quote]

[quote]Society has a right and duty to defend itself against violent crime and a duty to reach out to victims of crime. Yet our nation's increasing reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified. We do not teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill others. Pope John Paul II has said the penalty of death is "both cruel and unnecessary".30 The antidote to violence is not more violence. In light of the Holy Father's insistence that this is part of our pro-life commitment, we encourage solutions to violent crime that reflect the dignity of the human person, urging our nation to abandon the use of capital punishment. We also urge passage of legislation that would address problems in the judicial system, and restrict and restrain the use of the death penalty through use of DNA evidence, a guarantee of effective counsel, and efforts to address issues of racial justice.[/quote]