Bush Is Not Pro-life...

[ironmonk]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Aug 6 2004, 12:12 AM'] Obviously, Peroutka is not morally in line with Catholic teaching because he has made no mention of making condoms illegal. Again, according to your logic, it would be a sin to cooperate with this evil. [/QUOTE]
Hence, you have decided that he is in favor of the use of condoms? That is interesting logic. In a campaign where condemns have not been mentioned one single time, Micheal Poroutka has not defended the Churches teaching on contraception. Ergo, he is not a good candidate. Makes sense, huh? [/QUOTE]
You've missed his point.

But it makes less sense to vote for someone who has no chance of winning... that is foolish.


Abortion is the biggest problem... it is the one where the most damage is done.



-ironmonk

Edited August 6, 2004 by ironmonk

[qfnol31]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Aug 5 2004, 04:23 PM'] Our obligation is to vote for the best candidate. We are in no way shape or form bound morally to vote for a lesser candidate based simply on what everyone else is going to do. I don't care who everyone else is voting for. I am obliged to vote for the best candidate. That is what I will do.

Anyone who would suggest that we are sinning by voting for a third party candidate is simply foolish. [/quote]
Well, what is the best candidate for us to keep Kerry out of office?

Is Bush that bad that we can't vote for him to keep Kerry out of office, or is Kerry that good that we can allow him into office?

If Bush is that bad, tell me how, please.

[M.SIGGA]

Catholics are 25% of the U.S. pop. if every single Catholic voted the "right" way instead of supporting lukewarm moderates, abortion probably wouldn't be an issue. pspx is right.

[qfnol31]

Actually, I kinda disagree with that. If all Catholics were to vote for one certain 3rd party candidate (very unlikey), that means that Kerry would maybe get 45-50%, Bush would get 20-30%, and the 3rd party candidate would get the rest. This doesn't include the people already voting 3rd party (pretty much assumes that all people are voting Kerry or Bush), but how much of the vote do you think are going for a 3rd party candidate without the Catholic vote? It would have to be at least 20% for us to even have a chance.

Of course, all these statistics are very much made up...but how far off would you say they are?

Edited to say: This is probably confusing, but I have very much doubt that even if all Catholics went for the same candidate, that that candidate would win.

Edited August 6, 2004 by qfnol31

[M.SIGGA]

Eh, lead by example and campaign for the truth. Settling for second best doesn't show that a person is standing up for the truth 100%. Many other groups of Christians vote for moderates because they feel they are justified in their faith to do so. only the Catholic Church mandates the faithful to vote a particular way. If this nation will ever totally respect life someone needs to stand up because moderates will never totally change the laws. Think of all the Republican Catholic politicans that idealistically might be able to make up a third party that was completely and totally prolife and what sort of effect that might have on the rest of the prolife public.

[jmjtina]

Settling for second best? We see no third party making an effort or just making themselves known.

[quote]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 public morality. (EV 73)[/quote]

I am voting for Bush and life. No one else stands a chance to win [i]at this time[/i].
+JMJ
Tina

[qfnol31]

The first mission of the Church is to save souls. How can we do that if they keep dying? Bush is not for anything that causes us not to vote for him. Maybe we disagree with some of what he says, but the Church says that's okay.

How can the Church save those souls that are never born? We do not know what happens to them if they are aborted. To allow Kerry into office is to possibly deny these souls salvation, which is against the first and primary mission of the Church.

[M.SIGGA]

If it will give you peace quit thinking of it as one less vote for Bush and one less vote for Kerry instead.

It was a LIBERAL third party gained 27,000 votes in 2000 that spolied Gore's election victory, and that's why the Republican party is oddly also endorsing super liberal Ralph Nader because they know Nader votes take away from the Democrats.

[url="http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/politics/071304_politics_nader.html"]HERE.[/url] This sort of politics is not Christian and I can't put my name behind supporting these actions, the unjust war that the Pope didn't support, or anything not totally prolife.

If it makes you happy I live in a RED state by a large margin so Bush will win by almost 60% for all you Republicans. After WWI European Catholics were instructed to support neither the Communists nor the Facist majorities, and that is how America's political/religious debate is evolving. I'm voting with the Church.

Edited August 6, 2004 by M.SIGGA

[qfnol31]

If it was because of a liberal third party that Bush won, could the same be said that because of a conservative third party, Kerry could very well win?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Aug 6 2004, 12:47 AM'] This sort of politics is not Christian and I can't put my name behind supporting these actions, the unjust war that the Pope didn't support, or anything not totally prolife. [/quote]
We're allowed to make up our own minds on the war being just. Therefore, I consider this a non-issue, and one that can get us. Just because we don't think that it's a just war does not give us significant reason for us not to vote for Bush. Abortion does, however.

[dUSt]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Aug 5 2004, 10:04 PM'] "War is not intrinsically evil. Abortion is. Huge difference. "

This makes no sense. Can you clarify? [/quote]
I don't understand what you don't understand about this. It's basic Catholic theology.

War is not intrinsically evil because there are cases where a war can be just.

Abortion is intrinsically evil because there are no cases when it can be justified.

[dUSt]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Aug 5 2004, 04:23 PM'] Our obligation is to vote for the best candidate. [/quote]
Our obligation is to vote for the best candidate [b]that has a legitimate chance of being elected.[/b] Otherwise, we'd all be voting for the pope.

[MorphRC]

Yeah Vote For Nader!



*COUGH*

V
V
V
V
V

[dUSt]

Okay, let's use some common sense here.

Anybody who votes for a candidate who has no chance of being elected is doing the equivalent of not voting. Period.

Seriously, what is the point? Someone please explain the reasoning behind it. What positives will come out of voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning? Why not just stay home? It will have the same effect as the exercise in futility you partake in by voting for someone who has no chance of being elected.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 6 2004, 12:54 AM'] If it was because of a liberal third party that Bush won, could the same be said that because of a conservative third party, Kerry could very well win? [/quote]
A "Catholic values" third party wouldn't do anything in this election to hurt Bush. All the areas of the USA with a high concentration of Catholic people tend to be far left and liberal and RED except Louisiana, whose electoral votes don't really mean squat. Overall if Catholic people in those liberal areas (New England, MidAtlantic, California, Michigan, Illinois, South Florida) turned towards a conservative third party, it would really hurt the Democratic Party.