Vote Kerry

[ironmonk]

Over 4,000 unborn babies will die per day and blood will be on your hands if you vote kerry.

This election you have a chance to be part of saving those lives.


Do you think that you are for peace? If you vote Kerry you are not for peace. How can someone who supports the tearing apart of babies in the womb be for peace?


[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm#thumbnails"]How so you ask?! Click here and see.[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[MC Just]

I'm voting for Bush. Kerry is severely confused and needs help. He needs to repent and stop being stupid...

Edited October 20, 2004 by MC Just

[dairygirl4u2c]

It's important to note that Catholic's Voters guide is not doctrine. It put out by Catholic answers. The bishops of America actually said their guide does not represent true doctrine. The main bishop of the Catholic Church beside the pope Ratzinger put out a proportionality statement that is the true stance. In this the bishop said that it is licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate given proportionate reason. This proportionate reason was ambiguously defined on purpose. Some might disagree with what this purpose is. But you know the bishops know the situation and they could have made a stricter definition than they have.

Most bishops I have seen have said that the choice of who one votes for ultimately is up to the person and God. That person must be informed, and God will then judge his actions after she has been informed. I've not once seen the Catholic Church say that you can not vote for Kerry.

[quote]Over 4,000 unborn babies will die per day and blood will be on your hands if you vote kerry.
This election you have a chance to be part of saving those lives.[/quote]

Making simple statements like this loses its effect. I used to be a Catholic so I realize it helps to reaffirm your beliefs when you say simple things like that. (andor (probably and) maybe you wanted to start a diaglouge)

You have to justify these kinds of statements more before I'd agree that even RCs should not vote for him. You have to show that the Catholic Church actually teachs you cannot vote for Kerry. (I don't mean just explicitly no Kerry, though that would be nice and you'd think would be done if what ou say is truly mandatory, but also explicit criteria that Kerry matches also would be nice if what you say is truly bound by the Catholic Church) You have to elaborate on that "chance" of which you speak. You should talk about the Supreme Court judges that will be elected. To be intellectually honest, you should mention all the other uncertainties too. The justices normally do not reverse decisions. Bush will not have a lithmus test, though Kerry will. Many feel the judges were playing lawmakers with roe wade and won't do anything about the old stance. The judges based their information on the federal laws they knew. The legislators are the ones who need to change roe/wade. The judges may leave a change up to the Congress. (remember judges interpret, lawmakers create) If the majority of the population are pro-choice, you need to mention that too to gauge if they might change their legistators. (or maybe incline the judiciary to chage it) It seems even if you happen to pull a change, it will just be changed back again. I don't even think a change would occur unless the people who changed it knew it wasn't going to be just reversed again.

To me, instead of speculating all of this, which I think a good Catholic could vote for Kerry for, it seems the best way to guage whether or not change will occur is to gauge whether or not the general population is a majority or not. Then voting on principle for pro-life candidate, even if specualtion exists whether or not change will occur is there, is a must.

Edited October 20, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[toledo_jesus]

Is anybody else crying for clear statements from our bishops? Just once I would like for bishops to tell me "No, that is wrong and if you do it you are in a state of grave sin." It would make it so much easier.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Oct 20 2004, 02:38 PM'] Is anybody else crying for clear statements from our bishops? Just once I would like for bishops to tell me "No, that is wrong and if you do it you are in a state of grave sin." It would make it so much easier. [/quote]
Hmmmm...ditto...

Stupid threats from the Kerry campaign over the IRS...

[JP2Iloveyou]

one thing, the Supreme Court can in fact overturn past decisions. using your previous logic, then Dred Scott v. Sanford could not have been overturned or Plessy v. Ferguson. The Court has made poor decisions in the past and corrected them.

[KnightoftheRosary]

I'm sorry but not to be forward Dairy girl, but did you say you use to be Catholic? Um I don't know your background of why you left but how can you leave a faith that is so incredible as the Catholic Church! I thank God everyday for being Catholic and that I am willing to give everthing up for him. That is why I myself am studying to become a priest. Please think over the desisions of why you left the faith and truly think about them.
Love in Christ always
-KOTR-

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 20 2004, 03:22 PM'] It's important to note that Catholic's Voters guide is not doctrine. It put out by Catholic answers. The bishops of America actually said their guide does not represent true doctrine. The main bishop of the Catholic Church beside the pope Ratzinger put out a proportionality statement that is the true stance. In this the bishop said that it is licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate given proportionate reason. This proportionate reason was ambiguously defined on purpose. Some might disagree with what this purpose is. But you know the bishops know the situation and they could have made a stricter definition than they have.

Most bishops I have seen have said that the choice of who one votes for ultimately is up to the person and God. That person must be informed, and God will then judge his actions after she has been informed. I've not once seen the Catholic Church say that you can not vote for Kerry.



Making simple statements like this loses its effect. I used to be a Catholic so I realize it helps to reaffirm your beliefs when you say simple things like that. (andor (probably and) maybe you wanted to start a diaglouge)

You have to justify these kinds of statements more before I'd agree that even RCs should not vote for him. You have to show that the Catholic Church actually teachs you cannot vote for Kerry. (I don't mean just explicitly no Kerry, though that would be nice and you'd think would be done if what ou say is truly mandatory, but also explicit criteria that Kerry matches also would be nice if what you say is truly bound by the Catholic Church) You have to elaborate on that "chance" of which you speak. You should talk about the Supreme Court judges that will be elected. To be intellectually honest, you should mention all the other uncertainties too. The justices normally do not reverse decisions. Bush will not have a lithmus test, though Kerry will. Many feel the judges were playing lawmakers with roe wade and won't do anything about the old stance. The judges based their information on the federal laws they knew. The legislators are the ones who need to change roe/wade. The judges may leave a change up to the Congress. (remember judges interpret, lawmakers create) If the majority of the population are pro-choice, you need to mention that too to gauge if they might change their legistators. (or maybe incline the judiciary to chage it) It seems even if you happen to pull a change, it will just be changed back again. I don't even think a change would occur unless the people who changed it knew it wasn't going to be just reversed again.

To me, instead of speculating all of this, which I think a good Catholic could vote for Kerry for, it seems the best way to guage whether or not change will occur is to gauge whether or not the general population is a majority or not. Then voting on principle for pro-life candidate, even if specualtion exists whether or not change will occur is there, is a must. [/quote]
H E L L O?!

I thought we covered this already?! Remember... "PERHAPS"

The Bishops statements have been clear...

[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]


There have been numerous Bishops statements on it.

Cardinal Ratzinger came out and made a statement on it.

IT IS A SIN TO VOTE FOR KERRY ACCORDING TO Cardinal Ratzinger and about a few dozen Bishops of the USA

Edited October 20, 2004 by ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

Just to note, the reason I put the Catholic answers thing up is because the content of it is expressly different than the proportionality thing. The Canswers thing says you can not vote for a pro-chioce candidate. It also says you don't have to vote. I'd also like it if you were to look up the proportionality thing instead of always using that link. No ones saying that you'd be compromising overriding abortion. An extremely small chance, perhaps. Moreover noone's saying that any issue is above abortion, they're just saying that the it's very unlikely to change makes it a null issue. I've had this discussion with Catholics before, even a priest once who's friends with higher ups and he grudgingly acknowledged my point. (he even gave a sermon the sunday afterward on how so many things are wrong with the world and how people have a miopic view of the gosple of life, I wonder if my convo had anything to do?) I'd like to see something with Ratzinger saying this. Here is Ratzinger in its full ambiguity.

[quote]“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”[/quote]
Here it is in its entirety:
[url="http://213.92.16.98/ESW_stampa_articolo/1,2400,42196,00.html"]http://213.92.16.98/ESW_stampa_articolo/1,2400,42196,00.html[/url]

The notion that the bishops said Catholic Answers are not in line with their teaching I saw in the paper. I'll look it up and hope there's a lead.



I've seen other bishops do theroreticals like, if A is prolife and B is prochoice thing, and they say you should vote for A. They didn't address the issue of uncertainty. They didn't say anything about Kerry. But I will grant that they were pretty much talking about him. But just because a couple of bishops say that doesn't make that the offical stand. If you want to argue that I'm taking Rat out of context then I'd like to see an argument other than big letters and caps from someone.

Lastly, if you think the chance is too great to not vote for Bush, then I accept your stance. I just don't agree with it. Said in the context of someone who'd say that voting on principle for pro-life candidate, even if specualtion exists whether or not change will occur is there, is a must for Catholics. edit: if the majority of the population is pro-life

Edited October 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Balthazor]

I am having moral issues with both candidates.

Sure Bush says that he is against abortion, but as many abortions are being performed as ever.

Kerry is not much better, he can't seem to take a strong stand on exactly where he stands on abortion. He doesn't condone it but he doesn't want to do anything to try and stop it because of the few cases that may endanger the mother. (so he says)

Every fiber of my being tells me that abortion is just plain wrong.

I don't think that either Bush or Kerry really support abortion.
However, I do not see a man before me that is planning on doing anything to efectively reduce abortions.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I've even taken the liberty to start your argument. Of course, I'm implying that you'll need more than this to make a reasonable case.

[quote]Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, Texas, issued a statement explaining “proportionate reasons”:



When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons strictly defined.

Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Candidate A, who is completely for abortion-on-demand, Candidate B, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion, and Candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic voter cannot vote for Candidate A because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation which would remove restrictions on abortion-on-demand. The Catholic can vote for Candidate C but that will probably only help ensure the election of Candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of Candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if Candidate B is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.[/quote]

For one, I might argue that this is a theoretical case where strictlly the ideals are being weighed in theory. In theory, of course abortion should be the major consideration. And second, he didn't address uncertainties and real world factors. (and I had another point but I forget )

Edited October 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[curtins]

ok look- plain and simple- Kerry supports killing babies- idk if u saw the orrigional link but here it is again- i cant even bring myself to enlarge the pics [url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index2.htm"]http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ph...rted/index2.htm[/url]

Kerry is a LYER!!!!!!!!!! KERRY IS A FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!!!!!!! HOW CAN HE LEAD US WHEN HE DOESNT KNOW WHERE HE STANDS ON THE ISSUE?!?!?!?!

talk about crimes commited like gangis kahn- ABORTION ANYONE?!?!?!?!?!?!?

he wont do anyting to defend marriage- he supports embryonic stem cell research- AND CALLS THE PRESIDENTS OPPOSITION TO IT "RADICAL RIGHT WING IDEAS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE IS SCUM!!!!!!!!!

THEN SUM LOCAL democrat party put the picture of bush on the body of a SPECIAL OLYMPIC ATHLETE- for those of you who don tkno what that is its someone who is physically or mentally disabled that competes in olympics with others with such disablilites- THEY ARE AMAZING BRAVE AND INSPIRING PEOPLE- AND TO USE THEM LIKE THAT IN A POLITICAL ADD SICKENS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF COMMUNIST LYING BABY KILLING SCUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

BUSH 04

[dairygirl4u2c]

Maybe you can argue something other than thinking roewade will be overturned in regards to abortion. I've got a few arguments against some arguments I've seen if someone's willing to take the first step.

[quote]IT IS A SIN TO VOTE FOR KERRY ACCORDING TO Cardinal Ratzinger and about a few dozen Bishops of the USA [/quote][quote]THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF COMMUNIST LYING BABY KILLING SCUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1[/quote]

I don't mean to bring out self-affirming statements and rage (or just really really strongly emphatic) from people. MAYBE I"M APPROACING THIS WRONG. On second thought, maybe not. I think I'm just teeing people off.

[quote]If you want to argue that I'm taking Rat out of context then I'd like to see an argument other than big letters and caps from someone.[/quote]

Maybe clarify. I'll even look past the big letters and caps as long as there's an substantiated argument, even if just theoretical but preferably with reference, and not short, simple self affirming assertions.

Edited October 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jmjtina]

abortion is a real world factor.

[quote]
[b]Some Political Issues
Should Be More Important
Than Others for Catholics[/b]

By Mark Brumley

Are some issues in the upcoming election more important than others? Absolutely. I say that as a long-time advocate of what’s called a Consistent Life Ethic.  My thinking has always been that the alternative to a Consistent Life Ethic is an Inconsistent Life Ethic, which doesn’t make sense.  Prolife Catholics have really no choice but to be consistently prolife—that is, to defend human life against all attacks and to support whatever fosters respect for human life, including insofar as possible the conditions under which human life is actually lived.

Some prolife activists have been wary of, if not outright hostile to, the Consistent Life Ethic.  This is because some people mistakenly claim that prolifers must view all issues touching on human life as equally important.  Such a view is sometimes called the Seamless Garment approach to life issues, although not all proponents of the Seamless Garment approach think all life issues equally important. 

How can someone consistently prolife hold some life issues to be more important than others?  The answer is simple.  Some threats to human life are more immediate, more far-reaching, and graver than other threats. 
Consider the issues of abortion and the Iraq war.  Let’s assume something for the sake of argument that is by no means self-evident—that the war in Iraq is unjust. Legalized abortion is without question unjust because it amounts to state-approved killing of millions of innocent, helpless babies.  How do these two things compare with each other?

Often it’s difficult and at times inappropriate to compare this injustice with that injustice.  But when it comes to comparing the evils of the Iraq war—assuming as we have that it’s unjust—there is no comparison.  American forces in Iraq are not deliberately and directly killing millions of innocent, helpless human beings.  You might argue that the number of civilian casualties in Iraq is too high to justify the war.  You might make the case that abuses of civilians are far greater than the Bush administration admits.  But it would be absurd to argue that 1, 300,000 people were being killed as a result of American policy in Iraq. 

Not so with abortion.  Last year, abortion destroyed 1,300,000 human lives.  And not in the way, say, thousands of people died as a result of criminal assault—through illegal activity—but as the result of government-approved killing.  Legalized abortion is not the consequence of an abuse of policy but the consequence of an abusive policy, one that allows certain human beings to kill other human beings, with the killers’ actions backed up by the police power of the state. Where government should uphold the right to life of unborn babies, it intentionally allows over a million of them to be killed each year through abortion.

There simply is, then, no legitimate comparison between the evil of abortion and the war in Iraq, even on the assumption that the war is unjust.  What about another “life issue,” capital punishment?

Again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that capital punishment, as it is practiced in the U.S., is unjust.  I add the qualification “as it is practiced in the U.S.” to help specify things because not all uses of capital punishment are wrong, as far as Catholicism goes.  The Catholic Church recognizes the right of the state, under certain circumstances, to use the death penalty (CCC 2267).  Whether those circumstances presently exist in the U.S. is an interesting question to debate.  For the argument here, though, let’s assume that such justifying circumstances don’t exist.

Where does that leave us with respect to capital punishment and the issue of abortion?  According to one anti-death penalty advocacy group, there were 65 executions in 2003.  I would say, “Compare that to 1.3 million abortions in 2003,” but of course once again there’s no comparison.  Over a million innocent human beings were killed in 2003 through abortion, while less than a hundred human beings, at least some of whom are arguably not innocent, were killed through capital punishment. That isn’t an argument to ignore capital punishment—assuming it’s unjustly applied in the U.S.—but it is an argument against lumping them to get as if they were on more or less the same level.

Some people object to prolife advocates’ emphasis on life issues on the grounds that the conditions of one’s life are important, too, not simply the fact one is alive. Of course it isn’t enough that prolife people support the right to life.  The principle that upholds the right to life—the dignity of the human person—tells us we should be concerned with the conditions under which life is lived.

Nevertheless, as a matter of sheer commonsense, protecting the right to life has a practical priority over the right to a certain condition or standard of life, even though the latter is also important.  Why?  Because unless you’re alive, we can’t talk meaningfully about the conditions of your life.  Unless you have the right to life, it’s nonsense to talk about having other rights.  Pope John Paul II put it this way:
The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination (Christifideles Laici, no. 38).
Yes, issues such as health care, unemployment, homelessness, education, and poverty are significant ones. Someone genuinely committed to the dignity of the human person and for that reason genuinely committed to the right to life should, as we have said, also support efforts to ensure that people have access to health care, jobs, homes, education, and sufficient wealth to live a decent human life. That is the sense in which prolife people must have a Consistent Life Ethic.

But those without health care, job opportunities, homes, schooling and economic means include 1.3 million babies who were killed last year through abortion.  When they were deprived of their lives, they were deprived of the opportunity for health care, of a chance to begin a life leading to work, of having a home, of eventually attending school, and of attaining any economic means whatsoever.  The logical priority of the right to life is unavoidable. 

Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell experimentation, human cloning, and same-sex marriage have been called non-negotiable issues in certain Catholic circles.  Why?  Because they involve intrinsic evils that government can never legitimately authorize. They involve issues on which all Catholics are obliged, as Catholics, to agree.  Most other concerns—even very important ones such as capital punishment or the Iraq war—are subjects about which Catholics can legitimately disagree.  Not so with the five non-negotiable issues.  On these issues there is such a thing as the Catholic position, whether or not certain Catholics choose to embrace that position.

Cardinal Ratzinger made this point recently in connection with abortion and euthanasia on the one hand and capital punishment and war on the other.  In his letter, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” he set out general principles regarding reception of the Eucharist by those who support abortion rights and euthanasia. Ratzinger wrote, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.  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 way, 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.”

Given the nature of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, the same absolute prohibition that applies to abortion and euthanasia applies to these things.  Likewise, Catholic teaching requires an absolute opposition to same-sex marriage.

Catholics have an obligation to form their consciences according to the teaching of the Church.  That teaching allows a wide range of conscientious judgments on a number of important, political issues.  Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell experimentation, human cloning, and same-sex marriage are not among those issues.  On these subjects there is but a single legitimate “Catholic position.” When it comes to legal support for these issues, one can be Catholic or “prochoice,” but not Catholic and “prochoice.”  [/quote]

[foundsheep]

Im confused on whether Im going to write in Gilligan or Dust.


[img]http://ro.hallmarkchannel.com/data/images/PG_USA_Gilligan.jpg[/img]

[color=red]Little Buddy[/color]


[color=orange][b]VS.[/b][/color]



[color=blue][b]Dust..[/b][/color]


[img]http://www.revolutionoflove.com/pics/dust.jpg[/img]

Edited October 21, 2004 by foundsheep