What makes a good President?

[God Conquers]

The biggest thing to remmeber here is gravity.... not the falling apple kind but the how bad is it kind.

Kerry: Supports objective, unnassailable evil. You can't deny it. Abortion, stem cell research, cloning, homosexual marriage.

Bush: supports things which are acceptable (though not desirable) depending on circumstance (war, capital punishment)

It's clear which way you should go.

[Balthazor]

You guys are going soft and blind.

I just can't believe that so many Catholics are gun-ho about this guy....
I mean sure Kerry is a backstabbing, cafeteria Catholic. But I really don't agree with Bush on ANY other points besides, stem-cell research, abortion and the protection of marriage. And the last two points I have a more conservative stand on than Bush does.

Why should I have to accept a candidate that accpets either of the evils of unjust war or abortion?

...and by the way Bush has gone likewarm on his gay marriage stand. What do you call a guy that wants to protect marriage and yet supports GAY civil unions??? If you ask me that is getting way too close to supporting Gay Marriage. In fact it is only a hairs breadth away from Kerry's flawed logic....which is also that he supports civil unions and yet doesn't support gay marriage.

I'LL support Bush....ONLY on the abortion and stem cell research thing....that is all. His stand on civil Unions I find unacceptable, I mean come on, civil unions are a government endorsment of homosexuality. His unjust war I find unaccpetable.
I don't know when going to war with a country stopped being a big deal. It is a Big deal, and I for one refuse to downplay the issue.

Also on the stem cell issue I think that Bush walks and awful fine line....I mean the guy has almost got it dead on. Except on one point, he supported funding research on stem cells taken from embryos who were previously destroyed, I mean this is an awful fine moral line we are walking....and a slippery slope at that.

Why do we have these embryos you ask? Where do they come from? Leftovers from In Vitro Fertilization which the church does not condone.

So in other words, no matter who is president we are still going to have the exact same amount of these leftover embryos sitting in limbo or being thrown out or destroyed because of invitro fertiliztion. Has no one but me thought of this?

I am fully aware of the gravity of these issues, and I admit that on that I am grudgingly forced to vote for Bush.

I am not supporting Kerry the guy is obviously not in communion with Catholic teaching, I just don't think we should only see the flaws of the one and not the other.

Balthazor

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 3 2004, 01:40 AM'] According to every poli-sci course I have taken. and every book on international politics I have read...the war was a pre-emptive strike and not there-fore a "just" war. Beyond that I do not believe that war was justified. Yes Saddam was an evil dictator, yes he should not be in power...no the war was not a just one.

JPII was right....he knows his Catechism and he knows his politics.
I know he is not infallable on this one, but he was right about it none the less.

God Bless,
Balthazor [/quote]
Pre-emptive strike???
How could these people NOT know we were going to attack??

A pre-emptive strike is what Germany did before WWII.

[ironmonk]

ALL DIPLOMATIC MEANS WERE EXHAUSTED. END OF STORY.

I Don't CARE what your poli-sci class says... I care what the Church teaches.

Bush would be more informed than the Pope about security issues because of certain things not being able to be made public knowledge. Ever hear of a term... "under cover ops"?


As far as Catholic teaching goes....

[b]CCC 2308 [/b]All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long [u]as the danger of war persists [/u]and there is no international authority with the necessary [u][b]competence [/b][/u]and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106


[b]CCC 2309 [/b]The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

[u][b]The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.[/b][/u]

-------------------------



[quote]Only a fool or someone who didn't know the whole story would have allowed Saddam to stay in power knowing what we know about him and the given circumstances.

- Sanctions upon sanctions and Saddam kept ignoring them

- He constantly stalled UN inspectors, if he had nothing to hide, why stall them? What could he possibly want to hide from the UN inspectors looking for WMD's? Hmmmm, it's not rocket science. A little knowledge of human nature and Saddam's history tells us that he had to be removed.

- The guy was almost as bad if not worse than Hitler with his human rights violations. We must stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

- The UN stated that Saddam had WMD's and that they were shipped out of Iraq, before during and after the war, from satellight evidence.

- Saddam could have easily prevented the war by letting the UN inspectors inspect where they wanted to go, but he didn't.

- The deaths of the ware are very sad, but place blame where blame is due; Saddam.

- Nuclear material is missing from Iraq that was there BEFORE the war[/quote]



End of Story.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Balthazor]

ummm...cmom....I hate to be rude but
I think you have the wrong Idea of a pre-emptive war....

A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending war.

Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.

Walk in the light of God's truth,

Balthazor

[Balthazor]

Ironmonk I admire you for your knowledge and defense of the Catholic Church and we agree on that.

I am going to start a new line about just-war theory which I hope you will join in on.

I still think Mr. Bush should have listened to the Pope regarding the watr in Iraq.

But right now I have to go to class...... and yes it is a Poli-Sci class.
We will argue about this later on a different line.

God Bless,
Balthazor

[qfnol31]

[quote]Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack.
Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence: The two companies organized a preemptive alliance against a possible takeover by another firm.[/quote]

[dUSt]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 2 2004, 11:34 PM'] The Pope is not infallible when it comes to discipline. The war was a disciplinary measure. [/quote]
Sounds "phishy" to me.

[Balthazor]

WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!!!!

God I love the Pope!!!!!!

...and just think he did not have to campaign to get to his office.....

God Bless,
Balthazor

[qfnol31]

Actually, Ironmonk, I don't think the war in Iraq falls under discipline or doctrine...in fact, I don't think it falls under the realm of the Church at all. Just the Just War Doctrine.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Nov 3 2004, 05:38 PM'] Sounds "phishy" to me. [/quote]
Phishy... Why do you insult me?

Have you forgotten the definition of infallibility?

Morals and Truth bro...

not discipline.


From the Catechism:

[b]INFALLIBILITY:[/b] The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful (891). This gift is related to the inability of the whole body of the faithful to err in matters of faith and morals (92).



God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited November 3, 2004 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 3 2004, 06:30 PM'] Actually, Ironmonk, I don't think the war in Iraq falls under discipline or doctrine...in fact, I don't think it falls under the realm of the Church at all. Just the Just War Doctrine. [/quote]
I say discipline because it's not a matter of faith or morals... since it's an action, I believe it fits closer to discipline... maybe I'm using the def. of discipline wrongly... but it's not faith or morals.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[mulls]

i just hope Bush doesn't diss Israel. for all of our sakes.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 3 2004, 06:47 PM'] i just hope Bush doesn't diss Israel. for all of our sakes. [/quote]
Why on earth would Bush diss Israel?

[mulls]

exactly. i just hope he doesn't.

Israel tends to be dissed alot.