How can you be a Catholic and vote Democrat?

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Well written. I'd like to jump on faith a smidgeon more though.

For Faith to be significant, to me at least, it is to posess it regardless of circumstance. In fact, according to the definition of faith, being a synonym of belief, once Faith is justified through confirmation is ceases to exist; like I said, it becomes knowledge. Never has a miracle been scientifically proven, it can't, and in accordance to what I understand about your religion, it shouldn't be considering it would undermine the very foundation of Christianity. Really, how significant would faith be if it were as easy as replying to this message, or doing any sort of observable and definitively provable activites?

I do appreciate your willingness to parse and ponder your beliefs though, it seems that is a virtue lost unto most Christians I know. What's interesting is that I actually appreciate and agree with what I understand to be the teachings of Christ, I just don't see it practiced correctly by those who would weild at as an instrument to force and coerce obediance as if it were the law of Islam.

Personally I'm all for recognizing Christianity in a historical context in our Gorvernment, but I see the lines of separation between church and state being deliberately blurred by evangelical Christians trying to wrestle control of this nation. I see that as wrong for the Christian faith and wrong for society. That is why I can objectively understand (not being a Catholic could in this case allow me to be objective) Kerry's position on abortion, or any other potential intrusion of Religion on government or (vise versa.)

Once one has tested his faith (or worked to internalize it, however you'd like to phrase it), I believe that it will stick with him regardless of circumstance. Otherwise, it was never very deeply held to begin with. The exception being where one finds some fatal flaw in his faith and it is exposed, though I can't think of any particular examples of where this would happen.

I have seen, in person, a 'miracle' that has achieved scientific backing. Linky Take it for what it's worth. If you read up on the story surrounding the event, I believe it will grant you some insight into why a miracle might occur and not counteract faith. In and of itself, a miracle such as this does not grant faith. Instead, it requires faith even to believe in the miracle. Further, miracles typically only present themselves in tangible form to those who already have a deep faith. While others may encounter them, they do not recognize them due to their lack of faith. So, as I said, miracles do not decrease the necessity of faith in any way.

As I've mentioned before, I believe that our laws should be based on educated ethics rather than morals. As I mentioned in this thread, it is clear why we should not legislate morals. Thus, I form my arguments based on ethical arguments rather than moral arguments, as moral arguments lose all meaning outside the context of the particular religion to which they belong. The amazing thing that I have learned after taking more ethics than religion classes is that ethics and religion overlap more often than not. The underlying philosophy governing Christianity is really based on sound ethical principles. These same principles, if truly ethically based, would likely appear in other major world religions. This is a common test that I use to gauge the ethical nature of a question: do all major world religions support or oppose the action? If yes, then there is a good chance that there is an underlying ethical reason why that action is frowned on, and one only needs to examine the issue to determine why it might be unethical. One example is extramarital sex - it is opposed by all major world religions, and there are sound ethical arguments for why this is the case. After you consider it, it's pretty obvious in most cases, though some are far from obvious and require deeper inspection.

Originally posted by: Abraxas
CW: I read everything that came up through October 7 IIRC was the cutoff on the posts that came up with the terms you gave me.

And I did in fact read the link in your sig. That once again came down to morallity and fetal rights.

Tell you what, since you are asserting that your posts are easy to find on the topic, why don't you just c&p one over here? I gave it a shot and didn't see I so I am asking that you spell it out for me. What reason that is neither based in religion or morallity is there to outlaw abortions?

Tell me - how do the references in my sig come down to morality? Because there are three lines from the pope? I quoted pages of Mary Anne Warren and only a few lines from the pope. I guess that's too biased for you, huh? Well, in case you didn't notice, even the lines I quoted from the pope are from an ethics handbook and have nothing to do with morality. Obviously, you didn't read the links in my sig, or you would have realized this. You obviously didn't search very hard for my posts on this issue either. Just so you can repeat my two second procedure, I'll spell it out for you:
1. Go to 'advanced search'
2. Select 'Politics and News'
3. Search Phrase: abortion
4. Author: cyclowizard

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Tell me - how do the references in my sig come down to morality? Because there are three lines from the pope? I quoted pages of Mary Anne Warren and only a few lines from the pope. I guess that's too biased for you, huh? Well, in case you didn't notice, even the lines I quoted from the pope are from an ethics handbook and have nothing to do with morality. Obviously, you didn't read the links in my sig, or you would have realized this. You obviously didn't search very hard for my posts on this issue either. Just so you can repeat my two second procedure, I'll spell it out for you:
1. Go to 'advanced search'
2. Select 'Politics and News'
3. Search Phrase: abortion
4. Author: cyclowizard

What references? The only reference I see is the link to "Educate myself about abortion."

And by the way, I did go to search, select politics and news, used the search phrase abortion, used your handle, and to make sure I didn't miss any of your posts I also set it to list them as posts instead of topics. I could not find an argument of yours that did not hinge on morallity.

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
But my question is why should we make the consistent by adding new laws outlawing abortion and making killing a pregnant woman a double murder to every state that doesn't have them instead fo simply revoking the laws making it a double murder in the states that do?

You're going to have to clear that up a bit, in English please.


Regardless of whatever it is you mean, I really don't care one way or the other. What I do care about is settling the issue and making the laws agree by whatever means is necessary.

It can go either way for all I care. Make it illegal across the board or legal across the board.

As I've said before, my main concern is ignored either way, that being the father's rights. Until I see that fixed, it makes no difference to me which side the law falls on as long as it all falls to one side.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
What references? The only reference I see is the link to "Educate myself about abortion."

And by the way, I did go to search, select politics and news, used the search phrase abortion, used your handle, and to make sure I didn't miss any of your posts I also set it to list them as posts instead of topics. I could not find an argument of yours that did not hinge on morallity.

See, tha intarweb works like this: you click on a link (e.g. the thing in my sig) and it takes you to another page. Usually, this new page will have further links and more information. It's amazing! Try clicking the link in my sig and reading some of the references on the page that it links to.

I'd also like an example of how any of my arguments hinge on morality.

 

[Abraxas]

*sigh* I read every link in the link in your sig. None of them gave me anything useful.

1-6 didn't even have links, 7 had a three part summary of Roe v. Wade, the text of three amendments, the argument from Rehnquist at best provided why the constitution as it is now could not be used for a basis for legalizing abortion, not why it should not be legalized on its own merits, number 8 actually listed itself as a moral judgement and nine only covers the right of the fetus in regards to abortion itself. Your links were compeltely useless and I got a crapload of 404s.

If you would like, I could copy and paste some of your arguments and demonstrate how they hinge on morallity.

EDIT:

Honestly, you bring up many good ideas, but your whole rhetoric about 'we don't choose to conceive' is complete and utter BS. Over 99.9% of all abortions are due to non-rape conceptions. These women CHOSE to have sex. If they conceived, then it is due to their CHOICE. They had the right to choose and they used it. Why should another human being suffer this decision?

Presupposes that the fetus is a human being with a right to life, and that it suffered at all. And while you do not directly state it, you imply that the above is morally wrong because otherwise you have no objection to what is taking place even if it is as you describe it.

As I mentioned before, your only arguments come down to assumption of right, morallity, or religion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
*sigh* I read every link in the link in your sig. None of them gave me anything useful.

1-6 didn't even have links, 7 had a three part summary of Roe v. Wade, the text of three amendments, the argument from Rehnquist at best provided why the constitution as it is now could not be used for a basis for legalizing abortion, not why it should not be legalized on its own merits, number 8 actually listed itself as a moral judgement and nine only covers the right of the fetus in regards to abortion itself. Your links were compeltely useless and I got a crapload of 404s.

If you would like, I could copy and paste some of your arguments and demonstrate how they hinge on morallity.

1-6 and 8-9 are taken from textbooks, reports, and the like. Have you ever tried finding raw data on abortion or ideas regarding abortion on the internet? It is a wasteland of complete bias in one direction or the other. The library, however, is a very rich source of information.

The amendments I listed are those that have some bearing on the Roe v Wade decision. The Roe v Wade material itself given is only the syllabus of the decision. I added additional information from a class I took on biomedical ethics to supplement it as the syllabus is not necessarily very informative without it, but the full decision is too long for anyone to read who has a cursory interest (something like 170 pages). Anyway, the web site is a work in progress. Typing up all that text from books takes a lot of time that I don't necessarily have right now. However, dismissing everything presented out of hand obviates the mindset that you went into the reading with - closed. If you actually considered the material presented, you would see that I actually present a lot more of the view opposing my own than I do support for my view. I didn't want to appear biased, so I spent the available time typing up mostly opposing views. I was hoping this would cause people to ask questions, but apparently that's too much to ask.

In any case, you need to step back and look at the difference between morals and ethics. I highly recommend this thread, followed by this one.

 

[Abraxas]

I would appreciate your not misrepresenting what I did. I dismissed it because none of it presented an argument against abortion itself without going back to a moral or ethical argument.

I already read them both and Morals and Ethics are interchangable for the purposes of my claims. Without moral or ethical facts available to us, those cannot be used to create a logical objection to abortion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
I would appreciate your not misrepresenting what I did. I dismissed it because none of it presented an argument against abortion itself without going back to a moral or ethical argument.

I already read them both and Morals and Ethics are interchangable for the purposes of my claims. Without moral or ethical facts available to us, those cannot be used to create a logical objection to abortion.

Morals and ethics are hardly interchangeable. You're simply being argumentative. What is your purpose for asking these questions if you're automatically going to dismiss the answer?

 

[Abraxas]

I was using them as such. I am asking for a LOGICAL answer. Not an appeal to ethics which amounts to an appeal to belief fallacy or an appeal to majority if you want to use the old universal values route. When you present a logical argument, I won't dismiss it.

I'm sorry, but when people debate, it is expected that the answers given will be questioned until a satisfactory answer is arrived at. It you want to call that being argumentative or automaitcally dismissing the answer then perhaps you should not engage in debate.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
I was using them as such. I am asking for a LOGICAL answer. Not an appeal to ethics which amounts to an appeal to belief fallacy or an appeal to majority if you want to use the old universal values route. When you present a logical argument, I won't dismiss it.

I'm sorry, but when people debate, it is expected that the answers given will be questioned until a satisfactory answer is arrived at. It you want to call that being argumentative or automaitcally dismissing the answer then perhaps you should not engage in debate.

Ethics is the application of logic in determining whether an action should or should not be allowed. Maybe you can tell me your definition and why mine is wrong or should not be applied. If you want to actually discuss something, try quoting and responding to it in the thread in question rather than making completely vague generalizations that accomplish nothing.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Abraxas
I was using them as such. I am asking for a LOGICAL answer. Not an appeal to ethics which amounts to an appeal to belief fallacy or an appeal to majority if you want to use the old universal values route. When you present a logical argument, I won't dismiss it.

I'm sorry, but when people debate, it is expected that the answers given will be questioned until a satisfactory answer is arrived at. It you want to call that being argumentative or automaitcally dismissing the answer then perhaps you should not engage in debate.

Ethics is the application of logic in determining whether an action should or should not be allowed. Maybe you can tell me your definition and why mine is wrong or should not be applied. If you want to actually discuss something, try quoting and responding to it in the thread in question rather than making completely vague generalizations that accomplish nothing.

Show me, then, which ethical standard you are using to determine what is right and wrong and how it logically applies to abortion. I keep trying to get a specific argument out of you but you keep dodging by insisting you left it in another thread. I can't make anything other than vague comments because you can't be bothered to make a specific point to comment on. I CAN'T quote something because you are going out of your way not to post anything that can be quoted.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Abraxas
I was using them as such. I am asking for a LOGICAL answer. Not an appeal to ethics which amounts to an appeal to belief fallacy or an appeal to majority if you want to use the old universal values route. When you present a logical argument, I won't dismiss it.

I'm sorry, but when people debate, it is expected that the answers given will be questioned until a satisfactory answer is arrived at. It you want to call that being argumentative or automaitcally dismissing the answer then perhaps you should not engage in debate.

Ethics is the application of logic in determining whether an action should or should not be allowed. Maybe you can tell me your definition and why mine is wrong or should not be applied. If you want to actually discuss something, try quoting and responding to it in the thread in question rather than making completely vague generalizations that accomplish nothing.

Show me, then, which ethical standard you are using to determine what is right and wrong and how it logically applies to abortion. I keep trying to get a specific argument out of you but you keep dodging by insisting you left it in another thread. I can't make anything other than vague comments because you can't be bothered to make a specific point to comment on. I CAN'T quote something because you are going out of your way not to post anything that can be quoted.

If you want to start a thread on abortion, feel free. This is the official anti-Catholic circle-jerk thread.

There is a reason I will not attempt to discuss abortion in a fleeting manner as you want me to do: because such arguments are easily dismantled. I can make one singular argument that should disallow 99.9% of abortions, but it doesn't address the real issue behind abortion: personal responsibility. You choose to have sex, you choose to accept the consequences, including the possibility of bearing a child or contracting an STD. There is your freedom of choice. If you want to get deeper than that, it requires an analysis of the links in my sig combined with all my posts here. At the heart of the issue is the definition of 'person' as an entity to whom society grants rights.

 

[dszd0g]

Where in the Bible does it say that abortion is a sin? If you say that the ten commands declare that thou shall not kill, then is a fetus a person? One can kill an animal or a plant with out it being a sin. Where in the Bible does it say that a person is created at conception rather than at birth?

Why Abortion is Biblical

Which is a greater sin, destroying an unwanted fetus, or bringing an unwanted life into this world? Isn't 18 years of suffering through parents who do not want you a greater sin? Or worse 18 years of jumping around foster parents? Republicans really push for bringing as many people into the world as possible, but care little for them once they are here.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dszd0g
Where in the Bible does it say that abortion is a sin? If you say that the ten commands declare that thou shall not kill, then is a fetus a person? One can kill an animal or a plant with out it being a sin. Where in the Bible does it say that a person is created at conception rather than at birth?

Why Abortion is Biblical

Which is a greater sin, destroying an unwanted fetus, or bringing an unwanted life into this world? Isn't 18 years of suffering through parents who do not want you a greater sin? Or worse 18 years of jumping around foster parents? Republicans really push for bringing as many people into the world as possible, but care little for them once they are here.

Catholics aren't fundamentalists - we don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible. Your points on abortion can only make me :roll: - have you ever been to P&N before?

 

[dszd0g]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Catholics aren't fundamentalists - we don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible. Your points on abortion can only make me :roll: - have you ever been to P&N before?

I didn't say that Catholics are fundamentalists. My point is that it is interpretation that abortion is immoral. Some Catholics may have a different interpretation than others. It is not written in stone.

Abortion was declared unlawful by the Holy Office in 1884 and condemned by name in 1895. The modern Catholic church decrees excommunication on any member who has an abortion. For the Roman Catholic, the Bishops sometimes pass down a different message than the Pope on some issues. Can't an individual Catholic take a different stance on some issues? Just because a Catholic believes someone else has the right to make their own decision, does not mean that the Catholic believes with the decision.

No, I am not Catholic. But I have a number of Catholic friends who do not personally believe in abortion, but support others right to choose.

 

[Netopia]

I think that nearly EVERYONE is missing the basic premise here. IF a moral person believes something to be true, then their actions are dictated by that belief (personal knowledge). Regardless of how a person apprehends beliefs, whether through personal experience, religion, philosophy or whatever... that belief structure now resides within their person. I would say that a general truth that we could all agree on would be that when someone does something that their conscience dictates is wrong to do, then at least for that person it is morally wrong to do it, regardless of the basis of that conscience.

Leadership is another issue. Leaders need to do their best to take the group for which they have responsibility in the direction that the leader believes is best. Notice I'm using the word "leader" and not dictator or king or any omnipotent power position. A leader only truly leads when those following him do so with some amount of their own will.

The combination of the two generalizations above is why I (and others) have a hard time understanding how A)Kerry can be pro-abortion and a good Catholic at the same time, and B)How a Catholic in good standing could vote for Kerry.

Kerry says that he personally believes that abortion is wrong but that he won't push his beliefs on other people. Why? He believes that the war in Iraq is wrong and is against that... and that's also just his personal belief. In fact, EVERYTHING he believes is simply his personal belief and there are others who feel the opposite and yet others who agree with him. Most everything he votes for or against as a member of Government will be based on some personal belief that he has about the issue.

It doesn't matter what the root cause of his belief is, if he believes, then he believes.... and THAT is where I find the conflict. How can a man say that he truly believes what his Church says (that abortion is MURDER) and also say that he wants a to protect a woman's right to choose that thing that he agrees IS MURDER and yet also believe that murder is wrong? It's like saying that I believe that 2+2=4, but only for myself. Either I believe it or I don't. If Kerry REALLY believes that abortion is TRULY MURDER, then it doesn't matter where that belief came from, he has a moral obligation as a leader to intervene. If OTOH he actually doesn't think it's murder, then he should defend the woman's right but also come out and say that he think the Vatican and Catholic Doctrine are wrong and that he will no longer abide by them. BTW, I think he actually believes the latter but is NOT saying so because it would cost him MILLIONS of Catholic votes to do so... so he'd rather play this deceptive playing both sides against the middle game.

He plays half and half. He says he believes the Catholic stance (abortion is murder), and yet says that he believes that it's NOT MURDER (by allowing for it) if someone else does it. The same is true for those voting who are Catholic. If they TRULY believe that abortion is murder, then the war in Iraq in which thousands have died cannot be a greater cause than the MILLIONS of TOTALLY INNOCENT babies who have died. If OTOH, they don't believe what the Church Doctrine says, then they should leave the church and join an organization that they can agree with so that they can relieve themselves of the hypocrisy of supporting a group which they believe to be teaching falsehoods.

Let me put it this way. What would you guys think of a President who, for example, said that they believed that burning your wife alive was wrong because the Bible said don't kill, but said that other people have other beliefs and so he would allow any state that wanted to make it legal to burn your wife alive to do so? After all, his beliefs were religious and were therefore unacceptable. You would EXPECT him to push HIS view because it would be immoral for him to believe that something was so incredibly evil and yet stand by and allow people to do it! We who are pro-life wonder the same thing about Kerry's stance on abortion.

Joe

 

[Spamela]

How can you be a Catholic and vote Democrat?

it's easy for mrs. spamela & me - no regrets whatsoever.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Medellon
I live in El Paso, Tx. which is 80% Hispanic and probably 80% Catholic though I am unsure about the second claim(it certainly is much more than 50%). Any of you who have lived a majority of your life in the Hispanic community know how religious they claim to be with the pictures of the Virgin Mary painted on walls or tattooed on backs, etc.; the shrines that they set up in their houses with candles and pictures of saints and the many religious medallions they carry.

Catholic doctrine is very strongly opposed to abortion and it is one of the greatest sins and tragedies of humanity. Of course it is a fact that most democrats are for abortion (you can spin it anyway you like, pro-choice, woman's right to choose, health of the mother, etc. but it all boils down to being pro-abortion) and most republicans against. My question is how can you claim to be so religious and pray everyday yet support and vote for a democratric candidate who supports abortion which goes against Catholic teachings? I ask my many Hispanic friends why they (the Hispanic community) as a whole overwhemingly vote democratic yet claim to be so religious and they have no answer. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

Perhaps they vote based on more than a single hot button issue?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dszd0g

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Catholics aren't fundamentalists - we don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible. Your points on abortion can only make me :roll: - have you ever been to P&N before?

I didn't say that Catholics are fundamentalists. My point is that it is interpretation that abortion is immoral. Some Catholics may have a different interpretation than others. It is not written in stone.

Abortion was declared unlawful by the Holy Office in 1884 and condemned by name in 1895. The modern Catholic church decrees excommunication on any member who has an abortion. For the Roman Catholic, the Bishops sometimes pass down a different message than the Pope on some issues. Can't an individual Catholic take a different stance on some issues? Just because a Catholic believes someone else has the right to make their own decision, does not mean that the Catholic believes with the decision.

No, I am not Catholic. But I have a number of Catholic friends who do not personally believe in abortion, but support others right to choose.

Whether or not you can still be Catholic when your belief differs from the Catholic Church's depends on the issue. I believe you must agree with everything that the church holds to be 'dogmatic'. If you disagree with a position the church holds, you're taking a grave responsibility and assuming that you're more well-informed or wiser than the church's official who made the decision for the church to be for or against a certain issue. If a Catholic believes in abortion and thinks that he is wiser than the pope on the issue, I would bet bottom dollar that he has not read any of the pope's writings on this subject, nor is he even well-read in secular readings on the subject. Sad thing is, most Catholics don't know what they believe or why they believe it. Same can be said of probably most religions today, though there is one particular reason why I believe it's true of Catholics that I won't go into here.

Originally posted by: Netopia
...

:beer:

This is why I cannot vote for Kerry. If you truly believe something, as he claims to, you cannot simply set that belief aside and support it politically. If you can claim to do this, then you don't hold your 'belief' deeply, if at all, and you're lying to yourself or to me. In either case, it is demonstrative of a lack of principles and not someone that I would have as president.

Originally posted by: Spamela
it's easy for mrs. spamela & me - no regrets whatsoever.

Yet you can't (or didn't) say how, which was the question.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: Spamela

How can you be a Catholic and vote Democrat?

it's easy for mrs. spamela & me - no regrets whatsoever.

But how? Is your religion important to you at all... other than a family culture and social club? The church has said plainly that you CANNOT be a Catholic in good standing and be pro-abortion. It's also said that people who are pro-abortion should abstain from communion until such time as they conform to the teachings of the church.

My question is, if you don't believe in your Church enough to bother following its dictates, why do you remain EXCEPT for the selfish sake of your own family's culture and social standing?

Joe

 

[Medellon]

Originally posted by: Netopia
I think that nearly EVERYONE is missing the basic premise here. IF a moral person believes something to be true, then their actions are dictated by that belief (personal knowledge). Regardless of how a person apprehends beliefs, whether through personal experience, religion, philosophy or whatever... that belief structure now resides within their person. I would say that a general truth that we could all agree on would be that when someone does something that their conscience dictates is wrong to do, then at least for that person it is morally wrong to do it, regardless of the basis of that conscience.

Leadership is another issue. Leaders need to do their best to take the group for which they have responsibility in the direction that the leader believes is best. Notice I'm using the word "leader" and not dictator or king or any omnipotent power position. A leader only truly leads when those following him do so with some amount of their own will.

The combination of the two generalizations above is why I (and others) have a hard time understanding how A)Kerry can be pro-abortion and a good Catholic at the same time, and B)How a Catholic in good standing could vote for Kerry.

Kerry says that he personally believes that abortion is wrong but that he won't push his beliefs on other people. Why? He believes that the war in Iraq is wrong and is against that... and that's also just his personal belief. In fact, EVERYTHING he believes is simply his personal belief and there are others who feel the opposite and yet others who agree with him. Most everything he votes for or against as a member of Government will be based on some personal belief that he has about the issue.

It doesn't matter what the root cause of his belief is, if he believes, then he believes.... and THAT is where I find the conflict. How can a man say that he truly believes what his Church says (that abortion is MURDER) and also say that he wants a to protect a woman's right to choose that thing that he agrees IS MURDER and yet also believe that murder is wrong? It's like saying that I believe that 2+2=4, but only for myself. Either I believe it or I don't. If Kerry REALLY believes that abortion is TRULY MURDER, then it doesn't matter where that belief came from, he has a moral obligation as a leader to intervene. If OTOH he actually doesn't think it's murder, then he should defend the woman's right but also come out and say that he think the Vatican and Catholic Doctrine are wrong and that he will no longer abide by them. BTW, I think he actually believes the latter but is NOT saying so because it would cost him MILLIONS of Catholic votes to do so... so he'd rather play this deceptive playing both sides against the middle game.

He plays half and half. He says he believes the Catholic stance (abortion is murder), and yet says that he believes that it's NOT MURDER (by allowing for it) if someone else does it. The same is true for those voting who are Catholic. If they TRULY believe that abortion is murder, then the war in Iraq in which thousands have died cannot be a greater cause than the MILLIONS of TOTALLY INNOCENT babies who have died. If OTOH, they don't believe what the Church Doctrine says, then they should leave the church and join an organization that they can agree with so that they can relieve themselves of the hypocrisy of supporting a group which they believe to be teaching falsehoods.

Let me put it this way. What would you guys think of a President who, for example, said that they believed that burning your wife alive was wrong because the Bible said don't kill, but said that other people have other beliefs and so he would allow any state that wanted to make it legal to burn your wife alive to do so? After all, his beliefs were religious and were therefore unacceptable. You would EXPECT him to push HIS view because it would be immoral for him to believe that something was so incredibly evil and yet stand by and allow people to do it! We who are pro-life wonder the same thing about Kerry's stance on abortion.

Joe

Exactly...couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

.....
This is why I cannot vote for Kerry. If you truly believe something, as he claims to, you cannot simply set that belief aside and support it politically. If you can claim to do this, then you don't hold your 'belief' deeply, if at all, and you're lying to yourself or to me. In either case, it is demonstrative of a lack of principles and not someone that I would have as president.

At least one person is thinking clearly!

I too want a President who knows right from wrong and who also isn't scared to take a stand. On this issue, Kerry isn't standing on either side, he's sitting on the fence for his own political gain and the nation's loss.

Joe

 

[Medellon]

You cannot pick and choose which part of the church's teaching you will or will not abide by. If you don't agree with major doctrines then go and find a religion that allows you to live life the way you want, may I suggest Scientology.

 

[Netopia]

Well, I was born and raised Catholic and have had issues with many of its teachings as I read more of the Bible for myself. I even (as a Catholic) went through the Catacuminate to try to see if I had missed something... I hadn't. My point is, that once I was convinced that my beliefs didn't line up with the Church I belonged to, I HAD TO LEAVE. It would have been hypocritical for me to stay and support something I didn't beleive in just to please my family. Before you can be a Catholic in good standing, you have to be a SELF in good standing.

I say this not to argue against the Church (we could always do that in some other thread) but to point out that I've actually practiced what I'm saying that Kerry should do... either shape up as a Catholic, or ship out to some leftist denomination that he'd fit in with... I'm guessing that the current Episcopalian Church would do him just fine.

Joe

 

[Strk]

Well, I'm not going to read every response in this thread, so this may have been said already, but how can Catholics support the Republican Party? If one issue that the Democrats tend to be pro for can dissuade individuals, shouldn't the pro-military party do the same?

Honestly, I never understood why there wasn't a third party made that is essentially Democrats without the abortion and other "religious" values.(I put it in quotes only because I don't believe you need to be religious to value the same things, like being pro-life)

Sure, some can blather on about "seperation of church and state!", but let's be serious, it isn't that seperated in this country.