Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
“They don’t vote as a block anymore.” These words were recently spoken by Monsignor Joseph Rebman about Catholic voters. Once a powerful demographic, Catholics today are bitterly divided over whether it is acceptable to vote for pro-choice politicians. Many Catholics are proudly progressive, but others insist that abortion is non-negotiable. What are the spiritual implications of a Catholic vote?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Reasons Not to Vote for Obama
Deal Hudson, thank you!
I loved your post! The clear and simple answer is, No, Catholics who claim to seek the view of God cannot vote pro-abortion. God is not as confused by this topic as people, who have the strange ability to justify whatever they choose. If God condemns the taking of life, we must also. There are no reasons other than self-defense (including justified military actions which defend the safety of our nation, or a nation we are aiding). God knitted that life together in the womb. God knew that person before they were conceived. Let's not be that nation, like in the Old Testament, that sacrifices their children on the alter of "choice" and convenience. "Self" has become the god of the day, and we will sacrifice anything, rather than our own desires. The God who forms life, is certainly pro-life.
- TexasMom
October 22, 2008 7:36AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Boo Radley.
Let me first just thank for a highly repetitive post, with pretty much 1 reason you couldn't vote for Obama.
Who then, can you vote for? None of these men - and none of the women - hold Christian values. Oh there's lip service... but then, most people who claim to be Christian do little but go to church. So voting based on your religious views is sillier than believing in the tooth fairy.
Let me just point out to you that Obama's plans as a whole are decidedly more in line with the ideals of Christ. And indeed, if the whole of the Congress voted according to their Christianity which they claim to express there would be no Iraq war, nothing in Afghanistan, universal health care, free food for the homeless, shelters, and so on and so forth. Things McCain is dead set against - as are most Republicans. Yet giving to those who have nothing, and shunning the materialistic impulses are Christian values.
Speaking of Christian values, is this why the Vatican is so rich? Because it's money that gets you into heaven? Or the way you vote?
Or maybe it's your own individual actions....
Because the only reason you can come up as to not vote for Obama as a opposed to McCain was abortion . Because that's the one issue that would help more people.
Good job. Obama won... and this probably upset you because of the ONE reason you could think of.
- SocialistBetty
January 11, 2009 6:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Atticus Finch
You make a strong point. There is not doubt that a non-citizen subject of a powerful and often cruel superpower, a wandering, illiterate hobo in ancient Israel, certainly would support universal healthcare, free food for the homeless, shelters, etc., but is that the kind of guy you really want to advise you on policy? There were a thousand reasons to vote against Obama, the policies that you mention are just a few of them. Abortion is another. His involvement in the corrupt Chicago political Machine is another (look into Alice Palmer's story if you don't believe me, she's just one example) His associations with Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and many others, are another. Statements he and his wife has made both in public and in his writings provide countless more. His inexperience is yet another. His foreign policy plans are another. I can go on all day, but I'm not going to. In the end, you are right. On January 20, Obama will be sworn into office, he will become the Commander-in-Chief, and, even though I am opposed to almost every single thing about him, I still intend to give him far more respect and common decency than was given to the current President.
P.S. The Vatican is rich because it has many dedicated and usually wonderful supporters who make it so, and it does a great deal to spread the wealth around. Targeting its wealth is a low blow.
- richardsonkr
January 13, 2009 9:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Below the Belt?
I wrote in for Ron Paul, so don't tell Me what's crappy about Obama because I don't like him. I like him like this much better than I like McCain. As for the current president - well. Bleh.
I was just pointing out that Jesus Christ would be laughed at. If he came down out of the clouds and sat at the right hand of Nancy Pelosi and espoused the same views... the very same "Christians" sitting in congress would laugh at him. If he wasn't shot first. Because Christ would tell them to feed the hungry, give their coats to those who were cold, let strangers sleep in their homes - or at least their garages (?) - and to give away whatever they didn't need. These policies are more closely matched by Obama. So if you're going to use your "Christian" (as if that means anything) views to vote, why would you vote for someone whose policies are better for the richest people and crappiest for everyone else? Makes absolutely no sense. Yet time and time again, people will vote not for policies that more closely resemble their beliefs, but for the candidate who claims the loudest and fiercest that yes, they too, are Christian.
The "Christain" values that politicians profess are meaningless because you're exactly right - we can't run the world on them. The hypocrites who run things can pick and choose which so-called sins (so called because they're only sins if you're a religious type), but that doesn't mean a jellified thing. A "Christian" would do what they were told to do... and that is the exact opposite of what happened the past. Well. FOREVER history of politics and politicking.
As for the Vatican having more money than Davy Crockett (never did get that line from Forrest Gump), that wasn't a low blow.
How much harder is it for the rich to get into heaven? Doesn't their very own Christ supposedly say that? So how exactly is it a low blow to point out the hypocrisy of a religion that professes to be the conduit between God and men? They have a frikken POPE! A Pope that wears gold rings and chains and carries a scepter and everything. They should be like Schindler...
How many people could be clothed, fed, sheltered by the worth of that ring alone? The gold? The money?
That's why it's hypocritical. That's hardly a low blow. It's the truth. Crappy? Maybe if you're Catholic. But it's entirely the truth, so targeting the wealth of a religion that supposed to shun it isn't hitting below the sacremental belt at all.
Anywho.
- SocialistBetty
January 13, 2009 11:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I like you, you're fun.
First off, I'm not a Christian, or anything even resembling a Christian, so please refrain from saying "your" Christian values, and from assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a mindless zombie who supports whichever candidate has Jesus. Secondly, I have another list for Ron Paul, but fortunately nobody cares about him, so I don't have to get into it, and your little "bleh" in reference to the current President of the United States, is exactly what I was talking about in the previous comment. As for the image of Jesus skipping through a field holding hands with San Fran Nan, it's a hard image to defend. While Jesus and Pelosi do have similar views on taxation, (give to Caesar what is Caesar's) the poor, (Beatitudes, Second Coming, more parables than I care to count) healthcare, (Pelosi does seem to belive in miracles) and possibly a shared passion for halucinogens, I don't think Jesus was much for sexual deviants. While he did often times seek them out, it was almost always to try and reform them, not support them, as opposed to Nancy Pelosi, whose city has earned its reputation.
As for you attack on the Vatican, which I maintain is a low blow, you seem to be referring to the infamous "camel through the eye of a needle" verse. It is believed that the "eye of a needle was a gate in the wall of Jerusalem that was very difficult to get a camel through. You would either have to unload the camel (fitting, given the metaphor) or it would have to crawl through on its knees. (Also fitting) As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it continues to "unload" a great deal of its wealth on people worldwide. It is one of the largest global charitable organizations, and sends missionaries and educators through much of the Third World. It also does a good job of crawling on its knees. The Church, as a whole, is very humble, though there are individuals who are not. Humility is one of the highest virtues espoused by the Church. The wealth that is not given to people around the world is reserved for the glorification of their god, a duty that is not to be ignored. When a disciple of Jesus tries to annoint him with expensive perfumes, the apostles upbraid her, with the same argument you are using now, that the perfume should have been sold and the proceeds used to help the poor. Jesus stops them, however, and says that she was right to do what she did, for she did so to glorify "god." (I'm not sold that Jesus is a god, thus the quotation marks, but from the Catholic standpoint this makes sense.)
- richardsonkr
January 15, 2009 7:13PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.