Ralph Nader

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

This is just a few thoughts on why Nader should be on the ballot and why we should help him.

This isn't because of his platform. It is a basic want. He reprensts a third party. But it is also more than that. The Dems and Nader have basically the same ideology, so they will get the same type of person to vote. So if we all help him get on the ballot, it might ensure that Bush is reelected and the pro-life legislation continues.

Just a thought that I had.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), March 11, 2004

Answers

I actually saw a poll somewhere that indicated Nader would pull voters from Bush this time--I know, weird! I don't take much stock in polls--when I get called, I refuse to answer the questions since they are always biased in favor of the party paying for the poll.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 11, 2004.

Getting a third party candidate to siphon votes from your opponent is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Perot and Nader both altered elections in the last dozen years. Nader is finished however. The mush-brained college kids and environmentalists who voted for him in 2000 are unlikely to do so again. They are focused on getting rid of Bush. Dean would have more success changing over to the Green Party and running than would Nader.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 11, 2004.

Ralph Nader is an abortionist and would fight to overturn any moral accomplishments Bush has achieved. I can't see how any Catholic can vote for him. In fact a number of theologians have stated it could very well be a moral sin to knowningly vote for an abortionist.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 11, 2004.


Bill,

Seriously? That is news to my ears.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), March 11, 2004.


Scott, What is?

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 12, 2004.



By "abortionist," Bill does not refer only to a (pseudo-medical) committer of the crime of abortion, but also to every supporter of the illegitimate liberty to have or to commit abortions.

Most pro-lifers don't use the word "abortionist" in such a broad sense, which is why Scott asked his question. Instead of "abortionist," most say, "pro-abort" or "pro-death" person.

-- (helping@hand.com), March 12, 2004.


Murderers are murderers if they pull the trigger or not. Abortionists are abortionists if they handle the knife or not. It's still murder, the crime is the same, the sin is the same and the divine punishment is the same.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 12, 2004.


Bill: Get a life.

-- Cathleen (FlatTired@Christian.net), March 12, 2004.

Citizens vote in favor of these evils if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, Catholics should not vote for anyone who intends to push programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. from: Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 12, 2004.


Bill, no one in his right mind would dispute the points you are making. The only matter in dispute is the proper use of the word "abortionist." Since 99% of speakers of English mean "abortion-committing doctor" by this word, it is unwise (and I would even say unjust) for you suddenly to start using the word with a much broader meaning (i.e., "all pro-abortion people"). It is particularly unwise (unjust) to do this without even helping people by explaining ahead of time that you will be doing something unorthodox. How would you like it if I started calling you a "jerk," and then tried to plead my innocence by saying that MY definition of "jerk" is "any ordinary person?" When engaged in conversation here, our first goal should be to communicate effectively, and that cannot be done if we start making up our own definitions of words (and not even revealing those definitions). hh

-- (helping@hand.com), March 13, 2004.


OK, so he is simply an advocate of murder and a fellow traveler and co-conspiritor. He is still no one to vote for.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 13, 2004.


I voted for him in the last election (I was as disgusted with the mainstream candidates then as I am now). Now I'll just abstain from voting for that particular office of government.

Bill, I wonder whether you're taking sufficient account of the varied facets of conscience here. There are numerous reasons why a thinking Catholic would vote for X democrat that do not imply belittling the importance of the abortion issue. All the facts remaining the same, it is not necessary to interpret Bush as an earnestly staunch defender of the right to be born and the obviously only choice for all Catholics. There are other legitimate ways of sizing up the situation.

Examples:

(a) Maybe it is not the Democratic party but the two-party system itself which is life's greatest opponent. Consider:

Suppose a man committed a LOT of murders and is caught, but he had a HUGE (and innocent) family totally dependent on him for support. The Democrat solution is to leave the man unpunished (and even help him commit more brutal crimes) in the name of the family. The Republican solution is to shoot the man and let the family starve (even continue to tax them).

Both parties silence all the others, and even make people believe that they are the only ones. No "Pro Life Democrats," no "Priests for Life," and so on. Maybe in the very short term, the Republican solution is less radically evil; but in the long term, the most heinous crime is an oligarchy that shuts out any acceptable option. A vote for Nader would be a vote against the whole shoddy system.

(b) The abortion issue differs from all other issues in kind, not only in degree; it is absolutely the gravest of political matters. Even accepting that abortion accounts for millions more deaths and involves a principle right to kill, if Bush's anti-abortion is not radical enough, then (in the face of his crimes against life in other areas), he may not clearly be the best candidate.

Possible scenario: Bush stops partial-birth-abortion, but his pro- life program stops there-->Planned Parenthood steps up encouragement of earlier abortions-->Bush continues his super-capitalist/unilateral warfare/milk-snatcher/smog spewing shenanigans uninhibited.

Is this an acceptable scenario? No. Could a thinking Catholic believe it could happen? Yes. Would such a Catholic be wrong not to vote Bush? No.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), March 13, 2004.


anon,

I don't think Planned Parenthood could do more to encourage abortions than they are already doing, but what if they did? Abortion is legal right now anyway. The only answer is to overturn Roe v. Wade. The only way to overturn Roe v. Wade is for the President to appoint two more conservative Supreme Court justices to join Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas provided there are two vacancies. President Bush, in my opinion, would endeavor to do so. Kerry, or any other democrat/green party/libertarian will not. And by the way, to vote Green Party, Peace & Freedom party, Libertarian party or whatever minor party is to waste your vote. To not vote at all in the election is to say that Bush and Kerry are equal--no difference at all--which is not the case.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 13, 2004.


Anon(YMOUS),

I also won't be voting for the top office this year. It would be repugnant to cast a ballot for someone who protects life with one hand while killing with the other. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

"Bush continues his super-capitalist/unilateral warfare/milk- snatcher/smog spewing shenanigans uninhibited." :>) Not on my vote!

Cathleen

-- Cathleen (FlatTired@Christian.net), March 13, 2004.


If Bush succeeds in stopping the mass murder in the US of innocent children by their own mothers, even it it is only partial-burth abortion, then he is doing a good thing that surpasses any harm he does because he is a capitalist. Again, I would point you to the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 13, 2004.



Anyway, Anon & Cathleen, if you are Catholics, you can't vote for Nader, he advocates the murder of innocent children and would encourage and fight for the continuing of murder of innocent children. He is out of the question (see the Voters Guide, referred to above).



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 13, 2004.


Vote for Joe Schriner

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 13, 2004.

Joe Schriner sounds like a real nice guy. But he says all farming should be organic? Organic farming is the biggest waste of land there is. Organic farming should be banned, not promoted. Good luck feeding the world with organic farms.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 14, 2004.

Bill, you wrote,

"if you are Catholics, you can't vote for Nader..."

First of all, I am not voting for Nader; I may not vote for the president. However, I encourage you to be more precise when you try to represent Church teaching.

The CDF's Doctrinal note states the following:

"those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them... In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals." (The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, #4)

I believe you are confounding a vote for Nader for a promotion of "such laws" or a vote "for them" or a vote for his "political program" or any "individual laws." This is not so; Nader will not be this country's next president.

The CDF doctrinal note says that there is a legitimate plurality of voting decisions based on "the variety of strategies available for accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of political theory, and the technical complexity of many political problems." (CPL #3) I believe you are ignoring those.

Another very important element about the Note is this line here:

"The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person." (CPL #3) It continues, "It is respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible."

A vote for nobody conforms to principles laid out byt the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics." A vote for Nader would seem to violate this principle:

"2. Eliminate from consideration candidates who are wrong on any of the non-negotiable issues. No matter how right they may be on other issues, they should be considered disqualified if they are wrong on even one of the non-negotiables."

Except that his presidency is not at stake. He could advocate the forced worship of pot-bellied pigs and it wouldn't matter.

I like this Joe Schriner guy though. Maybe I'll write him in.

"To not vote at all in the election is to say that Bush and Kerry are equal--no difference at all--which is not the case."

No, it isn't, but they have a critical flaw in common when it comes to the abortion issue: one is a Republican, and one is a Democrat, and each one has half of the solution in his hands, and the two-party monopoly has worked hard to keep the whole solution (some would say the only viable solution) out of the picture.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), March 14, 2004.


anon, A number of the quotes you attribute to me are not mine.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


According to the oft-mentioned "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics", voting for Joe Schriner is the only option available to Catholics. (Bush is ruled out by his equivocation on fetal stem cell research, non-negotiable item #3.) So if all Catholics actually follow this guide, Joe could be the next president!

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.

Joe Schriner sounds like a real nice guy. But he says all farming should be organic? Organic farming is the biggest waste of land there is. Organic farming should be banned, not promoted. Good luck feeding the world with organic farms.

I personally think that farmers should be able to go organic or not, as they see fit as driven by market forces. But since organic farming isn't one of the non-negotiable issues, I have to vote for Joe anyway.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.


Bush's policy is not to create any new lines of fetal stem cells and he is funding adult stem cell research. Which I interpret as not taking any more cells from aborted fetuses, so it isn't an excuse to keep murdering children. Seems pretty pro-life to me.

If you don't vote for Bush, you are voting for his opponent: Kerry. This is a 2 man race, if you think otherwise, you are not living in the real world.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


Seems pretty pro-life to me.

This is maybe "half" pro-life, which still isn't good enough to keep Bush being ruled out by non-negotiable item number 3.

The voter's guide quotes the following church teaching, "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo."

and he is funding adult stem cell research.

Would being pro-abortion be okay if you also agreed to fund abstinence programs? I think not.

Or if someone were to propose that no new abortion clinics could be built, but abortions could still be performed at existing abortion clinics? I don't think so.

Joe Schriner is the only acceptable candidate according to the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, which states, "No matter how right [some candidates] may be on other issues, they should be considered disqualified if they are wrong on even one of the non- negotiables."

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.


Mark, A stem cell is not an embrio. Current stem cell lines that Bush approves are not coming directly from embrios that are killed, but from other stem cells. Kerry is the one who wants aborted babies' stem cells harvested.

On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being.

In addition, the President established the following criteria that must be met:

In order to facilitate research using human embryonic stem cells, the NIH created the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry, which lists the human embryonic stem cell lines—at varying stages of development—that meet the eligibility criteria. see: http://stemcells.nih.gov/registry/eligibilityCriteria.asp

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


Mark said, "Joe Schriner is the only acceptable candidate according to the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, which states, "No matter how right [some candidates] may be on other issues, they should be considered disqualified if they are wrong on even one of the non- negotiables." Mark, you need to read further down on the guide:

WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

Joe Schriner is not a viable candidate. Someone who will not get .01% of the votes in the US is not a viable candidate but an entertainer. The only viable candidates in this race are Bush, Kerry and Nader. Of the 3 the only one that comes close to our views on the 5 non-negotiables is Bush.

I'm sorry you hate Bush so much that you would even start such a dialog, but you know what I am saying is true and you are trying to distract the conversation so people would, what? Throw their vote away and Kerry will get elected? Nice try...

There is only one presidental candidate a serious Catholic can vote for this year and that is George W. Bush.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


unitalic

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.

A stem cell is not an embrio.

How is this different from the abortion proponents who say that an embryo isn't a human being but just a clump of cells? Stem cells have the full set of DNA from the human life from which they were taken, together with the potential to become any type or types of cells.

In addition, the President established the following criteria that must be met ...

Let's just cut to the chase. There are two possibilities here: (1) As long as fetal stem cell research follows President Bush's guidelines, it is perfectly moral and in accordance with the Vatican's teachings; or (2) The fetal stem cell research endorsed by President Bush is still gravely immoral and completely contrary to what the Vatican has said.

If you will read Donum Vitae, you will find that case (2) holds. Thus President Bush is in violation of the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics non- negotiable point on fetal stem cell research. This is no different than saying that a candidate who would only allow abortion in the first trimester is still pro-abortion.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.


Bill, you wrote,

"There is only one presidental candidate a serious Catholic can vote for this year and that is George W. Bush."

Bill, I respect your decision, and I especially love your activity in the forum, bringing us so many great threads pointing to the goings on in the world. But that is a nasty, vindictive, and wholly unconstructive comment. I wish you would at least refrain from bordering on condemning God knows how many Catholics, not to mention myself and some of my family. Would you say that as a guest in somebody's home? Yeesh.

No, a non-vote is not a vote for Kerry. Your interpretation of things is not a law of physics.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), March 14, 2004.


Joe Schriner is not a viable candidate.

Bill, you need to read what the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics actually says, and not what you are trying to alter it to say. The Guide makes no reference at all to a candidate's quote-unquote viability, only to whether he or she is a candidate in the race in question.

There are tens of millions of Catholic voters in the United States. If they all followed the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics and voted for Joe Schriner, then he would be the next President. That's viable enough for me.

There is only one presidental candidate a serious Catholic can vote for this year and that is George W. Bush.

Voting for Bush is just as much a sin as voting for Kerry or Nader. The Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics makes this completely clear if you read what it says instead of how you would distort it. Here's a hint: The dictionary defines "non-negotiable" as "not open to discussion or question, or dispute." Voting for Bush is a sin and that is non-negotiable.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 14, 2004.


Mark the following in italics is a direct quote from the guide:

WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

It is obvious that the guide is saying we have 2 options in the situation we have in November:

1) Vote for Bush
2) Don't vote

Voting for someone who has no possibility of winning is the same as not voting.

I would argue that a faithful Catholic not voting for Bush is actually allowing the possibility of a much worse person coming into power. Namely, Kerry.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


Brian: It's regretable, but we're at war. A war of attrition against terrorism is no sweeter to the winner than is a war in which 10,000 come back in body bags. But it must be won. The stakes are too high, for us as leaders of the free world,

To allow the tide to turn slowly against us. And it will. The forces of extremist Islamic terror will not quit until they've succeeded in bringing a genocidal catastrophe to our shores. We have been warned, on September 11, 2001. As callous as it may sound, several body bags full a week for a few years will not total what the French Revolution killed, after which the reign of terror added a thousand times again to it at the guillotines. People are sacrificed during wars for liberty. The present one may well be a war for western survival; we shouldn't complain because it costs lives in our armed forces. Gen. George S. Patton said, nearing the final victory in World war II; ''We will not mourn these dead; let us just give God thanks that such heroes were born.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 14, 2004.


Ken,
Death is terrible, and war is terrible, but these young men are establishing a democracy in the Middle East (and the average is less than 2 a day and has steadily gone down the last 2 months). If we pull out now, then Iraq will become another Iran and the terrorists will win. That is precisely what they want.

In fact, they are very surprised we have not don’t that since that is what we have done over the last 20 years and run away every time a little American blood was spilt. And who could blame them. Look at our track record. Look at our incredibly weak responses to their repeated and more daring attacks. Look at what happened in Somalia.

If there is any hope to stopping terrorism from the Islamisists and not leaving a legacy for our grand children to clean up, we need to have the guts to attack terrorism and replace the regimes that harbor them with a democracy in the region and let the people rule their own countries. Democracies don't attack democracies.

In a recent memo found in Iraq the Al Quada writer expresses disappointment on two crucial issues: The Americans refuse to give up and leave Iraq despite taking daily casualties; and the majority Shi'ites and once-powerful Sunni sects so far have not engaged in a civil war that would destabilize the emerging government.

"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the New York Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."

The memo states that Zarqawi's strategy is to continue to kill Shi'ites in hopes they will vent their anger against Sunnis still loyal to captured Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. "We have to get to the zero hour in order to openly begin controlling the land by night, and after that by day, God willing," the writer says. "The zero hour needs to be at least four months before the new government gets in place."

Over the last years, the US has shown the terrorists that we don’t have the stomach for fighting back, and they simply got stronger and the terror attacks grew worse. Remember their goal is to over turn the West and eliminate Western society. Especially the liberal views, from the world, and to establish a new world-wide Islamic state. Bush is showing them a different type of America. An America that is willing to stand up and fight for what they believe.

Ken, I strongly recommend you actually read what our enemy is saying. This is not a game, and this is not a political debate. This is war and they mean what they are saying, unlike some (most?) American politicians.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


Oops, eugene got to the answer first :)

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


Pray for Spain, by the way, the terrorists won there today getting the Socialists back in power. This will only encourage the terrorists and endanger other EU nations.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


Ken,
I hope you are right about the Spain. If the Socialists keep a firm command then they will keep the terrorists at bay. It the terrorists think they can frighten the Socialists, then they will have won. By the way, one of the three Moroccans arrested in the Madrid train bombings is linked to a suspected al-Qaida member jailed in Spain for allegedly helping plan the Sept. 11 attack in the United States, according to court documents reviewed by The Associated Press. It was the latest suggestion that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist group may have been involved in the bombings. See: the news article.

Here is another interesting article on how remarkable it is our liberation of Iraq has gone so well.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


“A war would be a defeat for humanity and would be neither morally nor legally justified.” ~John Paul II (March 2003)

“The Pope is saying an invasion of Iraq would be criminal, a statement that strong cannot be ignored.” ~John McLaughlin, longtime supporter of both conservative Republican causes and speechwriter for presidents Nixon and Ford. (March 2003)

Body Count @ 3/14/04 American troops 566 Coalition troops 100 Iraqi Civilians 5,000-7,000 (min)

Roman Catholics support the Pope. Republican Catholics support George W. Bush.

VOTE PRO-LIFE: JOE SCHRINER

"If we go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean - he has nothing - I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." -Bill O'Reilley of Fox News, on Good Morning America (March, 2003)

-- Cathleen (FlatTired@Christian.net), March 14, 2004.


Cathleen, You said: “A war would be a defeat for humanity and would be neither morally nor legally justified.” ~John Paul II (March 2003)

This was before the Papal Envoy met with Bush. The Pope simply does not have all the information to be able to tell if the war was justified or not. By the way, theologiallcy, it isn't the Pope's call if the war is justified or not, it was the President's, I'll talk about that again in this note.

“The Pope is saying an invasion of Iraq would be criminal, a statement that strong cannot be ignored.” ~John McLaughlin, longtime supporter of both conservative Republican causes and speechwriter for presidents Nixon and Ford. (March 2003)

Whatever. 'The Bull' was right we shouldn't ignore it, and I don't think the President did. But the Pope doesn't have the final say either.

Body Count @ 3/14/04 American troops 566 Coalition troops 100 Iraqi Civilians 5,000-7,000 (min)

Pretty darn impressive if I do say so myself! I don't know of another war where a country the size of Iraq was replaced with so few human losses on either side (by the way the high count on the Iraqi side is more like 3,000 total military and civilian... I notice you seem to lump them together to further your political agenda.

Roman Catholics support the Pope. Republican Catholics support George W. Bush.

Cute, but it doesn't wash here. Neither the Pope nor the UN are the civilian authority tasked to physically protect the people of the United States, the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States are, and it is his and the congress' call as to if we go to war or not. And it is their immortal souls, not the Pope's that are at stake if they are wrong. Here is an article by Catholic theologian Michael Novak on the subject.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


For those who are interested in discussions of the ‘just war theory’ I would like to recommend: Moral Clarity in a Time of War, by, George Weigel. George Weigel is Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. This essay is adapted from the Center’s William E. Simon Lecture and the Pope John XXIII Lecture at the Catholic University of America Law School.

The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal, corrupt, and dangerous regimes in the world. For years, the dictator funded terrorists and gave reward money for suicide bombings. For years, he threatened and he invaded his neighbors. For years, he murdered innocent Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands. For years, he made a mockery of United Nations' demands that he account for his weapons and he never did satisfy the terms he made for a halt in hostilities in 1991. We know Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the scientists and technology in place to make those weapons. We know he had the necessary infrastructure to produce weapons of mass destruction because we found the labs and dual use facilities that could be used to produce chemical and biological weapons. We know he was developing the delivery systems, ballistic missiles that the United Nations had prohibited. We know Saddam Hussein had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction, because he hid all those activities from the world until the last day of his regime. And Saddam Hussein had something else -- he had a record of using weapons of mass destruction against his enemies and against innocent Iraqi citizens. Bush had a choice: either take the word of a madman, or take action to defend the American people. Thankfully, he chose the latter when so many before him chose to wait until the enemy attacked once, twice, three times, four times… come to think about it, they never did really choose to act, did they?

Do We Want to Go Back?



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.


Bill:

Thank you for making my point perfectly. Roman Catholics support the Pope. Republican Catholics support George W. Bush.

"This was before the Papal Envoy met with Bush" What is your point? That meeting changed nothing:

From the Catholic News Service, March 6, 2003: WASHINGTON (CNS) -- A papal envoy met with President Bush and reiterated the Vatican's opposition to a US-led invasion of Iraq, saying a war without U.N. approval would be "immoral, illegal, unjust."

Looking at the facts (no imminent threat to the US, Iraq was not the force behind 911, no WMD), if you believe this is a "just" war, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska you might be interested in buying.

Predictably, the remainder of your post equates to: Yada yada, What does the Pope know? Sad, but not surprising.

“A war would be a defeat for humanity and would be neither morally nor legally justified.” ~John Paul II (March 2003)

The Peace of Christ be with you,

Cathleen

"If we go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean - he has nothing - I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." -Bill O'Reilley of Fox News, on Good Morning America (March, 2003)

-- Cathleen (FlatTired@Christian.net), March 15, 2004.


In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case ...

The 2004 Presidential election does not fall into the above category, because there is a candidate, Joe Schriner, who takes the right position on all five non-negotiables. Thus, the correct application of the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics is from the part that I already quoted:

HOW TO VOTE

1. For each office, first determine how each candidate stands on each of the five non-negotiable issues.

2. Eliminate from consideration candidates who are wrong on any of the non-negotiable issues. No matter how right they may be on other issues, they should be considered disqualified if they are wrong on even one of the non-negotiables.

3. Choose from among the remaining candidates, based on your assessment of each candidate's views on other, lesser issues.

Thus the unambiguous reading of what the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics actually says is that the only option for Catholics who take their faith seriously is to vote for Joe Schriner, that is unless there is another candidate that I am unaware of who is right on all five non-negotiable issues. Voting for any of Bush, Kerry, or Nader would be very sinful, as each of those candidates holds at least one wrong position on a non-negotiable issue. In fact, not voting would be sinful as well, because it would serve to further the election of an unacceptable candidate, whether that is Bush, Kerry, Nader or another, over the only acceptable candidate, Joe Schriner. Thus, the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics only endorses the "not voting" option when all candidates are unacceptable.

The argument that Joe Schriner is not a candidate because you do not consider him to be viable is completely erroneous. What this argument is really saying is that because millions of voters are going to sin by voting for Bush or Kerry, that it is now okay for you to sin in this manner as well, because it is no longer "viable" to vote in accord with basic moral principles, as defined by the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics. The problem is that this kind of argument can be used to justify any immoral position. For example, someone might as well argue that it isn't really viable to follow the teachings of the encyclical Humanae Vitae on artificial birth control because the vast majority of American Catholics use some form of contraception anyway.

It is obvious that the guide is saying we have 2 options in the situation we have in November: 1) Vote for Bush 2) Don't vote

Bill, it is obvious that you are starting from the position that you want to vote for Bush, and that you are trying to use any argument possible to justify your vote. But the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics provides a set of straightforward rules in unmistakable English (such as the word "non-negotiable") that plainly show that voting for Bush is immoral, just as voting for Kerry or Nader is. Sometimes being a faithful Catholic means taking the narrow and difficult path alone instead of following the masses on the wide and easy path into sin. That's why I am going to vote for Joe Schriner in November.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark,

A hypothetical situation: There are three candidates for president, Joe Schriner who is polling @ 1%, Joe Stalin Jr. @ 49% , and George W. Bush @ 50%. Are you telling me that you would still vote for Joe Schriner? You accuse Bill of starting from the position that he wants to vote for Bush and will do anything to justify it (which I don't think he is doing). But aren't you starting from the position of opposing Bush and doing anything to justify your position? Also, I don't understand how you are comparing Humanae Vitae to voting; that is comparing apples and oranges. Am I missing something there?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 15, 2004.


Spain is pulling it's troops out of Iraq. I guess the way the Socialists have decided to fight terror is to run away. This indeed is a mighty win for terrorism.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark, You need to know that I started with the position of not liking Bush. I realize he is a product of the Republican elite. Yes I believe there is a Republican elite as there is a Democratic elite. In my view, Kerry is a product of the Democratic elite, Clinton was not. Anyway, I started out not liking Bush and feeling he would not do much in office. Then we had 9/11, in the 1st day or so after 9/11 I saw my fears coming to pass. Then something happened to Bush, he found guts and he decided to fight. He has been honest with us ever since and has been resolute about doing something tough on terrorism. The terrorists are not stupid, and they know how to minipulate public opinion. They also feel that if they hit us hard enough we will crumble and they can eventually take over Western civilization. I think Spain is showing that they might have a point. They are not after changing the US right now, they are concentrating on Europe. They will advance fundamental Islam one country at a time. Anyway, Bush has made a big problem for them by overturning Afganistan and now Iraq. They must stop Bush by any means possible. They know that, so I think they will do whatever they can to get a weaker man into the presidency. That weaker man has now come forward and his name is Kerry. The terrorists will try to do in the US what they did in Spain and unseat the stronger leader.

So now I have 2 reasons not to want Kerry in office:
1) He advocates immorality and murder
2) He would be a weaker war leader

As a Catholic, I will vote against him because of point #1.
As an American, I will vote against him because of both points.

We are not playing games here, the future of our great nation and the freedoms of a lot of people around the world are now at stake.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark,
Again, you quote from the beginning of the guide, but neglect to read further down. Again I quote from the guide:
WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 15, 2004.


You accuse Bill of starting from the position that he wants to vote for Bush and will do anything to justify it (which I don't think he is doing).

I think that the advice from the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics is not in any way unclear or hard to understand, and that applied to the November Presidential election it tells us that the only possible action that is in accord with basic moral principals is to vote for Joe Schriner.

If I jumped to a conclusion when I said that Bill's attempts to distort the words of the Voter's Guide (e.g. add the adjective "viable" to the noun "candidate", treat the phrase "each candidate" as "most candidates", interpret the word "non-negotiable" as "negotiable as long as we talking about George W. Bush") were motivated by his prior choice of candidate, then I apologize.

But aren't you starting from the position of opposing Bush and doing anything to justify your position?

I'm just trying to follow the directions in the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics.

A hypothetical situation: There are three candidates for president, Joe Schriner who is polling @ 1%, Joe Stalin Jr. @ 49% , and George W. Bush @ 50%. Are you telling me that you would still vote for Joe Schriner?

I can't really imagine your hypothetical; why would so many people vote for Joe Stalin, Jr.? In any voting situation, I can tell you that I would follow the guidance of the Catholic bishops.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Bill, you wrote:

"Again, you quote from the beginning of the guide, but neglect to read further down. Again I quote from the guide:

WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one."

-----

As I have already stated, I did not "neglect to read further down". I have read the section you quoted, and I have already explained why that section does not apply to the November Presidential election. The words that the Voter's Guide uses are completely clear on this matter. The Voter's Guide does not> say:

In some political races, your candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for him anyway.

If for some reason you still insist on misinterpreting this section of the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, I have to point out that it could just as easily be used to justify a vote for Kerry as a vote for Bush, because the choice between two clearly unacceptable candidates is left to the prudential judgement of the voter.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark, You need to know that I started with the position of not liking Bush.

Then I do indeed apologize for casting aspersions on your integrity.

However, I fail to understand why you keep on bringing up the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics when it does not support your current position. It is not a document from the Catholic bishops; in fact, it doesn't even have an imprimatur. The advice that it gives would seem to support Joe Stalin, Jr. over Kerry as long as Stalin had the right position on the short list of non-negotiables. This alone makes it suspect. The fact that it comes from an organization known for dissent from the Holy Father's teachings on capital punishment and just war make it even more suspect.

So why not just say the Voter's Guide is wrong, instead of trying to rewrite it into something that it is not?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark (or anyone),

With which of the non-negotiables does Bush not match up? I read over Joe Schriner's website, and I agree with many of his positions. However, he comes across as extremely idealistic and the chances are slim to none that he will be elected. If Bush does not fail the test on any of the non-negotiables, then why not vote for him? He is far more likely to win than Schriner, and Schriner does not seem equipped to meet the needs of our country at this time, with the terror threats and wars going on. Didn't the Right to Life Party even endorse Bush as their official candidate? Not that I agree with every move Bush has made, but he seems to be the most likely candidate that takes the right stand on the non-negotiable issues. If this is incorrect, please tell me.

Thanks & God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark, Of course it is an exaggerated example. Why would so many people vote for Stalin? I don't know. Why would Hitler be able to whip a nation into a frenzy, and exterminate millions of Jews and Christians. Why would Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda butcher each other so callously? Why would people support a lunatic who persuades young men to fly airplanes into buildings in hopes of killing thousands. Evil exists and bad unimagineable things do happen. World War II was a battle between the Allies, which included Communist Russia versus the Axis which included Nazi Germany. Imagine Eugenio Pacelli, who would soon become Pope Pius XII in the late '30's pondering this question: What should I do. Should I support Joe Stalin, who caused the deaths of 8 million Kulaks in the Ukraine and the deaths of untold millions of other Soviets or should I support Hitler, a maniac capable of exactly the same thing. Or should I stay out of it altogether. What is a Pope to do in such a situation? Well Pope Pius XII heroically chose to do all he could to save lives and preserve the Church. He clearly sided with the allies, who included the evil communists and supported them as much as he could without endangering more lives. Not all choices are easy to make. You say you would follow the guidance of the Catholic bishops. They should not, and hopefully would not, guide you to vote for Stalin and they should not, and hopefully would not guide you to vote for Joe Schriner (is this guy getting some publicity on this thread or what), recognizing that to do so would have serious consequences.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 15, 2004.

What party is Joe Schriner?

If Bush is on the Right to Life ticket, all Christians who are going to vote for him should vote under the RTL category to show the nation that this is an important issue to us.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


With which of the non-negotiables does Bush not match up?

Bush has endorsed fetal stem cell research under certain conditions, in violation of non-negotiable point #3 and the Church's teaching that all forms of fetal stem cell research are gravely immoral. The Voter's Guide states:

Recent scientific advances show that any medical cure that might arise from experimentation on fetal stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there no longer is a medical argument in favor of using fetal stem cells.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


What party is Joe Schriner?

The "Average Joe" party. Just kidding, he is not affiliated with a political party.

If Bush is on the Right to Life ticket, all Christians who are going to vote for him should vote under the RTL category to show the nation that this is an important issue to us.

Why not vote for a candidate who will actually do something about abortion when in office (Joe Schriner), instead of a candidate who seems more interested in using his pro-life position for political gain (Bush) than in actually upsetting the status quo by trying to make abortion illegal again. All the key Supreme Court justices responsible for the various pro-choice decisions were appointed by Republicans, and Bush has not even tried to propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.

So why not show how very important this issue is by voting for Joe Schriner?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark said: Bush has endorsed fetal stem cell research under certain conditions

Has he really? I did not know about this. Look what I found at this website for the National Right to Life Committee:

President Bush declared that federal funds will not be used for stem cell research that would require the destruction of human embryos. His threat of a veto stopped an attempt in the U.S. Senate to provide funding for such research.

Perhaps the caveat here is the phrase "that would require the destruction of human embryos." Does that mean if the research is done on live embryos, he thinks it's ok? Or what? I'm confused.

Thanks for your help.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark said: [Schriner] is not affiliated with a political party.

So the only way I can vote for him is to do a write-in? His cause is getting more hopeless by the minute. It's too bad - the state that our nation is in when people who take a position for what is right cannot even get signed to any party. But I guess Jesus said that all men will hate us Christians because of Him. There are numerous third parties out there - I'm surprised that even the Right to Life Party didn't endorse Schriner.

About what you said regarding Bush, I didn't realize that he was inactive on this issue. It seems like he's done a lot for the pro- life cause. You said mentioned Supreme Court justices being appointed by Republicans, but these were not appointed by Bush himself. Also, you said he hasn't proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, he has done other things to oppose it. Please elaborate on what you mean when you said that Bush is using his pro- life position for political gain.

Mark said: So why not show how very important this issue is by voting for Joe Schriner?

I see your point and I will have to give this some serious consideration. This is difficult because I must decide whether it is wrong to "waste" my vote on someone who won't win or whether it is right to vote for someone who takes the right position on key issues. Perhaps we could apply the principle of "What if everyone did so?", in favor of voting for Schriner. God could work a miracle.

My statement about voting for Bush under the RTL category was directed toward those who are going to vote for Bush anyway. That doesn't mean that I've decided, and now I must consider whether Schriner is a wise and viable option. Thanks for your help, Mark. God bless.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Perhaps the caveat here is the phrase "that would require the destruction of human embryos." Does that mean if the research is done on live embryos, he thinks it's ok? Or what? I'm confused.

Bill Nelson has already posted the specific details above. I think the caveat is one of Clinton's "it depends on what the defintion of 'is' is" verb tense distinctions. In the given phrase, "would require" relates to the future subjunctive tense. Bush has approved fetal stem cell research that "did already require" the destruction of human embryos.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Emily, the following (from a 2001 thread about a dramatic speech made by the President) may help you.


"I think that you may have misunderstood exactly what Mr. Bush authorized.

"(1) He approved funds -- i.e., our tax money -- for research into the promising (and completely MORAL) areas of adult stem cells, umbilical-cord stem cells, and placental stem cells.

"(2) He stated that he is pro-life and believes that life begins at conception [i.e., fertilization of ovum, not implantation].

"(3) He refused to approve funds for any future killing of human embryos, during which killing the stem cells would be removed. [This is obviously a very good thing. He rejected the appeals of many, even some prominent Catholics, to fund research that would use 150,000 so-called spare embryos, frozen now and destined to be discarded "anyway." He was very courageous to reject this. He rejects the idea of Americans paying for murder.]

"(4) He approved funds (our taxes) for research involving certain groups of stem cells that have already been removed from embryos. He made it clear that these are cells from humans who have already been killed. Unfortunately, he should have (but did not) specifically state that he condemned those killings. He left that to be 'understood' from other things that he said.

"(5) He is not a dictator, so he is unable to issue an edict that would stop any kind of privately funded research. He cannot stop the intentional creation of human embryos 'in vitro' -- which goes on every day. He cannot stop the abuse of embryos in experiments. He cannot stop mad scientists from killing those embryos while removing their stem cells for further research. Now, I believe that if Congress were to pass a bill banning the killing of embryos, the president would sign it into law. But Congress won't do that (for various reasons), and the Supreme Court would probably strike the law down as unconstitutional anyway. Babies prior to being born have not been considered legal 'persons' in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided in 1973."

-- (Preaux@Leif.com), March 15, 2004.


leif, thank you for your note, you are of course, correct about Bush.

One piece of good news is that babies in the womb are starting to get rights.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 15, 2004.


That was said to me in 2001. I wish that thread was still in forum. There were over 250 posts in that thread.

-- - (David@excite.com), March 15, 2004.

(4) He approved funds (our taxes) for research involving certain groups of stem cells that have already been removed from embryos.

This is where Bush violated the non-negotiable point from the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics' list.

Please elaborate on what you mean when you said that Bush is using his pro-life position for political gain.

The above is one example. Bush could have gone all out for the pro- life position by refusing to federally fund any fetal stem cell research. But instead he made a political judgement that this half-way measure was good enough to keep the support of the single- issue pro-life contingent, so instead of doing the completely moral thing, he decided to try to avoid galvanizing his opposition by funding a limited amount of gravely immoral fetal stem cell research.

Bush's Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act shows the same kind of political maneuvering. He deliberately chose not to include an exception for the health of the mother in the act, so as to make it "unconstitutional" as defined by the Supreme Court. This way, Bush provides ammunition for his campaign by highlighting the possible justice appointments to the Supreme Court over the next four years. The only unfortunate consequence of this machination is that no unborn lives are saved. Obviously Bush found the tradeoff of headlines for lives acceptable.

A true pro-life supporter would have passed the law with whatever was required to allow it to become effective immediately, and then followed up with vigorous enforcement by the Justice Department (which is already under the control of the President) against any doctors who try to twist the meaning of a "maternal health" exception.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Polling Iraq A groundbreaking scientific survey finds more Iraqis approve of the U.S.-led invasion than oppose it, and that Iraqis are optimistic about the future.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark says: "Why not vote for someone who will actually do something about abortion while in office (Joe Schriner)"

I say: Joe Schriner will not be in office, barring a miracle from God. God could also speak to George W. Bush and convince him to convert to Catholicism like his brother. That would be less miraculous. God could speak to members of the Supreme Court and convince them to overturn Roe v. Wade. That too would be less miraculous. If God works a miracle and Joe Schriner is elected President and he turns out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, that is fine with me.

Mark also says: All the key Supreme Court justices responsible for the various pro-choice decisions were appointed by Republicans.

I say: The three Pro-Life stalwarts, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were all appointed by Republicans. You may or may not get a pro-life appointee with a Republican. But you are GUARANTEED NOT to get a pro- life judge appointed by a Democrat. By the way, Joe Schriner cannot guarantee that he could appoint a pro-life judge. History has proven that many judges have changed their views leftward upon reaching the Supreme Court.

Mark says: Bush has not even tried to push a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I say: I would like to see that, but abortion should be illegal under our existing constitution. Harry Blackmun, author of Roe v. Wade decision decided that he wanted abortion to be legal. He then crafted arguments to defend that positon, ie. banning abortion would violate one's "right to privacy." They would do the same thing with a constitutional amendment. We need judges who interpret the law, not make law.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 15, 2004.


I wish I could bold face or italicize certain lines or words but I don't know how--sorry.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 15, 2004.

Brian,
From the "Learn me something" thread -----
Replace '[' with '<' and replace ']' with '>' in each of the
following, to get the desired effect -----

[I]Italics[/I]

[B]Bold[/B]

[U]Underline[/U] [a href="html://www.google.com"] link tag [/a]



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 15, 2004.


Bush has not even tried to push a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.

There is no way it will even come close to passing right now. If the president would push for it, he will be humiliated and his power in Washington will be damaged. Let's see if the marriage ammendment goes anywhere first... he really stuck his neck out on that one.



-- bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 15, 2004.


History has proven that many judges have changed their views leftward upon reaching the Supreme Court.

This is why having a constitutional amendment is the only effective approach for saving the lives of the unborn.

Harry Blackmun, author of Roe v. Wade decision decided that he wanted abortion to be legal.

Justice Blackmun was appointed by Nixon. Chief Justice Warren Burger was also appointed by Nixon. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose flip-flop was instrumental in the failure to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1992, was appointed by Reagan.

But you are GUARANTEED NOT to get a pro-life judge appointed by a Democrat.

I'm afraid that you've fallen for the Republican propaganda on this one. Justice Byron White, who voted against the Roe v. Wade decision, was appointed by President Kennedy. Analyzing the Roe v. Wade decision percentage-wise, 33% of the Democrat appointees voted against Roe v. Wade, as compared to a mere 17% of the Republican appointees.

So if you are dead set on playing the "who will appoint the next Supreme Court justice game" as your strategy for protecting the unborn, you should vote for Kerry.

We need judges who interpret the law, not make law.

That would be very nice. But what we need is a President who is ready to go all out to defend the unborn, and not make excuses as to why a constitutional amendment wouldn't work without even trying it.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


If the president would push for it, he will be humiliated and his power in Washington will be damaged.

And I'm sure President Bush is more concerned about preserving his political power than he is about protecting the lives of the unborn. So if that analysis matches your priorities as well, then by all means vote for Bush. But if you want a candidate who will put the unborn first regardless of the political cost, then vote for Joe Schriner.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.


Mark;

Good arguments. However, I think the Kennedy of 1960 would be a Republican today. That is not Republican propaganda, that is my own honest opinion. The Democrat party is not what it once was. Reagan was even once a Democrat. I would also love it if Bush went all out to protect the unborn. This does not mean he is not pro-life, however, I understand the politics and I think you do as well. But all of your arguments cannot change the fact that Joe Schriner, Joe Schmoe, or Joe Six-Pack will not win the presidency without an act of God. So unless God tells me to vote for Joe Schriner I will not.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 15, 2004.


My assessment is that Joe Schriner would be willing to go all out in support of pro-life. This makes him the best candidate for President, by virtue of the fact that the other candidates (Bush, Kerry, and Nader) aren't even pro-life enough to meet the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics' list of non-negotiables for being a minimally acceptable candidate. This should be all the reason anyone needs to vote for Joe.

A key concept from Catholic morality is that the ends don't justify the means. In other words, a faithful Catholic should always choose the moral action, and trust in God as far as the consequences of that action. The alternative to following this principle is to choose a "less moral" (i.e., immoral) action in hope of achieving an objectively better, "more Godly" outcome. The problem with taking this second approach is that it is directly contrary to the teachings of the Church. This is why it is never permitted to perform a direct abortion (immoral action), even to save the life of the mother (objectively better outcome).

The application of "the ends don't justify the means" to voting should be clear. A Catholic who knows in his or her heart that Joe Schriner is the best candidate commits a sin by voting for an unacceptable candidate such as Bush in order to avoid the outcome of another unacceptable candidate such as Kerry winning. I believe that this is why the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics explicitly did not consider the "viability" of a candidate in its criteria; from the point of view of Catholic morality, it does not justify casting a sinful vote.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.


Mark:

It looks like we'll agree to disagree. I don't think I will be violating Catholic moral teaching by voting for Bush. You do think I will be. So be it. If Joe Schriner's the best man for the job, maybe you can get the U.S. bishops to talk him up. But the bottom line for me is that you are not advancing the cause of the unborn by voting for Joe Schriner. By the way, you should be his campaign chairman, if you're not already.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 16, 2004.


But the bottom line for me is that you are not advancing the cause of the unborn by voting for Joe Schriner.

I guess my bottom line is that you are not advancing the cause of the unborn by sending Bush a message that the Republican party can do even less in the way of supporting pro-life positions without any fear of losing the single-issue pro-life voter contingent.

I agree with you that we will just have to agree to disagree.

I don't think I will be violating Catholic moral teaching by voting for Bush. You do think I will be.

I think the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics says that you will be violating Catholic moral teaching by voting for Bush. But the Voter's Guide is not an official document of the magisterium, and I do think it goes overboard in places. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' website lists many other issues, including those of social justice, that a faithful Catholic can consider in casting his or her vote.

Personally, I do feel that once you have decided to cast your vote on a basis other than who is the best candidate, you have headed down a slippery slope. This approach can just as easily be used to justify a vote for Kerry (highly immoral means) if the desired end is sufficiently worthy (e.g., getting the Republican party to take pro- life issues more seriously than just a campaign stratagem).

By the way, you should be his campaign chairman, if you're not already.

I know I'm going to feel a lot better knowing that I moved Joe Schriner's vote count from 999 to 1000 than I would knowing that I moved Bush's vote count from 48,000,000 to 48,000,001. And this is regardless of whether Kerry gets 46,000,000 or 50,000,000.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.


Brian, I agree with you. By the way, Ted Kennedy was the ultra-ratical Kennedy. Interesting that he has come to the point of being the leader of the Democratic party.

Mark, Your just throwing your vote away and that is exactly what the Kerry supporters hope all of us do.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


Ask Gore how much a few votes matter, LOL! Put your vote where it will do some good, not throw it, and possibly the election, away.

And be careful with intent issues. Your example on abortion for example: It is immoral to perform an abortion to save the mother's life, BUT it is NOT immoral to save the mother's life even if it results in abortion. In the above two cases the exact same physical procedure can be taking place, but in one case there is moral fault, and not in the other. Are you or I the judge of this situation? How do you really know the patient and doctor's intent? When voting I'd try and look at the overall picture of what would be "best" for the country, and not focus on a single issue to the exclusion of all others. If you were voting for a right to life chairman, that might be a good strategy, for President, no. There are LOTS of immoral things the President can do, you need to try and find the best person overall to do them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChmingIn@twocents.cam), March 16, 2004.


I thought the Voter's Guide interestingly left out a key issue for our time, and this is glaring considering all the other issues it addresses are regarding the value of human life. What about the issue of just wars? Are the lives of innocent victims of unjustified military bombings less important than those of unborn children?

I was quite impressed with Schriner's idea of starting a US Department of Peace and only fighting under just war criteria. It seems that on most issues, he is the ideal candidate for Catholics. However, note the word ideal.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.


Emily,

I am assuming that it is because no candidate will say he/she is in favor of waging unjust wars, whereas a candidate can state if he/she is for or against abortion, euthanasia, etc. You said just war doctrine was a key issue for OUR time, but isn't a key issue for ALL times? I'm guessing (and tell me if I'm wrong) that you think the Iraq war is unjust. That's fine, many good people believe the same. But the church cannot define whether or not the Iraq war is a just war, even if the Holy Father speaks strongly against it, because they don't have all of the facts. That is not my opinion, that I believe is the essence of Just War Doctrine. (That's off the top of my head so I'm sure someone will state it more clearly or correct me)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 16, 2004.


Emily,
You hit on something great here. We have the responsibility to choose people of virtue to run our government in a republic. Virtuous people will not intentionally lead us into unjust wars. One of the best ways of finding out if a person is of virtue is how they stand on the five non-negotiables. A person who would advocate the murder of innocent babies, for example, has a dark spot on their soul that will not lead them to be virtuous on other matters.

For those who missed it: The Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics is here.

The guide: bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


sorry,

I meant to say: "You said just war doctrine is a key issue for our time but isn't IT a key issue for all times? Leaving out an "it" can change the meaning quite a bit. I didn't mean to say you don't think it's a key issue all the time.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 16, 2004.


Brian and others who might be interested in the ‘just war theory’ I would like to recommend:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on a Just War

and

An article by Catholic theologian Michael Novak on the subject.

and

Moral Clarity in a Time of War, by, George Weigel. George Weigel is Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. This essay is adapted from the Center’s William E. Simon Lecture and the Pope John XXIII Lecture at the Catholic University of America Law School.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


Emily,

The thing is, I don't think you will find a politician anywhere who supports unjust wars. They all would say they only support just wars, they just differ on what wars are just. Here is the important point. Every war situation has to be judged as it comes up. Even then, the determination is a prudential judgement. The five points of the Voters Guide are non-negotiable. You can't be for these and be worthy of a vote. There is not a non-negotiable position for just war other than not supporting it (which everyone agrees upon). They only differ on which wars are just. This is important and you should vote for a candidate that judges war in a way similar to you, but another Catholic can make a different voting decision and still be a good Catholic. You cannot be a good Catholic and vote for an abortionist.

Well, that was clear as mud! Oh well, best I could do in time I have.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.


The problem with us civilians making the determination if a war is just or not is that we simply don't have all the facts *before* the war begins. The government will always have those facts coming from the Intellegence branch that are classified. We have to vote for virtuous people then trust them. We will know later if we made a correct choice or we need to make a change. I don't think in the case of Iraq we know enough yet. We do know that if we leave now, we would all me in much worse shape.

In Christ
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


Bill,

Mark, Your just throwing your vote away and that is exactly what the Kerry supporters hope all of us do.

I'm going to vote for the only candidate who has shown unequivocal support for pro-life, because that is exactly what I think God wants all of us to do. And if that makes Kerry supporters happy as well, then so be it.

Frank,

Put your vote where it will do some good, not throw it, and possibly the election, away.

I'm at a loss to see how doing the right thing is throwing my vote away. I can see how refusing to align myself with one of the two dominant political parties diminishes my political influence. However, since my goal in life isn't to achieve the most political power at any cost, I am perfectly okay with that. What ever happened to the honest value of setting a moral example, whether or not anyone else follows along?

Matthew 7:13-14 says, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few."

I am doing my best to discern God's will for my vote (along with the rest of my life), and I can't believe that He wants me to vote for a morally unacceptable candidate, which disqualifies Bush, Kerry, and Nader. A desired election outcome does not justify an immoral vote.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.


Brian,

But the church cannot define whether or not the Iraq war is a just war, even if the Holy Father speaks strongly against it, because they don't have all of the facts.

I'm afraid that you've fallen for dissenter propaganda this time. Canon law states:

Canon 747 §1 It is the obligation and inherent right of the Church, independent of any human authority, to preach the Gospel to all peoples, using for this purpose even its own means of social communication, for it is to the Church that Christ the Lord entrusted the deposit of faith, so that by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it might conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it.

§2 The Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgments about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls.

So, far from containing an exception that allows us to ignore the Pope's (and indeed the entire Church's) teaching on the justness of the Iraqi war, the Code of Canon Law specifically requires that we acknowledge the Church's right to make a judgment in this matter.

If you stop to think about it, it only makes sense. For example, Pope Paul VI's teaching on artificial birth control in Humanae Vitae isn't binding because he was an expert in the biology of conception, or the sociology of marriage, or even because he was an expert in moral theology. It is binding because as the Supreme Pontiff, he was guided in a special way by the Holy Spirit. And this same Holy Spirit, who does have all the facts about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, guides Pope John Paul II today.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.


Mark:

In paragraph 2309 of the CCC, there are listed the elements of just war doctrine: there must be serious prospects for success, the use of arms should create less evil than the evil to be eliminated etc. The Holy Father is not in a position to know whether these elements exist. The paragraph even states in effect that it should be left to the prudential judgement of those who are in a position to know this. That is what I was saying; I am not as clear and concise as you unfortunately. Has the pope actually come out and said this war goes against just war doctrine? Or has he said things like we must be gravely concerned, we pray for the innocent victims etc?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 17, 2004.


Brian,

The CCC 2309 paragraph states, "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [of the defensive use of military force] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." What this means is that since the President has the responsibility for the protection of the United States, that he (along with Congress) also has the rightful authority to make the final call as whether or not to defensively use military force. Along with this rightful authority is a presumption that his prudential judgment is accurate. However, this presumption is not a blank check, as I pointed out when I quoted 1983 CIC 747, which is echoed in CCC 2032.

The link Question and Answer by the Archdiocese for the U.S. Military Services contains a short and balanced discussion of the matter. In particular, it says, "Hence, the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church has the right and even duty in cases in which an unjust war is proposed or entered into to speak on the matter and if necessary, to oblige Catholics in conscience to object and refuse to participate. As to the present crisis, many Catholic leaders have spoken against a War on Iraq, yet they have stopped short of insisting upon a course of action for Catholics in the military."

All of my knowledge of Pope John Paul II's position on the Iraqi war comes from second-hand sources, e.g., newspaper articles, so I can't be certain as to the specifics of his teachings. My impression is that he believes as a personal opinion that the Iraqi war is unjust, but that he has not made that an offical papal teaching. However, the U.S. Catholic bishops have not been as reticent:

Bishop Arthur N. Tafoya: A preemptive war against Iraq is an unjust war.

Bishop Wilton D. Gregory: With the Holy See and many religious leaders throughout the world, we believe that resort to war would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for the use of military force.

Bishop John Michael Botean: Beyond a reasonable doubt this war [against the people of Iraq] is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.


"While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers. War has serious consequences, so could the failure to act. People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309). ..

We affirm the words of the Catechism: "[t]hose who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace" (#2310). We also affirm that "[p]ublic authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms" (#2311). "

Bishop Gregory's Statement on War with Iraq MARCH 20, 2003He is the President United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and issued this letter as an official letter from the Office of Social Development & World Peace of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 17, 2004.


"Given the complexity of factors involved, many of which understandably remain confidential, it is altogether appropriate for members of our armed forces to presume the integrity of our leadership and its judgments and therefore to carry out their military duties in good conscience. Meanwhile, we encourage our military leadership in its scrupulous efforts to avoid innocent civilian casualties and to use no more force than necessary to attain stated goals. Now, more than ever, our prayers are with our President and all those associated with him in decision-making."

Archbishop Edwin F. O"Brien, head of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, U.S.A.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 17, 2004.


Two of my links didn't come out last time:

Bishop Arthur N. Tafoya

B ishop Wilton D. Gregory

With the numerous statements by the magisterium on the Iraqi war, I can see support for both sides of the issue. A faithful Catholic who believes that the Iraqi war was just can vote based on that belief, just as another faithful Catholic who believes that the Iraqi war was unjust can vote based on that belief as well.

Contrary to what the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics says, I think that those Catholics who believe that the Iraqi war was unjust are fully justified in including that issue in the list of non-negotiables. The lives of our lost military personnel and of the Iraqi casualties are not any less important that the lives of unborn babies.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.


Mark,
Bishop Arthur N. Tafoya is only giving a personal opinion, and he really has no special insight on this issue. Your quote from Bishop Gregory pre-dates mine and is superceded by mine. I am not sure why you are trying to throw your vote away and allow Kerry to continue to murder innocent children. The 5 non-negotiable are, well, non- negotiable. I wish you would stop trying to persuade others to throw their votes away as well. If we followed your advice, we would elect John Kerry and the 5 non-negotiables would be meaningless. Maybe that is your goal, but it shouldn't be.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 17, 2004.


Given a choice among Pres. Bush, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Nader, a Catholic American has only three possible, morally valid options:
(1) write in a 100% pro-lifer.
(2) do not cast a vote for the presidency.
(3) vote for Pres. Bush.

Only someone with seriously defective intellect would be able to look God in the face on judgment day and attempt to justify having voted for a pro-abortion individual like Kerry or Nader, when the option to vote for a (mostly) pro-life individual like Bush existed.

The president longs to save the lives of the more than 1,000,000 preborn babies being killed, longs to ban all cloning, longs to prevent euthanasia, longs to rule out same-sex marriages, etc.. Meanwhile, Kerry or Nader long for none of these things, and would not lift a finger to change these kinds of tragedies occurring in the U.S.. They would further the nation's (thus far partial) downfall from greatness by appointing even more maniacal pro-death, pro- sodomy, anti-religious judges than already pollute the benches of our courts. These are the things that really matter, not a squabble over whether or not there should have been an invasion in Iraq. With all this in mind, the one to vote for is obvious: President Bush.

-- MM&I (Sorry@Can't.GiveIt), March 17, 2004.


Very sorry. I forgot that I already posted on this thread as "Preaux@Life.Com." Moderator, please be merciful and do not delete the previous message, since I have owned up to my mistake. (Of course, the rule is against posting with two "handles" on the same thread "to simulate a discussion or to make it appear that several people agree with your point of view." I was not trying to do either of those things. The whole thing was an accident.) MM&I

-- (Sorry@Can't.GiveIt), March 17, 2004.

Bill,

Bishop Arthur N. Tafoya is only giving a personal opinion, and he really has no special insight on this issue.

This is incorrect. There is nothing at all in the Bishop's statement to indicate that it is merely an optional, non-binding opinion. According to canon law (1983 CIC 753), the members of the Diocese of Pueblo are bound to adhere to that statement with a religious submission of mind.

Your quote from Bishop Gregory pre-dates mine and is superceded by mine.

You really do have to stop making up your own rules about how to interpret magisterial teachings. Unless an earlier statement is specifically superceded, it is to be considered as still valid, and later statements must be read in harmony with earlier statements (cf. 1983 CIC 20, 21 for the same principle as applies to canon law).

The 5 non-negotiable are, well, non-negotiable.

I agree; I have never said otherwise. You are the one who is trying to claim that they are actually negotiable, provided of course that it is George W. Bush who is the one who is endorsing and supporting gravely immoral acts.

Maybe that is your goal, but it shouldn't be.

My goal is to share the truth about what the Church really teaches with regard to casting one's vote (even when that truth might hurt Bush's campaign), and to apply that teaching to the November election. I must say that some of your posts make it seem as though your goal is to get Bush elected regardless of the truth on the Church's teachings.

If we followed your advice, we would elect John Kerry and the 5 non-negotiables would be meaningless.

What will it profit you to stop John Kerry from getting elected if you lose your soul in the process?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.


Mark:

You said: "What will it profit you to stop John Kerry from getting elected if you lose your soul in the process." Come on now--that is a ridiculous statement. Nowhere on this thread have you come even close to proving that would be the case.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 17, 2004.


You said: "What will it profit you to stop John Kerry from getting elected if you lose your soul in the process." Come on now--that is a ridiculous statement. Nowhere on this thread have you come even close to proving that would be the case.

Can't a person engage in a bit of hyperbole? But I do think that anyone who rejects the principle of "the ends don't justify the means" when it comes to voting needs to ask themselves just how far they are willing to go to see a particular candidate elected.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 17, 2004.


Mark,

Put your vote where it will do some good, not throw it, and possibly the election, away.

I'm at a loss to see how doing the right thing is throwing my vote away. I can see how refusing to align myself with one of the two dominant political parties diminishes my political influence. However, since my goal in life isn't to achieve the most political power at any cost, I am perfectly okay with that.

I've got absolutely no problem with you voting for whoever you want, if you believe you are doing the right thing. When you assert that your way is the ONLY correct way for Catholics to vote (which is what I believe you are implying in your prior statement) then you are mistaken.

If you feel that voting for someone who you absolutely believe in but who has no chance of winning is the right thing to do, do it. If Kerry wins the election because of a few votes, and pushes harder for abortion and the "normalization" of other immoralities, remember, this is the end you were willing to accept to "vote your conscience". I think you have to be honest with yourself and ask yourself if you really believe your man can win. If the answer is "no", then you have to ask who your vote will help TO win. Your vote doesn't just count in the positive (who you are voting for), it also counts in the negative (who the loss of your vote is acting against). The real question is, what is better, making a "point" with your vote, or actually trying to get results with it now, even if they aren't EXACTLY what you wanted?

I don't mind you making a point with your vote, it's a free country, but don't criticize people who want their votes to do something tangible.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 18, 2004.


I've read the arguments here and done my homework. I'm with Mark. That may be only bring Joe Schriner's vote totals from 999 to 1001, but our God IS a God of miracles and if that's what it will take to transform our political system in America from a system where your forced to choose a leader from the lesser of two evils to a system where you can elect a man of virtue then I believe. David, the shepherd boy was an unlikely king, but when God wills it, it will be.

I've voted Republican and Democrat in past elections based on various rationale. I've done my best to soberly weigh the candidate and issues and vote according to my conscience. This election is different for me for various reasons. It is the first post-September 11th election and too critical for Americans to take it lightly or to disregard princles. Bush has errored or misled Americans on critical judgments of international importance (WMD's, Iraq, pre-emptive war, U.N., divisive international policies and rhetoric, etc.) and is not worthy of our continued backing as Americans. Unfortunately Democratic platform itself is unconscionable to serious Catholics. Further, it is unfortunate that there is not a 3rd party candidate that meets the pro-life requirement for Catholics.

Independent U.S. Presidential candidate Joe Schriner (http://www.voteforjoe.com) is genuine. I've corresponded and spoken to him on several occasion. He's humble and faithful. He's the only Catholic candidate that meets the serious Catholic's voting criteria.

A vote for "average Joe" is a vote for you and I. He'll give us an ear and voice in government and bring needed change in campaign reforms and social programs. He'll put some goodness into a system that has compromised on principles and decency ad nauseum (http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/1267104p-8348801c.html).

It won't take a miracle to get Joe elected. It will take my vote...and yours...and theirs (did you know that more than half of all the eligible voters in the country did not vote in the last election?...likely causes are indifference in the issues/candidates or disenchantment with the whole process).

If someone could ignite a fire of patriotism and passion in Americans it would probably be an "average Joe" who cares enough to do something special...like run for President...so the miracle is really here and in our hands now... if only enough of us would believe.

-- Ed Novick (zephyrgarten@att.net), April 20, 2004.


Voting for Joe Schriner is throwing your vote away. He may be a great guy, but he has absolutely no chance of winning. If enough real Catholics vote for him, he will hurt Bush like Nader is hurting Kerry, which may be the reason people are pushing his candidacy.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004.


It wont take a miracle to get Joe elected. It will take my vote...and yours...and theirs...

Yes it will take a miracle and it will take money and lots of it. If you want him to get anywhere Ed, you should contribute cold hard cash to him if you have not done so already. He does seem like a humble guy, naive and not presidential at all, but earnest and idealistic. I will pray for Joe Schriner or another orthodox catholic candidate to capture the fancy of the voters but until then, a vote for Schriner is a vote for Kerry.

By the way, praying the rosary daily for the conversion of sinners and for the conversion of our country would have the same or greater effect as praying for an orthodox catholic (instead of a CINO) candidate such as Joe Schriner to become viable. The latter would naturally follow the former.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 20, 2004.


Reading your posts, as an Aussie I really feel sorry for the predicament that your first-past-the-post voting system puts you in. Of course it's too late for the coming election, but I suggest you join an organisation (I assume there is one in your country) which is pressing for a preferential voting system.

That is, you number the candidates 1,2,3,4... in order of your preference. If no candidate has more than half the votes, the candidate with the lowest number of "1" votes is eliminated and his/her second preference votes are distributed to the other candidates, and so on with the candidate with the next lowest no. of "1" votes etc. If the "2" candidate on a vote has already been eliminated the vote goes to the "3" candidate, and so on, until one candidate has more than half the votes.

That way you don't have to guess whether your preferred candidate has a realistic chance of winning. And it would help break the trouble- causing two-party domination referred to above.

IMHO, as your system stands, if I were in the USA I would vote for the best candidate among those who, in my best educated guess, had a real chance of winning. One thing I would definitely NOT do is to abstain from voting altogether. That puts you outside the democratic system, and you are in effect voting for whoever eventually wins. Also if the idea caught on that good Catholics should abstain from voting, then politicians would say, "Well we don't have to worry about what Catholics think, they won't vote anyway." ( I also think you should have compulsory voting like Australia and many other countries, so that elections are not decided by the elite.)

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 20, 2004.


Peter,

Perhaps you could move here to the US. We could use more level headed voters like yourself.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.


OTOH, after re-reading your post, I would have to say I disagree with you regarding compulsory voting. Iraq had 100% voter turnout. The Soviet Union used to as well. No thanks. People should be free to vote or not vote as they wish. I don't think the "elite" should be defined as people who vote. I would rather have elections decided by 30% of eligible voters who care enough to inform themselves and take their civic duty seriously than compel 100% of eligible voters, 70% of whom are ignorant and don't give a rats rear end what happens, to vote.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.

Hmm, for some reason the last paragraph of my last post has disappeared, so people wouldn't know what Brian's talking about. I said that if the idea caught on that good Catholics should abstain from voting, then politicians would feel they could ignore Catholic opinions because they won't vote anyway. I added that compulsory voting as in Australia is better so that the election isn't decided by an elite.

Brian, what I meant was that with voluntary voting, the election tends to be decided by hotheads with the strongest ideas, or those who want power. After your civil war, Blacks were free to vote and were even a majority in some states, but it was another 100 years before they acheived anything like equality. Similarly women were allowed to stand for election for many decades before they did so in significant numbers. I don't think that in either case it was because they didn't "give a rat's rear end" what happened to them. Maybe they were ignorant, but they needed to have their consciousness raised, to be reminded they they could have a say and be part of the solution to their problems. I think the mass of Catholics in the USA today are in the same situation. They need to be reminded what's important and to vote accordingly. The democratic process is to some extent invalid if it doesn't involve ALL the people.

So Saddam and the Communists claimed that 100% of the people voted (for them). Maybe they did, under coercion or fear. But that's not a valid comparison because obviously the process was only a facade of democracy anyway. The USSR's Constitution provided a wonderful array of freedoms, in theory. The fact that they didn't observe them in practice is no reason for not having the same provisions in our own laws.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.


They need to be reminded what's important and to vote accordingly. The democratic process is to some extent invalid if it doesn't involve ALL the people.

I agree, with your first sentence certainly. The second, I'm not so sure. I'm probably being nitpicky, but if people are free to vote or not to vote, you will never have ALL the people participate. That doesn't mean the process is somewhat invalid. You can't coerce democracy.

...what I meant was that with voluntary voting, the election tends to be decided by hotheads with the strongest ideas, or those who want power.

so what. If you oppose these "hothead's" ideas, you should become one yourself from the opposite side. What's wrong with strong ideas? People will always want power, whether there is voluntary or compulsory voting. Our job as voters is to inform ourselves (just like it is our job as catholics to inform ourselves of our faith, lest it be taken away)

And by the way, American blacks and women have been free to vote in this country for a long, long time so they weren't even in my radar when I referred to non-voters who don't give a rat's rear end. I was talking about people sitting in a chair at home eating potato chips and holding a remote control.

Oh and one more thing. Our system here in the US is not perfect, but I don't think our elections are decided by the elite.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.


Brian

Let me tell you, your system may not be perfect, but it has some distinct advantages over ours here in Canada (of course, ours has some advantages too.) We just had a change in Prime Ministers and guess what, we didn't get to vote on who it should be. The head of the main party resigned and that party chose another guy. Low and behold - new PM. I like the fact that Americans can choose to vote for a Pres from one party and for Reps from another. It is way easier to balance power.

Maybe I'm just bitter with Canadian politics because our PM is the latest in a long string of "catholic" PM's who are in support of every full blown evil plaguing our society.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.


Reviewing my last post . . .yup definitely bitter.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.


Dan,

Bitter suits you. I like it.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.


Brian

Even with complusory voting we only get say 98% of eligible people voting, but I feel a hell of a lot more comfortable with that than with the US system where maybe 50% of eligible people vote and maybe 20% vote for the winner. OK this is not necessarily an "elite" but it doesn't sound like "government of the people by the people for the people" either.

Coercion and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Democracies coerce their citizens in many ways to fulfil their duties. If there was no coercion by the State that would not be democracy but anarchy. A lot of people (apparently Americans particularly I'm afraid)are always banging on about their democratic "rights" but ignore the "duties" democracy also imposes on citizens. For example if you are called to serve on a jury you must do so unless you have a valid excuse or you will be punished.

Yes blacks and women have been free to vote for a long time. That's my point. They're free to, but they may need a push to make them fulfil that duty. eg I understand that even today only a small minority of Blacks vote. Compulsory voting would see politicians focus much more on issues relevant to Blacks and help prevent them becoming marginalised and feeling that they are outside the democratic system.

Re the Canadian system Dano (similar to Australia's) the PM has changed but it's still the same party in power, with I assume basically the same policies, reflecting the wishes of the voters at the last election. It's not like choosing a US president between 2 candidates of different parties. The PM is only the leader of the largest party among the local members you elected. He can't do anything unless his party and the Parliament endorses it.

One beauty of this system is that if the PM proves unsatisfactory a majority of the local elected members can toss out the PM at any time and install a new one. Unlike the US system where you're stuck with a president for 4 years. Even if he commits some heinous crime you have to go through a long and difficult impeachment process to get rid of him.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.


You're right there's nothing wrong with "strong ideas". What I meant to say was that with voluntary voting, elections tend to be decided by those with EXTREME ideas who tend to be much more motivated to vote.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

Compulsory voting would make a lot of people get out of their chairs, put down their potato chips and remote controls and make them think. Many of them would even be made to think "well if I'm going to vote I better find out what the real issues and each candidate's policies are so I don't vote for the wrong one."

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 21, 2004.

You're right there's nothing wrong with "strong ideas". What I meant to say was that with voluntary voting, elections tend to be decided by those with EXTREME ideas who tend to be much more motivated to vote.

I don't know about your country, but here in the US, extremists don't get elected to major office. This is why we have never had an orthodox Catholic president. Because orthodox catholicism is extreme compared to the rest of society. Candidates try to move to the "center" where most people reside. Candidates with "EXTREME" ideas lose.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 22, 2004.


Extremists don't get elected,but where voting is voluntary, extremists make up a far larger proportion of voters than their proportion in the general population. Politicians know this and pander to them so that extremists tend to set the agenda. The politicians then sell the extremist ideas to the rest of the public by introducing them a little at a time.

As for whether orthodox Catholics are seen as extremists: If I talk about something like abortion or homosexuality I get called a raving redneck right-wing reactionary oppressive homophobic misogynist power- addicted tool of the ruling class. If I talk about things like peace and economic justice I get called a raving loony subversive revolutionary hippie peacenik commie-loving drug-crazed idiot. So I guess on average, I'm middle-of-the-road.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 22, 2004.


Oops I forgot to mention I'm now also called a spineless Koran- kissing Saddam-lover.

Sorry I've been a bit hard on my American cousins - I was just a bit shocked at Eugene's hostile response (on the is anything worse than war thread) and his demand that I "desist from deploring a military solution". (I hadn't "deplored" it anyway -just pointed out alternatives.)

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 22, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ