Posted on 09/22/2012 8:02:01 PM PDT by pgyanke
I will not comment on the accuracy of your cited poll. That said, I believe many of my fellow practicing Christians are middle class and below. I will assume that Catholics have many middle to poor families in their ranks as well. Following this logic thread, many may be either in need or depending on the government and/or unions for their daily living. Hence, the disparity between what should be a religious-polical no-brainer alignment. That is, some people will vote with economics in mind rather than their religious beliefs.
Regards.
I think there are high concentrations of Catholics is most of the liberal blue states and they are influenced by whatever influences DUmmies. Catholics are fewer and more spread out in red staes.
Yep! I have a close relative who is very like-minded and devout. And those crazy "Nuns on the Bus" make them feel justified.
In MA, there are perhaps 100 people capable of running for Senate and having a chance to get elected. Scott Brown is the most conservative (or least liberal) of all of them. Thus, he is the best of all possible outcomes. Yet some describe the best of all possible outcomes as the “lesser of two evils”. Comical. And “Lesser of two evils” is not a phrase from Catholic theology. The US Army invented that phrase 80 years ago.
In CT, Linda McMahon is the best of all possible outcomes. Yet, some “pro-lifers” refuse to cast a vote in that election.
In the hippie radical territory of MA Berkshires, we had a wonderful candidate in ‘10, but the right could not resist with the “RINO, RINO” chant. Richard Neal got another term.
yet they use the Catholic faith to defend their poor judgment as if the faith require that they continue to be FOOLS? Prudence. It must be the optional virtue.
One more example: the ‘09 special election in NY-20 (Tedisco vs. MurphY), Murphy was elected with 50.1% of the vote allowing him to cast one of the deciding votes for Obamacare. Now, the local leader of the New York Right to Life Party went on a 5-minute 50 decibal tirade when Tedisco’s name was mentioned, something about Tedisco being divorced and re-married, attending a Bible Church, Tedisco needing a haircut and talking too fast and driving the wrong kind of car, basically concluding Tedisco was a worthless toad.
The same Jimmy Tedisco who spent the past 25 years fighting the left in Albany every day, 99% pro-life voting record (NYRTL) and personally dedicated to the issue due to his younger brother having Down’s Syndrome.
Something tells that these cases are a result of ENVY, that “we haven’t spent 40 years fighting Roe v Wade to have some toad like Tedisco to come along and reap the reward.”
I guess it takes all kinds. And if ya take a vulgar scumbag and stick him into a church pew and make him pro-life, what do you have? A pro-life religious vulgar scumbag!
a few more points to pass along to any delusional folks that you encounter in our movement:
voting is not a sacrament and it is not a religious exercise. It is a minor civic duty. Most often, it is a trivial civic duty. Our bloviated congressman John Larson will be elected this NOV by a 100,000 vote margin. The people voting for his conservative opponent are delusional if they think their votes against Larson have some “supernatural value”. No, the election is trivial nonsense. In that election, the DEMS would not give you a pack of cigarettes for your vote, which should tell you something.
It is not a sin if somebody accidentally votes for the “wrong person”. The duty requires a “best efforts” attempt. This is not the Council of Trent when you fill in those bubbles spots. The sin of omission is reducing your civic responsibilities to voting, “I voted, so I’ve fulfilled my civic duties for the year.” Refer to: “and what I have failed to do” which some hear on Sunday morning.
The religous idea that: “If I vote for somebody, then I am responsible for everything that they do in office and it makes me complicit in every sin they commit while pushing the yea/no buttons in the legislature.” This is some freaky heresy involving the “contagious theory of sin”. People who think like this are serious lunatics. You are only responsible for using your informed judgment to make the best selection in the voting booth. And even if you do that properly, it is trivial ... see above.
The recent primary election in Hartford which ended in a 744 to 744 tie and then went 744 to 743 in favor of the leftist and now is back to 744-744. The reason this happened is not because of one sinner in the voting booth, it is because all 5 catholic parishes in the district laughed off the primary as a joke because they were busy planning parish picnics. See the chuckling pastor who will say “Politics? I know nothing, nothing!”
Non-practicing. I will not receive the Eucharist until I have reconciled my differences with the Church.
I’d rather take a vulgar scumbag who believes that killing babies is wrong than a high society don who believes that killing babies is ok.
I’ve worked with the ‘scum of the earth’, and I’ll do so again. :)
I agree with you about MA and CT FWIW. I’ve lived in very deep blue areas and I go with the most conservative option on the ballot.
But I think we can do better than Romney - I feel betrayed by the Republican party casting me out and other prolifers. They feel they can win without us.
Ok good. I’ve been on both sides of that line- I wasn’t Catholic before I converted and I could not take the Eucharist for 2 years.
I agree with you that more respect needs to be paid to taking it in a worthy matter.
We had better options than Romney in the primaries. If the party wants to abandon prolifers and traditional marriage supporter than they can do so on their own time.
That isn't what I posited on this thread. Politicians lie. They say one thing and do another. That isn't the fault of the voters. Rather, I'm pointing out the agenda of the political parties. If you vote for a party knowing the agenda, you are complicit in the agenda.
No. They are taking advantage of the fact that you really have no choice.
considering this is a “Voting Guide for Serious Catholics”, why should we condone pro-lifers who have developed their own religion, a hybrid with some Catholicism and some populism which claims to be Catholic Theology?
Why should we repeal the Gospel to placate the most irrational of the American Life League pro-lifers who have never elected anyone? The ones who always look for the flaws in every candidate that is running as the conservative alternative to some leftist.
The 3 stooges are not good role models. If the 3 stooges became pro-life, this would be a setback as their foolishness would be damaging the pro-life movement which makes their folly worse.
In the CT House, we lost the gay marriage vote 80-70 and lost the transgender rights vote 77-73. yet only 15 of the 70 are genuine pro-lifers. Some pro-lifers would say job #1 is to purge the 55 allies who are fakes. They cannot differentiate between an ally and an adversary. According to them, “it is intrinsically evil to vote for one of the 55 because you are endorsing their error, and complicit” ... etc etc etc. and then judgement day talk starts.
There are 4 GOPers running in this area where it would actually be better if the leftist DEM won the race: Obsitnick CT-4, Roraback CT-5, Tisei MA-4, Bass NH-2.
There is a difference between these 4 NARAL candidates and conservatives with a good voting record who happen not to have a strong pro-family message in their campaign.
well, yeah. I was talking about the folks who only vote for the perfect candidates and leave the rest of their ballot blank because some of the candidates are “the lesser of two evils” ... and then they babble about if the guy gets elected & commits a sin then they are responsible.
If that were the case, better that all of the people you vote for lose, so you never are complicit in anything. (Except for Defeat.)
I do have a choice - Goode. :)
“There is a difference between these 4 NARAL candidates and conservatives with a good voting record who happen not to have a strong pro-family message in their campaign.”
I already said I’m supporting Brown in MA and McMahon in CT.
I will not be supporting Romney. I could care less, “whether they elect anyone”, I care about the truth.
If a candidate chooses not to have a strong prolife message in their campaign, I need to ask myself why is this the case?
America’s already aborted 50 million Americans. Do you not understand why abortion, at least for us, is THE Number one policy. We’re not even fighting to slow the train down (via O-Care and other crap), let alone reversing the train and saving these children.
Where would we be with another 50 million Americans?
if somebody ran statewide in CT or MA with a pro-life message, they would have no way of getting their message out. There is no pro-life media. Not even radio stations.
how do I know? We had a qualified pro-life candidate for the Senate against McMahon in the ‘10 primary. He could not raise money. He could not build support. His campaign never got off the ground. The pro-lifers did little for him. So he dropped out and ran for US House.
You might be supporting Brown and McMahon but the A.L.L. yahoos are not.
“Do you not understand why abortion, at least for us, is THE Number one policy.” Yes, so why do the yahoos help the pro-aborts by sabotaging our best chance candidates? How did Charlie Bass NARAL defeat pro-life Catholic Republican Jennifer Horn in the ‘10 primary? Well, could have something to do with the A.L.L. affiliate endorsing some fringe pro-lifer who finished in last place, siphoning votes away from Horn.
All of this folly is contrary to the Gospel. Since the yahoos are haughtly about their no-tolerance policy, can I not have the same no-tolerance policy toward this filthy ideology that masquerades as Catholicism?
Well, for starters, despite Guida having ‘no hope’, he has a much, much higher profile online.
I challenge you to write up a profile for her and I will put it up on wikipedia.
Giuda. Yep. No hope. He ran a campaign in half the district which makes it tough since Horn had been running for 3 years.
http://www.jenniferhorncommunications.com/about-us/
i think wiki has some policy about Wiki pages for losing candidates who never served in office. She’s a class act, I hope she gets another opportunity.
Guida has a page that’s well laid out and organized. I sent you a PM, I’d like you to answer my question. :)
Input requested.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.