Posted on 07/31/2004 7:55:34 AM PDT by tcg
Edited on 07/31/2004 9:03:37 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
How can you say you're vehemently pro-life and vote for a party whose platform includes abortion?
There may be pro-choice Republicans, but our party platform, at least so far, is pro-life.
I am not voting for a democrat. I did not say who i am voting for. I am voting for George W Bush. If you have read anything I have written in the past, as well as this article, you would know that. Please re-read the article
Sorry you feel that way
I will not vote for the democrat precisely because of the life issue
The author answered your question when he said:
"I will vote. Here is why.
The next occupant of the Whitehouse will choose at least three Supreme Court Justices. That choice will determine whether the current “culture of death” hiding under the profane precedent of Roe v Wade will take another generation of our children."
That vote is obviously for George Bush.
hmmm, as I read the article, he writes that the next election will pick at least 3 supreme court justices which could END abortion- a good thing to the writer. How do you read he's voting for Kerry?
Thanks tahiti
This kind of response without reading my article shows how shrill this has all become. Reading my article will tell you I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS ABOTION ON DEMAND.My fear is that with the polarization, many like me are not going to vote, or are being marginalized in Third Parties. I am worried about this election
BUMP! Thanks for taking the time to write and post this.
One thing I am sure of is that God would never be a big-government socialist or a tax-and-spend liberal. On the other hand, I do know what Jesus would drive - - a Chrysler, of course.
and tcg, don't post articles twice, it's frickin irritating.
By opposing intervention in Iraq and the removal of American troops from Southeast Asia you enable the genocide of millions of Cambodians in the killing fields and hundreds of thousands in the mass graves of Iraq.
Let me guess, you were in favor of intervening in Rwanda and Serbia, right?
I am a pro life Catholic. My wife and I are both Army veterans. We oppose the murder of babies and we oppose genocidal lunatics. We think those who would stand by preaching peace while the lunatics of the world murder by the thousands are as misguided as pro choicers.
There is good and evil in the world Deacon and you should thank the Lord for men and women who enlist in the armed services to fight that evil where it lives.
And while God has no political party, you can bet your house that he would never vote for the party that endorses the killing of babies by the millions.
How does he know he's not a Republican?
Actually ... as PJ O'Rourke has explained rather thoroughly:
Santa Claus is a Democrat. God is a Republican.
Response: Yes he is.
Comment: Not only is God a Republican he is also a Paleo-conservative. That ends that!
This poor married deacon is a mishmash of confusion. He apparently feels guilty for not committing to the priesthood, and his equivocations reveal internal struggle.
Perhaps his wife puts pressure on his politics.
In America, cafeteria Catholics are the norm, and Kerry and Kennedy are allowed to take communion despite their evil support of abortion and euthanasia. Kieth fits right in with this spineless approach. He imagines that fighting Saddam, who is this era's very own Hitler, was wrong. Mass graves mean little to him.
The pope told the US bishops to uphold the teachings by freezing Kerry and Kennedy out of sacrements, the bishops publicly refused. A schism is imminent, and Keith will stay with the corrupted gay-friendly, abortion-friendly aging-hippie pop music church while many of us will happily join the CounterCulture Church, where the old Catholic Mass is said, we aren't forced to hold hands and we can hear solemn spiritual classical music without the tamborines.
Incidentally, a new Schismatic Church would not go bankrupt from the current sex abuse scandal settlements. The existing Catholic Church is beginning to pay dearly for it's "tolerance" of homo clergy.
Consequences.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
I understood this writer to be pro-life and voting for Bush.
It was a rhetorical question.
I actually have friends, who claim to be pro-life, but who don't see the importance of voting for Bush.
I have one friend who says she doesn't intend to vote but is "vehemently pro-life". I was actually thinking of her and my comments to her when I wrote my comment.
The Gipper's up there now, so if God's not a republican, then at least he's getting great advice.
I actually may be more paleo, if I am a conservative at all. I am certainly not "neo" and I am undoubtedly not a liberal
The author is deeply conflicted. It appears (to me) that he is struggling to find the right way, and to that end, I wish him well.
No Republican that I know of has ever claimed that God was "on his side", or proffered an exclusive relationship. Conservatives have however noted that leftists, religiously oriented or not, have strayed so far from "the path" that it is logical to wonder if they hold religious values only in the most dogmatic of ways.
Moral equivocation and a "sliding scale" of so-called "values" do not resonate with people who prefer to live by a sense of principles rooted in religious faith.
I guess, in the final analysis, whatever gets you there....
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.