Author Topic: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority
shinjo_jedi  5974 posts
Registered: May '02
6425_Boba Mini
Date Posted: 11/25/04 3:12pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority - Date Edited: 11/25/04 3:12pm (1 edits total) Edited By: shinjo_jedi
Darth Mischievous - You have just made my point for me, shinjo_jedi.

In other words, because I believe that two women have the right to obtain a marriage liscense and the government should research a way to cure my grandmother of cancer, I'm not allowed to be a Catholic - is that what you're saying? I know that is what the Church and others have said - I found that ridiculous, however, and I'll continue to go to Church.

Obi-Wan McCartney - DM, how is Hillary Clinton as left as Ted Kennedy? If you do some research, I think you'll be suprised to find Hillary Clinton is a bonafied leftist MODERATE.

That is exactly correct, as far as my research has gone. Senator Ted Kennedy is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Senator Hillary Clinton is on the a liberal-leaning moderate.

Guinastasia - I could turn it around and say that a good CHRISTIAN shouldn't vote for Republicans, because their stance on social justice, the death penalty, and the war in Iraq are anti-Christian.

A couple other issues are the environment and favoring the rich over the working class, even if they're not "main-stream" religious issues (the environment argueably is though) - or if the Church would openly admit their at odds with the Republicans over these issues.

Of course, if a person is a pro-choice Catholic, well, that's their business.

I believe that it is - and it is not. It's their business and people should be allowed to have their own political views - not to have the Church decide the views for them. If God is actually against anyone who is pro-choice, and therefor, it a sin, it's not that big of a deal - you could simply go to Confession for it (I think it's absurd to think that one needs to go to Confession for voting as a pro-choice candidate). However, if you believe that it is a sin, it's not a big deal - it can be washed off the same way all other sins are. It's absurd to think that one cannot be allowed into Heaven if they vote for a pro-choice candidate (or are pro-choice themselves).

Again-how DARE you set yourself up to be the judge of who's a true Catholic? YOU are not God.

You're correct - some people like to think that they are, however. happy

 

-----signature-----
Obama/Biden. flag .
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
KnightWriter  34421 posts
Title: Administrator Emeritus
Registered: Nov '01
5972_No Icon
Date Posted: 11/25/04 3:20pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority
Democratic Catholics made up (and still do in some places) the backbone of the Democratic Party for decades. I think it's safe to say that many were relatively conservative for Democrats, but they were Democrats nonetheless.

It irritates and disappoints me to see anyone see fit to judge what qualifies as a "good" or "bad" Catholic (and likewise for any denomination).

The Catholic Church itself has more liberal and conservative elements in it, and one can be truly Catholic by upholding their particular views of Catholic teaching, especially if they put them into action (with things like social justice).

 

-----signature-----
Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
fosh-bantus88  2601 posts
Registered: Oct '03
6609_Anakin Skywalker
Date Posted: 11/25/04 4:26pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority
as has been said countless times before, hillary clinton is entirely too divisize. to seceede george bush, a real uniter will be needed. in 2004, kerry represented what he thought was his base, and failed to connect with it.

in four years, democrats will only win with someone who can perform well in the old confederate states. basically, someone more like wes clark, and someone less like the kerrys and edwards who made us look bad.

 

-----signature-----
"They misunderestimated me."
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
alpha_red  5997 posts
Registered: Aug '03
7987_Carth Onasi
Date Posted: 11/25/04 6:18pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority
It isn't just Christianity -- religion is an unusual beast in that it sets its tenets forth in a quite absolute manner and allows no deviation from them. And, I'm sorry, but the judge of whether or not someone is "good" at following their religion is how closely they adhere to the tenets of that particular religion. There is no way around that absolute fact, at all -- and if there's anyone who's tried to figure out ways around religion, it's me.

It is true that the power structures of churches are governed by man. But where religion is concerned, either there is a higher force out there or there isn't. In some ways, God is quite the tyrant.

 

-----signature-----
Noli manare, manare in memoria.
Fleet Junkie, Saxtonian Nightcrawler
Yuuzhan'tar GM & EUC Senator | The strongest bonds are forged in pain.
I just officially changed my ship to Jacen/Nen Yim. Eat your heart out, slashers.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
shinjo_jedi  5974 posts
Registered: May '02
6425_Boba Mini
Date Posted: 11/25/04 9:30pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority - Date Edited: 11/25/04 9:30pm (2 edits total) Edited By: shinjo_jedi
Darth Mischievous, I have a question for you. Now, before I begin, I would like an honest reply - I don't want you to try to avoid the question or say "well it will never happen and it's absurd to think that it would, so I don't have to answer that' or something along those lines. Assume that the Catholic Church had different viewpoints on nearly every issue - they supported abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell reasrch, capital punishment. In this case, the Catholic Church would be at odds with the Republican Party - and in line with the Democratic Party. Would you now support those four issues, because the Church was supporting them - or would you still oppose them, based on your own personal beliefs? Now, would you be inclined to switch political parties and vote for John Kerry - even though you would be at odds with him on every other issue? Would every other political issue outweigh those issues, even though you oppose them (or support them because of the Church) and the Church does not? If you did vote for George Bush still, would you still feel that you were a Catholic - even though you voted for a candidate who was at odds with the Church? Would you care that someone told you that you are not a "true catholic" simply because you don't agree with the Church on every issue (and you have to in order to be a Catholic). I'm just curious to know the answer to that question.

 

-----signature-----
Obama/Biden. flag .
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison  12524 posts
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 11/25/04 9:41pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority
Darth Mischievous, I have a question for you. Now, before I begin, I would like an honest reply - I don't want you to try to avoid the question or say "well it will never happen and it's absurd to think that it would, so I don't have to answer that' or something along those lines. Assume that the Catholic Church had different viewpoints on nearly every issue - they supported abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell reasrch, capital punishment. In this case, the Catholic Church would be at odds with the Republican Party - and in line with the Democratic Party. Would you now support those four issues, because the Church was supporting them - or would you still oppose them, based on your own personal beliefs? Now, would you be inclined to switch political parties and vote for John Kerry - even though you would be at odds with him on every other issue? Would every other political issue outweigh those issues, even though you oppose them (or support them because of the Church) and the Church does not? If you did vote for George Bush still, would you still feel that you were a Catholic - even though you voted for a candidate who was at odds with the Church? Would you care that someone told you that you are not a "true catholic" simply because you don't agree with the Church on every issue (and you have to in order to be a Catholic). I'm just curious to know the answer to that question.

I'm not DM, but I think that you are misinterpreting his position.

He is not saying that they should oppose abortion simply because they are Catholics. He disagrees with them claiming to be Catholics and yet acting in opposition to Church doctrine.

For example, I am LDS. If an individual were to publicly claim to be a faithful member of my church and then were to publicly speak out in favor of things that were in opposition to the teachings of my church, I would have a very seriouos problem with it, because it reflects poorly on me and my church.

A good example of this comes in the case of the SCO Group vs. IBM. Darl McBride (CEO of SCO) is a member of my church, and has publicly tried to portray himself as a "devout" member. At the same time, many of the public statements that he has made in support of SCO's actions have been used to discredit my church, claiming that our church encourages dishonest behavior.

Mr. McBride's behavior has reflected on me, personally, as many of the people I have interacted with in the IT industry have gained a distroted impression of what I believe because of his actions.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
shinjo_jedi  5974 posts
Registered: May '02
6425_Boba Mini
Date Posted: 11/25/04 9:52pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority - Date Edited: 11/25/04 9:54pm (1 edits total) Edited By: shinjo_jedi
Kimball Kinnison - I'm not DM, but I think that you are misinterpreting his position.

I could see where you are coming from - but I don't think I am, at all. He has stated that one cannot be a true Catholic and vote for a Democrat (because their beliefs are different) and that one should put their votes where their beliefs are. I'm not sure if he ment religious beliefs, but I'm assuming that is what he intended. In response, I simply said that if the Catholic Church supported abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cell research, would he vote for (and be) a Democrat? In this case, by his terms, one could not be a Catholic and vote for a Republican. If he would, that is fine - because that is where he is coming from. I just would like to see what he would do, if he were put in some of our positions. I'm a Catholic and a Democrat and I am not going to stop believing in my faith or my political views, just because the candidate I would vote for is a supporter of two or three issues that the Church is opposed to. I also don't consider myself an un-Catholic because I believe that two women have the right to a marriage and that the government should fund research that could possibly cure my grandmother of cancer.

 

-----signature-----
Obama/Biden. flag .
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison  12524 posts
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 11/25/04 10:02pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority
He has stated that one cannot be a true Catholic and vote for a Democrat (because their beliefs are different) and that one should put their votes where their beliefs are.

But is someone who disagrees with the doctrines of a church really a "true" member of that church?

For example, my church teaches us to avoid drinking and smoking. Would a "true" Mormon take positions in opposition to those teachings? Would a "true" Mormon publicly advocate drinking and smoking?

I'm not passing judgement on those who choose to drink or smoke, and I am not saying that there is something wrong with not being a "true" Mormon. However, is it right to both claim to be a member of a church and then publicly misrepresent the teachings of that church through your actions as a member?

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Mischievous  14892 posts
Registered: Oct '99
40336_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 11/25/04 10:50pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority - Date Edited: 11/25/04 10:57pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
K_K made my point for me.

Excellent job, and thanks, K_K.

happy

----

You cannot be a true Catholic and actively work in public against the doctrines of the Church while maintaining you are faithful to the Church. That's rife hypocracy. Just as K_K said, can one call themselves Catholic (or Mormon in his case) and actively work against the church? No. It is not right to claim you are something you are not.

Also, as K_K said, I am not saying by any means one cannot be entitled to their own social or political viewpoints as is one's right to do. My best friend, who is a Democrat, is very liberal on all of these issues. I do not judge him personally for it, and he has the free will to believe what he wishes.

First and foremost, I am a Catholic, not a Republican.

You mentioned captial punishment shinjo_jedi, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite clear on the matter:

2267. The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.


The Church does not categorically reject the use of it as punishment, abeit used in rare circumstances.

Generally, I am against the death penalty barring extreme cases that warrant it.

As far as abortion goes, there is no ambiguity in Church doctrine about this issue and being a member of the Church. One is a faithless Catholic who maintains a pro-abortion rights position.

I quote the Catechism:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.[71]

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."[72] (Jer 1:5; cf. Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11)

"My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."[73] (Ps 139:15)

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.

This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law
:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.[74]

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.

Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.[75]

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.

The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"[76] "by the very commission of the offense,"[77] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.[78]

The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.

Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.

These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.

Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."[79]

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.

When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....

As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."[80]

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....

It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."[81]

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."[82]

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."[83]
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities.

Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"[84] which are unique and unrepeatable.


I'll make it as simple as I can: one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven and be pro-abortion rights by actively voting on that issue.

One cannot be a true Catholic and vote pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, and so on.

A liberal Catholic is one who would want priests to marry, not one who supports abortion rights. The first is liberal and the second has excommunicated themselves from the faith.

You see a trend developing within (faithful) American Catholics that realize that one party actively works against moral law in a variety of ways while the other tends to support these values.

My home State of Louisiana is very Catholic, not unlike our northeastern counterparts. We are an island in the sea of the generally Protestant South. Yet, the vast majority of even the Democrats here are conservative on these issues. The Governor of this State, Kathleen Blanco (D) is pro-life, and for traditional marriage.

However, we are much different than our northeastern counterparts, because faith is a part of the entirety of our orientation and we don't leave it at the door when we enter the voting booth and then call ourselves Catholics when we're sitting in a pew.

Actions speak louder than words.

The truth is *I* would probably be a Democrat were they not so rife with hypocracy in the social arena and in terms of national defense. But, what the Democratic party was when my grandparents were proud Democrats and what it is now are two different things.

My Church comes before my Party, and the only Party I see now that doesn't actively work against the doctrines of my faith is the GOP. The Democrats' constituency includes NARAL, NOW, and the radical Gay-rights crowd.

Are the Republicans without their flaws? No. They have plenty of them (including the fact that they had better take care of this deficit before the dollar becomes a useless rag).

When you say this shinjo_jedi, you basically renounce the teachings of your faith:

I also don't consider myself an un-Catholic because I believe that two women have the right to a marriage and that the government should fund research that could possibly cure my grandmother of cancer.


It is irrelevant what you 'consider yourself', but the reality is that actions speak louder than words, my friend.

The destruction of embryos for scientific research purposes is abhorrently evil and mortally sinful and absolutely against what Catholicism is. Gay 'marriage' is an abomination and is also sinful and against what Catholicism is and teaches. Generally speaking, these realities apply to any true Christian, not just Catholics.

One cannot be Catholic and support these positions at the same time. You must choose.

Even so, there is always repentance and mercy. I have a personal friend who had an abortion. As stated above in the Catechism, she had excommunicated herself by commiting this grave mortal sin. However, she has repented, and has asked for forgiveness and mercy for the what she did, and the Church welcomed her back. She lives with the perpetual guilt of her sin, and I'm sure God has forgiven her as she repents for it.

However, if one remains unrelentingly in favor of such a measure and actively supports it, then one remains in a state of mortal sin.

It is irrelevant whether you have a (D) or an (R) behind your name.

 

-----signature-----
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not."
--Thomas Jefferson
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney  8597 posts
Registered: Aug '99
13616_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 11/25/04 11:05pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority - Date Edited: 11/25/04 11:17pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Obi-Wan McCartney
What utter and total hypocrisy. DM, Kimball, since when did you become such radical conservatives as to advocate codifying doctrines of your faith into law? Maybe not everything, but you certainly believe you can't support the legalization of things that your prohibits...Or can you? I digress.

Regardless:


For example, my church teaches us to avoid drinking and smoking. Would a "true" Mormon take positions in opposition to those teachings? Would a "true" Mormon publicly advocate drinking and smoking?

Tell me, Kimball, does this mean you are a hypocrit for voting for George Bush, a man who supports the continued legalization of alcohol and cigarettes?

Does it make you both hypocrits for supporting George Bush, a man who supports states decisions to allow for at will no fault divorce, another thing barred by your faiths?

What hypocrisy! Why is it ok for the GOP and radicals in Congress to support or to allow divorce, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, adultery to be legal, but then take flak for say abortion?

Tell me DM, do you really believe the nonsense you wrote? THat you have the ability to tell someone they aren't a true Catholic?

What kind of ridiculousness is it to say that one's personal religous beliefs must be imposed on the rest of Americans? And that NOT imposing one's beliefs on others means you aren't a true believer? Isn't that for GOD to judge, not YOU?

This is precisely the reason Jefferson so warned about mixing religion with politics.

I can't believe you can't see it.

Let God judge people who get divorced, drink, amass great wealth and do wicked things, paricipate or support abortions.

This is not to say their aren't completly secular arguments for things like abortion. It's not even to say that you shouldn't vote for people who you think are supporting things you find abhorrant. By all means, if you are strictly pro-life, vote for George Bush.

But to claim Shinjo or John Kerry isn't a true Catholic because they support the legal right of someone to get an abortion is deplorable.

Maybe I'm over the top here, and I apologize. But it seems like hypocrisy to me.

Anyone who supports abortion rights isn't a true Catholic? Again, does that go for EVERY article of faith? That goes for you too Kimball, EVERY article of the LDS faith should be codified into law?

Or rather, you should not support the legalization or legality of ANYTHING that is against your faith?

Does that mean we should make it illegal to be anything other than YOUR faith? No, of course you don't think that, but then why do you think that OTHER for someone to be a TRUE member of their Church, they must support laws that are consistent with the views of their church?

Can not a member of a Church that forbids gambling support the legality of gambling, even if they would never do so? Can not a member of the LDS church support legal tobacco and alcohol, even if they would never ingest these substances?

 

-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Mischievous  14892 posts
Registered: Oct '99
40336_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 11/25/04 11:17pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority
As if people with faith should be silenced, OWM. plain

We're tired of being told to basically keep quiet by secularists such as yourself and keep our beliefs to ourselves while you trump your beliefs all over us. We have the right to freedom of expression as you do, and maybe you should reread the US Constitution where it says we have the freedom to do such.

No one here (or any Conservative) is advocating the establishment of a State-run Church system, but we do advocate laws that reflect good values which are best for this society. That's your typical red herring argument from the secularist crowd, now the majority constituency of the Democratic Party.

There is nothing Unconstitutional about that.

 

-----signature-----
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not."
--Thomas Jefferson
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
KnightWriter  34421 posts
Title: Administrator Emeritus
Registered: Nov '01
5972_No Icon
Date Posted: 11/25/04 11:20pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority
DM, you might consider that those of us with slightly more moderate and/or liberal views feel similarly walked over and marginalized.

I see complaints of "silencing" and such, but really, it comes from both sides.

No one here (or any Conservative) is advocating the establishment of a State-run Church system, but we do advocate laws that reflect good values which are best for this society.

And everyone has different perspectives and ideas on what's best for society. Religion doesn't have a corner on the market, nor does it own the morality card.

 

-----signature-----
Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney  8597 posts
Registered: Aug '99
13616_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 11/25/04 11:20pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority - Date Edited: 11/25/04 11:24pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Obi-Wan McCartney
Re-read my post.

My beef is not with your advocating laws that support your beliefs.

My beef is with your assertion that anyone who supports the legality of things that your church condemns is not a "true" member of that church.

Like I ended with my last post, can not a person whose church forbids gambling support other people's right to leglly gamble, and still be a true member of the church? Can not Kimball, who likely supports the continued legalization of alcohol and tobacco, still be a member of the LDS church even though they forbid such substances?

EDIT: DM, I don't think you really addressed anything I said in my post, and i don't know what you are talking about referring 'silencing' religous folk. I never made such a comment, (I don't think I did), my problem was with your statements regarding pro-choice Catholics. I have met devout pro-choice catholics, and they are no less hypocrits than Kimball Kinneson.

 

-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison  12524 posts
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 11/25/04 11:29pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority - Date Edited: 11/25/04 11:33pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
What utter and total hypocrisy. DM, Kimball, since when did you become such radical conservatives as to advocate codifying doctrines of your faith into law? Maybe not everything, but you certainly believe you can't support the legalization of things that your prohibits...Or can you? I digress.

OWM, why don't you stop the cries of hypocrisy for a moment and try understanding a different point of view?

I never said which party a person should support, nor for whom they should vote. In fact, I advise everyone to evaluate all candidates and vote for whomever they feel would best represent their beliefs.

However, who a person votes for is different from discussing how that person acts in accordance with their faith.

It is one thing for a Catholic* to vote for John Kerry because Kerry would better represent that Catholic's beliefs. It is quite another thing for a Catholic to publicly call themself a Catholic and personally act in opposition to or advocate behavior that directly opposes church teachings.

Let me use the example of Darl McBride once more. One of the questions that is asked of all members of the LDS Church who wish to be considered full, worthy members, is "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" At the same time that Darl McBride has been claimingto be a worthy, active member of the LDS Church, he has also been publicly making personal statements, as well as directing other corporate representatives to make such statements, in defense of his company and attacking the Open Source community. Even when he has had statements proven to him to be flase, he has continued to use the lies and false accusations to attack other people.

Is that really being "honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" It is one thing for him to disagree with Church teachings on a subject. It is quite another for him to publicly represent himself as a typical, worthy member of the Church while publicly misrepresenting those teachings.

If a person is going to publicly identify themself with a church (or any other organization), then they should be willing to hold themselves to the standards and values of that organization, and also expect that when they disagree with that organization, the value of their identification with the organization will be questioned.

Kimball Kinnison

* Used as an example.

EDIT: I have met devout pro-choice catholics, and they are no less hypocrits than Kimball Kinneson.

OWM, you will retract that insult immediately. You have no grounds to call me a hypocrite, and your doing so is flaming. Especially since I doubt you even understand half of what my church teaches, nor have studied it anywhere near as much as I have, you have no basis to claim whether I am hypocritical.

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Mischievous  14892 posts
Registered: Oct '99
40336_Luke Skywalker
Date Posted: 11/25/04 11:32pm Subject: RE: The *Other* Democratic Party -- An Alternative Majority - Date Edited: 11/25/04 11:37pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
My beef is with your assertion that anyone who supports the legality of things that your church condemns is not a "true" member of that church.


There are issues that can be compromised on, and there are issues that simply cannot be compromised on.

Abortion is one of these issues in which there is no compromise and is absolute within Catholicism. One cannot be a true member of the Church and actively support abortion rights via voting or otherwise.

Other issues are a different story.

K_K makes excellent points once again. I certainly agree with him wholeheartedly on his statement here:

I never said which party a person should support, nor for whom they should vote. In fact, I advise everyone to evaluate all candidates and vote for whomever they feel would best represent their beliefs.


However, as K_K pointed out, consideration comes in when a person's actions render their claim of identification meaningless:

If a person is going to publicly identify themself with a church (or any other organization), then they should be willing to hold themselves to the standards and values of that organizationand also expect that when they disagree with that organization, the value of their identification with the organization will be questioned.


That is the heart of the matter.

 

-----signature-----
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not."
--Thomas Jefferson
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History