Obama

[Winchester]

Those justices are not "meh." Sotomayor rejects promotion by merit and Kagan rejects the right to self defense. They are both dangerous creatures.

Obama is in large part reponsible for the health care plan and granting the government power to require people, under penalty of law, to obtain health insurance. That's a clear violation of government authority, albeit the most recent of many.

[Caritas]

Obama overturned the Mexico City Policy to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars overseas to fund abortions. The judges (and really those in other powerful positions relating to healthcare, like Kathleen Sebelius as the Secretary of Health and Human Services) he appointed all tend to be in favor of abortion, and this is especially important with the Supreme Court. He signed the healthcare bill, which has a ton of abortion funding and has no conscience clause for doctors to opt out of giving abortions. He signed a bill overturning a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions in DC.... etc.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ephrem Augustine' timestamp='1285694452' post='2176451']
not to sound pro obama or anything
but what has he done, so far, in his capacity as president to deliberately and publicly support abortion?
[/quote]
Reversed the Mexico City Policy prohibiting federal funding of abortions overseas, and swore to uphold the "women's right to choose" (ie. to kill a baby).

Of course, given the rabidly pro-abortion Democratic Congress under Pelosi, it's not like there's any pro-life legislation now for him to veto.

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285695651' post='2176461']
I don't think he's done anything in particular. Except [s]maybe[/s] nominate Supreme Court justices who [color="#FF0000"]are pro-abortion[/color]. It's mostly the principle of the thing.
[/quote]
Fixed.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285697116' post='2176473']
Those justices are not "meh." Sotomayor rejects promotion by merit and Kagan rejects the right to self defense. They are both dangerous creatures.

Obama is in large part reponsible for the health care plan and granting the government power to require people, under penalty of law, to obtain health insurance. That's a clear violation of government authority, albeit the most recent of many.
[/quote]
Now, now. Let's not upset the bleeding hearts with the truth.

[Maggyie]

Well I think they are definitely dangerous creatures from the standpoint of the American constitution. From a purely Catholic perspective I don't think they have done anything wrong... yet. The health care thing is wrong IMO too, but the Church doesn't have any problem with heavy government involvement, or no government involvement, or anything in between as long as it is done justly (no abortion, euthanasia, letting poor people die because they haven't any insurance etc).

In fact I think on a practical level, the Church would prefer a single-payer system a la Europe as the preferred healthcare "solution." But we are not required to believe in this or that solution, just in the Social Teaching behind them, and then we can come up with our own solutions (or oppose others) as we see fit.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285698205' post='2176478']
Well I think they are definitely dangerous creatures from the standpoint of the American constitution. From a purely Catholic perspective I don't think they have done anything wrong... yet.
[/quote]
Clearly, your "Catholic perspective" is different from mine.

You don't consider funding of abortion wrong?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1285698622' post='2176480']
Clearly, your "Catholic perspective" is different from mine.

You don't consider funding of abortion wrong?
[/quote]

Yes, it is wrong... however I don't know who to believe about whether the health care bill funds it or not. The Dems are all screaming "nooo it doesn't cover it! Stop lying!" and the GOP is all "your Congressman voted to fund abortion! Vote him out and put our guy in instead." Everybody has a bias, my mind is an ideology-free zone so I like non-biased sources.

[url="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/"]http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/[/url]

seems like it has a good non-biased take on it. However it makes it sound like the decision whether to fund or not to fund has not been made yet... like most of the laws it is the faceless bureaucrats who get the final say...

[dominicansoul]

...any person who is for abortion should never be voted into a position of power by a Catholic...

[dominicansoul]

most "conservative" candidates are for some type of abortion (In cases of rape, incest, for example.) Not even they are good prospects, and shouldn't be voted for by a Catholic...

yes, even sarah palin, who pronounces herself to be pro-life is not fully, 100% pro-life. If you are not 100% pro-life, then you are NOT pro-life... there's no ifs ands or buts...you are either against God or you are with HIM. You can't be for the murder of babies under ANY circumstance...

[dominicansoul]

IF all Catholics would vote for the truly pro-life candidates, we can shift the political scene in the country tremendously...

...but alas, we go along with the "lesser of the two evils..." and this, in my humble opinion is NOT pleasing to God...

[HopefulBride]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1285631749' post='2176322']
Short answer--no.

Long answer--absolutely not.
[/quote]

[Winchester]

Tyranny is condemned by the Church. So is theft. Socialism is clearly theft.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285701369' post='2176494']
Tyranny is condemned by the Church. So is theft. Socialism is clearly theft.
[/quote]

Well you see some people would say that capitalism is theft too. Some people would say that socialism is not theft. Others would say that both are theft. Still others would say all forms of taxation are theft. The Church does not say that any particular economic system is theft and she is quite comfortable with systems that have a lot of government involvement (Europe) or little involvement (ours). At the time of the election, if you took a poll at the Vatican, President Obama would have come out slightly ahead. In 2004 if you took the same poll, GWB came out slightly ahead of Kerry. Of course the Vatican does not equal the Church. But what I am saying is she is not wedded to any particular ideology about the size of government. She is wed to human rights and social justice including justice for the unborn.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285702374' post='2176498']
Well you see some people would say that capitalism is theft too. Some people would say that socialism is not theft. [/quote]
Did I support capitalism in my statement?

[rizz_loves_jesus]

In regards to taxation, what ever happened to "give to Caeser what is Caeser's?"

[Winchester]

I'm not advancing the argument that all taxation is theft.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

Oh I know. I was responding more to the fact that Maggie said that some Catholics think all taxation is a form of theft. That's a ridiculous view.

[Winchester]

Oh. Sorry, I'm all defensive right now.

[Maggyie]

For the record I do not think all taxation is theft, either, nor was I saying anybody is defending capitalism. My point is that it's fine to think the argument that

A. The Church is against tyranny
B. Obama and his nominees are in favor of health care reform and big government
C. HCR and big government are examples of tyranny
D. Therefore the Church is against big government

is invalid. Because the Church is not against big government. Or small government. The size of government (and interpretation of it as tyranny or not) is an ideological concern, not, for the most part, a Christian concern. I can't believe i am defending big government, because I am voting a Republican ticket this year (and did in 08 too) but it's the truth.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Maggie

[Winchester]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285713928' post='2176568']
For the record I do not think all taxation is theft, either, nor was I saying anybody is defending capitalism. My point is that it's fine to think the argument that

A. The Church is against tyranny
B. Obama and his nominees are in favor of health care reform and big government
C. HCR and big government are examples of tyranny
D. Therefore the Church is against big government

is invalid. Because the Church is not against big government. Or small government. The size of government (and interpretation of it as tyranny or not) is an ideological concern, not, for the most part, a Christian concern. I can't believe i am defending big government, because I am voting a Republican ticket this year (and did in 08 too) but it's the truth.
[/quote]
I didn't mention "big government," either.