My Homily If I Were A Saying The Mass This Week.

[Aloysius]

Virgil Goode is pro-life. Sadly Gary Johnson is not, though he's in favor of states being allowed to illegalize it (overturning Roe v Wade) making him better than Romney or Obama IMO, because he would be likely to appoint constitutionalists to the SCOTUS (whereas Romney will appoint in a way to maintain the status quo). But yeah, I'm not voting for Gary; I'd go for Virgil if you want pro-life; if he's not on the ballot in your state it's likely he's at least a certified write-in candidate meaning they'll definitely count votes for him.

Larry King is moderating the four main third party candidates debate tonight, it'll be covered by C-Span and broadcast online, you should tune in.

I don't consider Romney less pro-choice than Obama; at least not in terms of practical policies. Maybe in terms of personal views Romney [i]might [/i]be more pro-life, but both of them are the same from a policy standpoint; both want it protected as a right; both have records of healthcare mandate policies even to the point of mandating contraceptive coverage in employer's health insurance without conscience exemptions (which Romney in the second debate affirmed would still be his position, that employer's cannot decide not to include contraceptive coverage in healthcare); Romney's not even really against Obamacare, he basically just supports tweaking it slightly. Anyway, here's my recap of why I don't think Romney's good on any of the issues that are fundamentally important for Catholics
www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/124758-dont-vote-for-romney/

Edited October 23, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351005706' post='2496300']
It will never exist. We are on earth, not in heaven.
We should work with what we have to make a difference rather than being non-factors in a fantasy world political statement.


And forgive my bluntness. It is a flaw of mine. I speak plainly around friends and family and I consider all of you my family.
[/quote]
the true non-factors are the voters who vote their party line even when the candidate is fundamentally at odds with their principles. those are the people that the politicians don't pay attention to, because they can count on them; those are the people whose issues are non-priorities to the politicians, because they can get elected without doing anything substantial for them. voting for Romney is the way to waste your vote, party-line voters are the true non-factors. And if you've fooled yourself into thinking that you're not just a party-line voter but you end up convincing yourself of the lesser of two evils argument every four years, I hate to break it to you but you're a party-line voter and the powers that be of the party never doubted for a second you'd fall in line. As Karl Rove once said, "where would they go?"

and yeah, nothing seemed too blunt but if it did, it's all cool between phamily here. let's all remember not to make politics too important that it should drive a wedge between phriends or phamily.

[Basilisa Marie]

The whole "buck up, reality bites so vote for Romney" attitude really bothers me.

[quote][color=#282828][font=Open Sans', sans-serif]I think all of you who are not voting for Romney/Ryan have lost your minds and have somehow got caught up in some type of utopia fantasy that will never exist.[/font][/color][/quote]

So what, we're just supposed to be complicit with society's sin? Isn't the laity's special job supposed to be working to transform society in whatever area we have influence in?

Last time I checked, that "utopia fantasy that will never exist" is called the Kingdom of Heaven, which we are supposed to be working for here on earth.

I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for Romney. I think a Catholic can, in good conscience, make that choice (among others). But this attitude is terrible. What if a Catholic, in good conscience, can't rationalize a vote for Romney? Are people SERIOUSLY telling fellow Catholics to "do the hard thing" by violating their consciences?

Edit:

[quote][color=#282828][font='Open Sans', sans-serif]We should work with what we have to make a difference rather than being non-factors in a fantasy world political statement.[/font][/color][/quote]

...okay, fine. But I still hate it when people demonize people who won't vote for Romney.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351007027' post='2496308']
I'm not holding out for perfect. Not at all. Not even Ron Paul was perfect in my view (though he was the most honorable politician, neigh, statesman, in recent times).

The point is not just that Romney's not perfect. He's not even close to perfect. You might as well vote for Obama with an R after his name. His record on life is abysmal, and he even allows for 'health of the mother' exception on abortion which practically means pro-choice; and on top of all that his economics policies are a joke. I made a thread in Debate Table to go over all that in more detail if anyone's interested.

I would be perfectly happy to vote for someone who was a step in the right direction from Obama. Please point me to the candidate that happens to be a pragmatic step in the right direction from Obama and I'll gladly consider them. But Romney is a step in the wrong direction, the absolute wrong direction. And it would put Romney in the highest position in the Republican Party for the next eight years making the Republican Party a less effective tool for life issues.
[/quote]
Agreed.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1350961082' post='2496172']
but hi VP might be the prez in 8 yrs. think ahead folks, think ahead
[/quote]
YES!!!!

embrace the evil now, it's better for the future!!!!!

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351002560' post='2496292']
I think all of you who are not voting for Romney/Ryan have lost your minds and have somehow got caught up in some type of utopia fantasy that will never exist.

It's called reality. Google it.
[/quote]


So wait..

you're advocating voting for a guy who sees nothing wrong with (and will do nothing to stop) killing babies and torturing people? You're actually on a Catholic Board telling me that I'm the one caught up in a utopia (sic) fantasy for demanding this (as a minimal requisite) of the people who would have my vote?

pretty cool mental gymnastics, bro.

[dUSt]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351014593' post='2496361']
you're advocating voting for a guy who sees nothing wrong with (and will do nothing to stop) killing babies and torturing people?
[/quote]
You use very polarizing language, but if you would like me to answer your question, I'll pretend that you asked it in a more rational manner.

Candidate A) does nothing to stop abortion
Candidate B) promotes, encourages and forces people to pay for more abortions

Yes, I advocate voting for candidate A.

That is not mental gymnastics. That is common sense.

[Aloysius]

Candidate A has, as a governor, promoted and forced people to pay for abortions/contraceptives without conscience exemptions.

Candidate A has recently, in stating his position, included the 'health of the mother' exemption that is code-word for a pro-choicer pretending to be pro-life (because all pregnancies are strains on the health of the mother so this exemption is able to permit all abortions), signaling that he still holds the same position that his record indicates.

[4588686]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351017166' post='2496383']
You use very polarizing language, but if you would like me to answer your question, I'll pretend that you asked it in a more rational manner.

Candidate A) does nothing to stop abortion
Candidate B) promotes, encourages and forces people to pay for more abortions

Yes, I advocate voting for candidate A.

That is not mental gymnastics. That is common sense.
[/quote]


Neither candidate forces anyone to pay for abortions.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351017166' post='2496383']
You use very polarizing language, but if you would like me to answer your question, I'll pretend that you asked it in a more rational manner.

Candidate A) does nothing to stop abortion
Candidate B) promotes, encourages and forces people to pay for more abortions

Yes, I advocate voting for candidate A.

That is not mental gymnastics. That is common sense.
[/quote]
no, it's called rationalizing evil.

try again.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351014593' post='2496361']
So wait..

you're advocating voting for a guy who sees nothing wrong with (and will do nothing to stop) killing babies and torturing people? You're actually on a Catholic Board telling me that I'm the one caught up in a utopia (sic) fantasy for demanding this (as a minimal requisite) of the people who would have my vote?

pretty cool mental gymnastics, bro.
[/quote]That's why we have legalized abortion in the first place. Do you think it is more or less likely there will be any hope of restricting abortion with a Democrat president and Democrats in power? As small as the possibility may be, at least there is some hope that Republicans may restrict abortion? The President as a person has limited power, the power lays mostly with the political party that derives additional power when it holds the Presidency.

Abortion is not the equivalent of torture, just as there is a distinct difference between cutting a throat or stabbing them.

Has the Democratic party ever proposed a bill to limit abortion? Has the Rebublican party ever proposed a bill to limit abortion? Which party (if any) ever proposed a bill to put restrictions on abortion? Which party (if any) provided more support? If a bill was passed, what was the Party affiliation of a President who may or may not have vetoed it? Which party (if any) sought to limit restrictions? If a bill passed, what was the Party affiliation of the majority of supporting over-ruling the veto? If it was challenged in the Supreme Court, which Party nominated the Judges who ruled to uphold it, or ruled against it?


It's not 'mental gynastics' on a Catholic Board. Here's a thought provoking article providing a look at the realities of American Politics and their effect on the efforts to enact the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that has taken decades: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20030331_partial-birth-abortion_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20030331_partial-birth-abortion_en.html[/url]

[dUSt]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351017822' post='2496393']
no, it's called rationalizing evil.
[/quote]
I prefer to call it prioritizing evil.

If I walk into a bank that is being robbed, and there are two masked robbers, and robber B is shooting hostages, and robber A is doing nothing to stop the shooting, I'm not gonna go tackle robber A. That's dumb.

[4588686]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351018873' post='2496405']
I prefer to call it prioritizing evil.

If I walk into a bank that is being robbed, and there are two masked robbers, and robber B is shooting hostages, and robber A is doing nothing to stop the shooting, I'm not gonna go tackle robber A. That's dumb.
[/quote]

Neither candidate is shooting anyone. Both have the power to appoint somebody who may, though probably won't, decide that contrary to the assumptions of the times and decades of legal precedents that abortion is no longer a federal protected right. Which would then give the congress the power to someday propose a law outlawing abortion. Which won't get anywhere because the senate will just filibuster the bill.

But sure, vote for the President based on an issue that neither has any substantive ability to influence.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351018873' post='2496405']
I prefer to call it prioritizing evil.

If I walk into a bank that is being robbed, and there are two masked robbers, and robber B is shooting hostages, and robber A is doing nothing to stop the shooting, I'm not gonna go tackle robber A. That's dumb.
[/quote]
congratulations, you've tackled robber B! now robber A gets to run away with the loot and shoot a couple [i]different [/i]people on his way out than the ones you saved. smooth move, ex lax.

I like that analogy, as it makes it very easy to make my point: don't support either of the robbers or either of the killers.

and actually, Hasan, both of them are shooting people. they're called drone strikes, but they're more properly called indiscriminately bombing the hell out of people.

and both of them will protect as a right the killing of children in the womb at home; they don't do the killing, but they'll make beaver dam sure government or medical standards or insurance coverage won't stand in the way. and oh yeah, for good measure they'll both keep chugging along the precedent wherein things that are morally objectionable are paid for by mandated insurance programs.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Aloysius

[Nihil Obstat]

It seems to me that there is some significant difference between tackling robber A or robber B, and actively helping one of the two of them escape.

"Well hey, I would prefer that the one who is not shooting people escapes now so that the police can catch the one who is shooting people quicker."

Edited October 23, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Lil Red]

[quote name='ToJesusMyHeart' timestamp='1350954584' post='2496134']
But his VP might change his mind!
[/quote]


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

i don't think so.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1350986539' post='2496257']
ugh. his VP changed his mind alright, changed his own mind and threw his support behind Mitt's official exceptions. Now, when exceptions are just rape and incest and the life of the mother, that's certainly not the Catholic position but it'd be better than what we have now as a step in the right direction. But Mitt's exceptions don't stop there. Mitt's exceptions include "for the health of the mother"--that's the codeword for a pro-life person who's really pro-choice, because the health of the mother can include the "mental" health, it can even be stretched to include the financial "health"/well being... it's been done before. And yes, your boy Paul Ryan is standing with Romney on that ugly little loophole.

I don't want Paul Ryan as president in 8 years. Any redeeming qualities he may have had he's sleezed up by joining himself at the hip with Mitt. Exceptions for rape/life of the mother makes you moderately pro-life and perhaps a step in the right direction. But an exception for "the health of the mother" makes you pro-choice, not pro-life at all; not a step in the right direction, in fact it's a step in the wrong direction as an attempt to co-opt and silence the pro-life movement. It's as simple as that. a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote to co-opt the pro-life movement and render it useless for the next eight years. Don't throw your vote away on him.
[/quote]


This. A thousand times this.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351020174' post='2496416']
congratulations, you've tackled robber B! now robber A gets to run away with the loot and shoot a couple [i]different [/i]people on his way out than the ones you saved. smooth move, ex lax.
[/quote]
No, robber A said he wouldn't do that. It was worth the chance to save some lives. You base your arguments on speculation. I base my action on reality.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351008051' post='2496312']
Virgil Goode is pro-life. Sadly Gary Johnson is not, though he's in favor of states being allowed to illegalize it (overturning Roe v Wade) making him better than Romney or Obama IMO, because he would be likely to appoint constitutionalists to the SCOTUS (whereas Romney will appoint in a way to maintain the status quo). But yeah, I'm not voting for Gary; I'd go for Virgil if you want pro-life; if he's not on the ballot in your state it's likely he's at least a certified write-in candidate meaning they'll definitely count votes for him.

Larry King is moderating the four main third party candidates debate tonight, it'll be covered by C-Span and broadcast online, you should tune in.

I don't consider Romney less pro-choice than Obama; at least not in terms of practical policies. Maybe in terms of personal views Romney [i]might [/i]be more pro-life, but both of them are the same from a policy standpoint; both want it protected as a right; both have records of healthcare mandate policies even to the point of mandating contraceptive coverage in employer's health insurance without conscience exemptions (which Romney in the second debate affirmed would still be his position, that employer's cannot decide not to include contraceptive coverage in healthcare); Romney's not even really against Obamacare, he basically just supports tweaking it slightly. Anyway, here's my recap of why I don't think Romney's good on any of the issues that are fundamentally important for Catholics
www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/124758-dont-vote-for-romney/
[/quote]
as i understand, Goode is for enhanced interrogation i.e. torture. which the Church has said no to.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351008595' post='2496315']
and yeah, nothing seemed too blunt but if it did, it's all cool between phamily here. let's all remember not to make politics too important that it should drive a wedge between phriends or phamily.
[/quote]

so hard to do when you want to beat people over the head.

but agreed again. once again, any post i make in a topic that you post in should just say, "I agree with almost everything Aloysius says."

[4588686]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351021237' post='2496423']
No, robber A said he wouldn't do that. It was worth the chance to save some lives. You base your arguments on speculation. I base my action on reality.
[/quote]


That's interesting. Because before you walked into the bank and had to make that choice, Robber A promised to do just that to everybody in the bank for like 20 years. I bet he's telling the truth. He doesn't have a reason to lie.