Voting Obama Is Un-christian And Anti-catholic

[Socrates]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351744670' post='2501809']
I am not voting for Romney. I am encouraging people to vote against Obama. Just like you. I am simply promoting a method that has a greater chance of having actual results, while you promote a method that will not produce any results.
[/quote]
THIS.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351807640' post='2502238']
You owe us all beers next time.
[/quote]
Fo' sho.

[Socrates]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1351747431' post='2501851']
I don't think you have to squint really hard-- he did start a thread saying he voted for him.
[/quote]
Now, now. Let's not muddle the rhetoric with facts.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351747597' post='2501853']
Yes, but he also was quite clear that he did not do it because he likes Obama. Say what you will about his vote- certainly I do not agree with it- but I think we should respect his reasoning at least by not making up his positions for him.
[/quote]
I suppose a Catholic could also in good conscience vote for Joseph Stalin so long as he doesn't like the guy.

(Note how I avoided breaking [or would that be following?] Godwin's Law.)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351807620' post='2502237']
consequentialism defines actions primarily based upon their consequences. It is an ethic that is absolutely foreign to Catholicism. in its most extreme form it can be summarized as saying "the ends justify the means"; but the reverse, that the ends condemn the means, is equally untrue. if the merits of an action were determined by their ends, then walking off to the lions in the name of Christ would amount to nothing more than suicide. Actions can be good even when there is no earthly hope that a good consequence will come out of them, it's the Christian virtue of hope.
[/quote]
As I noted, pulling a lever for Romney is not an intrinsically evil act, so the "consequentialist" condemnation fails.

While we should be willing to die as martyrs for Christ rather than renounce Him, we must not willfully seek out martyrdom. Nor should we needlessly do things to cause the martyrdom of ourselves or others.
We're not Muslims.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351807783' post='2502242']
The last part is really cool, the first part, coming from a corporatist, is amusing. I believe in property rights, you believe in property privileges bestowed by the State.
[/quote]
My post made no more or less sense than your post I responded to. Equivocation.

You spew out labels ("corporatist" "consequentialist") rather than make arguments.


But, yeah, I'm sure four more years of Dear Leader will do wonders for property rights.

[Aloysius]

does anyone still use levers in their states? mine's more like a touch screen button.

voting for Romney is material cooperation in the evil that is found in Romney's positions. it is a permissible material cooperation in evil if you think you are mitigating the possibility of greater evil and are not voting for Romney to promote the evil positions he holds, but it is not obligatory.

the consequentialism I am arguing against is the consequentialism that condemns the act of voting third party or write-in based upon the likely consequences of that vote. the action in and of itself is a perfectly good action; it's not at all like seeking out martyrdom through suicide bombing or something like that, it's standing up for a good cause and engaging in a good action knowing that you are likely to lose anyway. there's nothing wrong with that, nothing at all.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351808905' post='2502260']
My post made no more or less sense than your post I responded to. Equivocation.

You spew out labels ("corporatist" "consequentialist") rather than make arguments.


But, yeah, I'm sure four more years of Dear Leader will do wonders for property rights.
[/quote]
Not scared of it. They want to ramp up, fine. I'll deal with it. But I'm not becoming Thing 2's doxie out of fear of Thing 1.

Yes, I used a term. Then I described two different positions.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351808992' post='2502263']
does anyone still use levers in their states? mine's more like a touch screen button.

voting for Romney is material cooperation in the evil that is found in Romney's positions. it is a permissible material cooperation in evil if you think you are mitigating the possibility of greater evil and are not voting for Romney to promote the evil positions he holds, but it is not obligatory.

the consequentialism I am arguing against is the consequentialism that condemns the act of voting third party or write-in based upon the likely consequences of that vote. the action in and of itself is a perfectly good action; it's not at all like seeking out martyrdom through suicide bombing or something like that, it's standing up for a good cause and engaging in a good action knowing that you are likely to lose anyway. there's nothing wrong with that, nothing at all.
[/quote]
Voting for Romney doesn't mean I agree with every single thing he did or stands for.
There's never been a single candidate I agree with everything on.

And there won't be a morally perfect candidate til Jesus Christ returns and runs for office.

Again, it's perfectly morally legitimate to vote strategically to prevent a greater evil. The Church agrees with me on this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351809234' post='2502269']
Not scared of it. They want to ramp up, fine. I'll deal with it. But I'm not becoming Thing 2's doxie out of fear of Thing 1.

Yes, I used a term. Then I described two different positions.
[/quote]
So you don't give a [color="#ff0000"][i][mod]MIKolbe- Language[/mod][/i][/color] about who's elected to office or their policies.
Gotcha.

(Not sure why you're wasting so much time posting about this election, though.)

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351809628' post='2502280']
Voting for Romney doesn't mean I agree with every single thing he did or stands for.
There's never been a single candidate I agree with everything on.

And there won't be a morally perfect candidate til Jesus Christ returns and runs for office.

Again, it's perfectly morally legitimate to vote strategically to prevent a greater evil. The Church agrees with me on this.
[/quote]
It's also perfectly morally legitimate to not participate, especially when the choice is between two people who have a history of supporting government funding of abortion.

Oh, but he's said some stuff, since then!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351808992' post='2502263']
does anyone still use levers in their states? mine's more like a touch screen button.
[/quote]
I'm a retro cat.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351809628' post='2502280']
Voting for Romney doesn't mean I agree with every single thing he did or stands for.
There's never been a single candidate I agree with everything on.

And there won't be a morally perfect candidate til Jesus Christ returns and runs for office.

Again, it's perfectly morally legitimate to vote strategically to prevent a greater evil. The Church agrees with me on this.
[/quote]
true, but it is still remote material cooperation in evil. which is something which is morally acceptable to do, I have consistently said this. But it is not morally obligatory. the Church agrees with us both on this, my friend.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351809768' post='2502282']
So you don't give a [i][color=#ff0000]poo[/color][/i] about who's elected to office or their policies.
Gotcha.

(Not sure why you're wasting so much time posting about this election, though.)
[/quote]
I care, I just recognize that Romney has the same philosophy as Obama. And I refuse to support it.

5%.

Which organizations advocating reduction of Federal power do you belong to?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1351808363' post='2502251']

Now, now. Let's not muddle the rhetoric with facts.


I suppose a Catholic could also in good conscience vote for Joseph Stalin so long as he doesn't like the guy.

(Note how I avoided breaking [or would that be following?] Godwin's Law.)
[/quote]
As I said, I do not agree with Kujo's decision. But I would hesitate to call it unqualified support for Obama. To paint it as such, uncritically, seems to ignore what he actually said.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351810568' post='2502298']

true, but it is still remote material cooperation in evil. which is something which is morally acceptable to do, I have consistently said this. But it is not morally obligatory. the Church agrees with us both on this, my friend.
[/quote]What about the moral obligation to participate with social organizations?

[Aloysius]

to what, exactly, are you referring?

[Anomaly]

I'm on my iPod. It's to hard to look it up again, but I included in a recent post. I got up and looked in the hardcooy Catechism. 1900's. Participation in Social Life.

[Aloysius]

oh there absolutely is an obligation to participate in social life. I wasn't sure what you meant by organizations... absolutely when you have the ability to vote I think there's a certain obligation to do so. that doesn't mean you must pursue a particular strategy in voting, there are different possible strategies you can pursue. you are not morally obligated to choose the lesser of two evils, you are morally permitted to do so, but you can always vote for a lost cause if you wish, there's nothing immoral about that.

I suppose those who advocate not voting at all would have to defend their stance against those things... it's not totally impossible, so long as you are participating in civil life in some way trying to affect it for the better I think an argument could be made under certain circumstances to refuse to vote, therefor making a sort of null-vote, voting by your absence. As I have told people who advocate for such a strategy, if they really want to do that they should organize public demonstrations on election day amounting to a sort of "voter's strike"... I mean, you're morally obligated to work to provide your own living, but you have the right to go on strike. same thing with voting, I could envision the moral possibility of organizing a voter's strike.

[Anomaly]

Exactly. Given three morally licit choices of action(not voting is an action) one must use their intellect to discern the best course. Consider and evaluate the expected and unanticipated possible outcomes. That is being pragmatic. I never advocated choosing what u could affect first than deciding morality.

[Winchester]

Pragmatism is utilitarian. It's not simply being "practical". It makes what is practical morally acceptable. The broken window supporters are largely pragmatic. They're also economically illiterate.