Bush vs. Kerry

[qfnol31]

Bush vs. Kerry.

Firstly, actions speak louder than words.

The Church has made some very clear statements, and I will say them here.


How should we vote? Based on the dignity of Man. Our job as voters is to uphold the dignity of man. I'm right now going to cut out all third-party candidates because I do not believe them to have enough of a vote to matter right now. I am not a Republican or Democrat. I am independent of both parties. I will always vote for the Presidential candidate who is best on the dignity of Man. I only wish all Catholics would do the same. I do not follow my parents, for we disagree much on politics. I do not disagree to be rebelious, however, my opinion is that morals should be first, and not all things equal. Again, a Catholic stance.

First issue. Right to Life:

Okay, I'll start with conception, for that's the beginning of life. Bush is somewhat pro-choice. He is personally against it, except in cases of rape and incest. Kerry is alsp personally against it, but he is for allowing it in every case. Bush signed and supported the partial-birth abortion ban. Kerry voted against it, six times. Bush is against abortion-on-demand. Kerry is for abortion-on-demand. "George W. Bush opposes using tax dollars to pay for abortion. During his first week in office, President Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which cut off tax funds to groups that promote abortion overseas. John Kerry supports using tax dollars to pay for abortion. Kerry said that his first executive order would be to "reverse the Mexico City Policy," and thereby give tax funds to groups that promote abortion overseas." Source, national right to life.org. Bush supported "Laci and Conner's Law," which helps all those victims of violent federal crimes. All murders are federal crimes. Therefore, this helps all unborn babies killed because their mother is purposefully killed. Kerry does not support this law. It specifically says the following clause: "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was designed to address this current inadequacy in Federal law by providing that an individual who injures or kills an unborn child during the commission of certain predefined violent Federal crimes may be punished for a separate offense. This legislation is vitally important to expectant mothers and their families, serving as a deterrent to anyone who thinks that they can injure or kill an unborn child with minimal consequences." It says the words "unborn child." This is one of the greatest accomplishments by the pro-life movement. It, for the first time, defined and unborn baby as living! Bush will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who believe strictly in the Constitution as it was originally intended. Implicit in this is the fact that the Constitution does not allow the right of abortion, and since the states were the ones with the laws, the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds, and all justices who believe the original intention will know this and will be against Roe vs. Wade. Kerry will only support justices who uphold that same case.

Then there is the argument that Kerry is going against the root of abortion. Well, I (along with a Pope or few) hold that to be contraception. I don't think Kerry will ever go against contraception. Bush is against forcing the government to supply contraceptives for its employees. Kerry is for forcing it. Social issues? Maybe. Bush has put more money into the FBI to help stop drugs, which I believe lends itself to abortion, at least somewhat. As for problems in homes and stuff, that probably stems more from abortion than anything else. Also, no one allows morals to interfere or dictate for them any more. Just look at Kerry, he has said that he won't allow his beliefs to interfere with his decisions. Bush has said otherwise.

This is the first and greatest issue in the pro-life movement. It matters more than all else for it attacks the dignity of man at it's very core.


Now for the next attack, natural death. The Church has said (especially John Paul II) that we are not allowed to prematurely take the life of an individual. Euthanasia is a problem in our country today. Bush is against euthanasia. In Florida, where Terry Schiavo lived, his brother continues to fight against the courts for Terry's life. She is not being kept alive by extreme measures. However, everyone keeps trying to take out her feeding tube. Bush strongly stands against this. Kerry, has no opinion.

Those are the two largest issues, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Can he really be that wrong?

Embryonic Stem Cell research: Bush says he opposes it, because it implies abortion. The only research he has funded was on those fetuses aborted before 2001. This is a tragedy, and something that should not have been done for it goes against the dignity of the body. However, he does not support any more Embryonic Stem Cell research. Kerry supports all kinds of Embryonic Stem Cell research.

UNFPA fund for abortion: Bush opposes, Kerry supports.

Homosexual civil unions: Bush opposes and Kerry supports. Though this seems to be not a large issue, if homosexual civil unions were allowed, then we would eventually no longer be able to say they are wrong. It would be an unjust law, our duty to speak out against it. However, we will still be persecuted for having done so. Not good for Catholics. If you want proof of this, look at Canada: [url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/sep/03091001.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/sep/03091001.html[/url]

Death Penalty: Bush supports it quite frequently, more than the Catholic Church says. Kerry only limitedly supports the death penalty.

BOTH candidates were for the use of force in Iraq. [url="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237"]http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=2&vote=00237[/url] Look and see, Kerry was for it. Don't blame this war on Bush, Kerry too probably would have done the same thing. Both were for the war, and so whether or not it was unjust, it doesn't matter. Now Kerry wants to pull out and Bush wants to finish. The Pope has supported Bush in finishing everything up. He said so the last time they met.

When slavery was an issue, we did not go against discrimination first. We stopped slavery. It took 100 years before discrimination was gone. How can you say that it will be faster for us to end abortion by going after the "causes" and not after the actual act. Do we get rid of those video games that influence kids to be violent and kill, or do we address the killing first? You must go after the issue first, then the cause. You cannot do it the other way around in these cases because the causes are so numerous and the issues are less broad. If you want abortion to end, you must attack that directly, as well as the roots. You can't attack the "roots" without mentioning or caring about abortion. It just won't work.

For more info, look here. Wanna keep going? [url="http://www.votinginfo.org/"]http://www.votinginfo.org/[/url]

[frozencell]

On the debates last night, those who watched may have remembered the end. Kerry was asked the question, "If you are elected, what are you going to do to prove to us that tax money won't be used to fund abortions?"

Kerry's answer to this was horrendous! The first thing he said was that he was Catholic. He said that his faith has guided him his whole life and continues to guide him today. But he then said that he couldn't force his faith and values on the population in the form of mandating things. Blah blah blah rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric.............

Now there are two things you can glean from what he said. One: that he has no intention of keeping tax money out of death dorms. Two: he'a a two-faced hypocrite. He certainly is going to push his "values" on us. You can COUNT on him funding abortions with tax money because he feels that there's nothing wrong with it. And we all have to pay taxes. What a liar!

Kerry is about as Catholic as he is Cuban.

[MC Just]

If he becomes president and makes us pay for abortion with our taxes. Im either gonna leave the country or work under the table. I hate(yes thats what I wrote) Kerry he is a Judas, he kisses Christ on the cheek yet betrays him for the sake of the state. There is no such thing as "personally" opposing something, yet at the same time helping that something prevail. That's hypocrisy. Kerry exalts the State over the church just like the rest of the liberal so called "catholics".

Edited October 10, 2004 by MC Just

[Brother Adam]

Yet it is also illegal to not pay taxes and work "under the table'. I suggest finding out how much of your money goes to abortion in the form of your taxes and withholding that amount if you can.

[MrsFrozen]

Isn't there a way to morally oppose a tax?

[frozencell]

The funny thing is that my paycheck is tax money and I pay taxes. Huh... Go figure.

[MrsFrozen]

Hey! Call me!

[MC Just]

Id rather not pay taxes illegally then support abortion with my hard earned money.

[Brother Adam]

Yet, it is sinful not to pay the taxes that go to support ethical parts of the government.

[qfnol31]

I'm not so sure it would be sinful if you withheld all of your taxes because some of it is going to bad use. If you could choose where your money goes, that would be a different issue.

[lifeteenchick527]

i am too young to vote but ... i think that Kerry has been changing his story this whole entire race...at least from wat ive seen, please correct me if iam wrong. But Kerry in my opinion also has gone against the church on many issues that the church clearly states is wrong.

[CatholicforChrist]

Bush and Kerry are basically two sides of the same coin. Neither is for Catholic ideals. Both are moral evils. The choice is between a moral good or the "lesser of two evils." You can vote for the Constitutional Party candidate (who is the only candidate that could be considered moral good, as far as I know), or you can vote for the "lesser of two evils" in Bush. As far as I can tell, you can't use "the lesser of two evils" to support a vote for Bush in a state where Bush is definitely going to win; you have to follow conscience and vote for the good. In any event, the death penalty is supported by the Church (read the Catechism of Trent, the New Testament, the Old Testament, human history, logic, etc, etc, etc). If Bush uses the death penalty too much, I am worried about the salvation of everyone in the Old Testament, the Church for 2004 years (or whenever the "new death penalty" stuff came out), and the human race in general. The death penalty is justice, not a deterent, and not only a public protection. The Bible (especially the Old Testament) and the Church have supported the death penalty for things that do not even affect public safety directly, e.g., adultery, heresy, etc. I think more people need to be logical when considering the death penalty instead of following the kind of "blind obedience" that undermines what the Church has always taught.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

While I agree that neither Bush nor Kerry truly represent the Catholic position, Bush is light years ahead of Kerry in coming close. Kerry calls himself a Catholic yet clearly puts the state and liberalism ahead of the Church and the souls of the American people. Bush isn't even Catholic and would make a much better Catholic than most Catholic politicians, if not most parishoners in general. For this, I put much more hope in Bush and pray that he becomes Catholic so he can push America back in God's direction.

[Enda]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 11 2004, 02:10 PM'] Bush and Kerry are basically two sides of the same coin. Neither is for Catholic ideals. Both are moral evils. The choice is between a moral good or the "lesser of two evils." You can vote for the Constitutional Party candidate (who is the only candidate that could be considered moral good, as far as I know), or you can vote for the "lesser of two evils" in Bush. As far as I can tell, you can't use "the lesser of two evils" to support a vote for Bush in a state where Bush is definitely going to win; you have to follow conscience and vote for the good. In any event, the death penalty is supported by the Church (read the Catechism of Trent, the New Testament, the Old Testament, human history, logic, etc, etc, etc). If Bush uses the death penalty too much, I am worried about the salvation of everyone in the Old Testament, the Church for 2004 years (or whenever the "new death penalty" stuff came out), and the human race in general. The death penalty is justice, not a deterent, and not only a public protection. The Bible (especially the Old Testament) and the Church have supported the death penalty for things that do not even affect public safety directly, e.g., adultery, heresy, etc. I think more people need to be logical when considering the death penalty instead of following the kind of "blind obedience" that undermines what the Church has always taught. [/quote]
Hmmm, seems like the only way you can call Bush a "moral evil" is his war polices since you are in support of the death penalty. You do know that's not an infallible issue right? Therefore, how do you call Bush a "moral evil" becasue of it?

[CatholicforChrist]

He is pro-choice, just less often. He is for stem cells, just for ones that are already being used, etc. He is against gay marriage, but does not oppose civil unions (at least not in the Marriage Amendment). As for his war policies, I do not know if the war in Iraq is just. It is good to take away Muslim power, but if it is simply to institute secularism, it might even be worse. In any event, there are several things which contribute to war in order to make it just or not. I do not know if the war in Iraq is just, so I did not consider that in my moral questions. He is a moral evil for the reasons in the beginning. The only candidate who has Catholic moral teaching in mind is Peroutka, the Constitution Party's candidate. While he is correct on moral teaching, some may consider him a "moral evil" still because of the fact that he supports a non-Catholic state. In any event, he is certainly the most-Catholic (and I do not even think he is Catholic).

Edited October 11, 2004 by CatholicforChrist