Bush vs. Kerry

[CatholicforChrist]

I should add that the platform of the Constitutional Party is essentially that of old conservative Protestants, but it is the closest the country offers to Catholicism right now. Two of the explicit the errors of the party are here:

Gambling
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.



Religious Freedom
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[i]Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such [b]tyranny[/b].[/i] (emphasis added)

We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.

We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.

We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.



The party basically supports the original American ideology regarding the Constitution. They are strict constructionists. In any event, because there are so many errors in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and American ideology as a whole, there are obviously several errors in the party's beliefs. As liberal as Europe is nowadays, at least they have monarchist, Catholic parties that want to restore Catholicism as the state religion.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 11 2004, 02:50 PM'] I should add that the platform of the Constitutional Party is essentially that of old conservative Protestants, but it is the closest the country offers to Catholicism right now. Two of the explicit the errors of the party are here: [/quote]
I should like to say that the Constitution party candidate has no chance of winning in this election.

Why vote in such a way to risk letting Kerry win?

[MC Just]

Dude people are treating Kerry like the Messiah here in south texas! It is so sad to see Catholics supporting Kerry. Some of these people can not see the moral issues, its like to them morals dont exists or even matter. They think amercia is exempt from God's judgment, they think america can do what ever it wants and get away with it.. Liberals are horrible. They are freaking horrible. I've never been so un-happy and angry in my whole life!!! I cant wait until this election is over with. I've been so sad to hear and see the Church here dissent.

[MC Just]

my wifes sister told my wife that the blood of all the us soldiers who died in Iraq is on our hands because we are voting for bush. My wife says "what about you and your support for abortion??and the blood of the millions of babies who have died and will die because of kerry? and she was like "oh no not that again"

Edited October 14, 2004 by MC Just

[Socrates]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 11 2004, 02:50 PM'] I should add that the platform of the Constitutional Party is essentially that of old conservative Protestants, but it is the closest the country offers to Catholicism right now. Two of the explicit the errors of the party are here:

Gambling
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.



Religious Freedom
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[i]Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such [b]tyranny[/b].[/i] (emphasis added)

We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.

We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.

We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.



The party basically supports the original American ideology regarding the Constitution. They are strict constructionists. In any event, because there are so many errors in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and American ideology as a whole, there are obviously several errors in the party's beliefs. As liberal as Europe is nowadays, at least they have monarchist, Catholic parties that want to restore Catholicism as the state religion. [/quote]
I'm voting for Bush because I think he's the only viable candidate against Kerry, but I don't have any problem with the Constitution Party's principles (I think America should get back to Constitutional principles, which unfortunately both major parties have largely abandoned.).

What's wrong with being against state-sponsored gambling?

I'm personally thankful for American freedom of religion! This was founded to avoid such tyrannies of state religion as that of the Church of England (which often viciously persecuted Catholics.)

If you think a Catholic monarchal state outlawing all other religions will work in this country, get real!
(and it ain't gonna happen in Europe either - European religion is largely a dead artifact.)


We need to fight to preserve what constitutional freedoms we have, not just dream about something that has no chance of happening in the foreseeable future!

[Guest Aluigi]

embryos were already killed. Bush supports studying those embryos that were already killed (read: doesn't support the killing of embryos). that's not necessarily the best, but it's a livable comprimise because he is not funding more creation/destruction of life, just funding the study of that which has already been created/destroyed.

the country is in a moral pile of manure. to vote for Bush is to vote to take one step out of the manure. to try to vote only for some third party that is 100% pro-life is to attempt the JUMP BOTH FEET FIRST out of the manure. the problem is you're going to fall flat on your face if you do that and land face flat in the manure, because to fail to support Bush you are indirectly helping kerry.

[FiZzGiG]

Wow, all of this reminds me of a debate we've been having in history class. We were discussing Machiavelli's The Prince, and Machiavelli believes that a leader should have moral values, but when necessary for the state, be open to doing the immoral---or as he puts it "amoral."
Our whole debate was whether a leader could actually be "amoral" and put his morals aside saying that "it's for the good of the state." It's the whole "the end justifies the means" attitude, ya know?
So we started talking about John Kerry, and as said before in one of these posts, Kerry has his values and believes, I guess, that abortion is wrong, but he does not believe in imposing his morals on the country. This is the amoral attitude--when it comes to governing the state, you must put morality and immorality aside and do what is best for the people.

I, personally, don't believe in this. I believe that there's either morality or immorality--the confusion comes because of different people's ideas of morality or immorality. While some think something is wrong, others believe it's perfectly fine. The the line distinguishing morality and immorality is blurred in our world. But really, I believe that you cannot say that something is "exempt" from being moral or immoral for the good of the state.


Okay sorry I went off on such tangent. But that's really the reason that John Kerry ticks me off. Well, mainly it's the whole abortion issue... Bush on the other hand, supports capital punshiment, so I dunno. I'm kind of.. independent I guess! But I prefer Bush over Kerry.

~Kerry~
*Yes that's my name. So, anyone who's Voting for Kerry? Thanks. Hehe... *

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FiZzGiG' date='Oct 15 2004, 12:57 AM'] Wow, all of this reminds me of a debate we've been having in history class. We were discussing Machiavelli's The Prince, and Machiavelli believes that a leader should have moral values, but when necessary for the state, be open to doing the immoral---or as he puts it "amoral."
Our whole debate was whether a leader could actually be "amoral" and put his morals aside saying that "it's for the good of the state." It's the whole "the end justifies the means" attitude, ya know?
So we started talking about John Kerry, and as said before in one of these posts, Kerry has his values and believes, I guess, that abortion is wrong, but he does not believe in imposing his morals on the country. This is the amoral attitude--when it comes to governing the state, you must put morality and immorality aside and do what is best for the people.

I, personally, don't believe in this. I believe that there's either morality or immorality--the confusion comes because of different people's ideas of morality or immorality. While some think something is wrong, others believe it's perfectly fine. The the line distinguishing morality and immorality is blurred in our world. But really, I believe that you cannot say that something is "exempt" from being moral or immoral for the good of the state.


Okay sorry I went off on such tangent. But that's really the reason that John Kerry ticks me off. Well, mainly it's the whole abortion issue... Bush on the other hand, supports capital punshiment, so I dunno. I'm kind of.. independent I guess! But I prefer Bush over Kerry.

~Kerry~
*Yes that's my name. So, anyone who's Voting for Kerry? Thanks. Hehe... * [/quote]
The problem with not Kerry's approach is that we DO legislate morality every day.
If he wants to be consistant he would have to vote against any criminal laws at all.

[FiZzGiG]

Yes yes that's true...


I dunno, politics are confusing to me. I try to get to know what I'm talking about when it comes to politics, but most of the time I feel like I don't. I have no idea what I'm gonna do when I can actually vote!!

~Kerry~

[CatholicforChrist]

The point is that it freedom of religion is condemned by the Church, specifically by Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius IX, Pope Saint Pius X, and others. The fact that someone would support these ideals is erroneous. It is impossible to support free practice of religion without contradiction and double-talk. One will say "worship the way you choose" but if this form of worship (human sacrifices, for example) contradict civil law, you cannot do it. On the other hand, some civil laws can be broken (Coptics "Christians" can smoke marijuana in their ceremonies, other religions, like Jews, can offer animal sacrifices even if it is against animal creulty statutes, etc). The fact is that if I create a religion in which I use some sort of drug in my "worship" the government will not allow it. There is only free worship for established religions (at least when it breaks civil law). Either way, that is part of the secular reasoning against free religion. The Catholic logic is easier--it is condemned by the Church. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Easy enough. As far as gambling, I was saying that it is too bad that they are against it. It is not necessarily morally erroneous to oppose private gambling; it's not necessarily a sin, but it would be better if they did not support this. These are just a few of their problems. The fact that they believe in the Constitution means that they believe in all kinds of anti-Catholic "freedoms"--free speech, free press, free religion, free protesting (petition of grievances is not anti-Catholic; it could be useful in some cases). These things are condemned by the Church, most wonderfully by Pope Leo XIII considering the modern Popes.

[qfnol31]

What do you propose then? It's not going to happen that you can have a society today, unless you start a new one, without freedom of religion. Now, first of all, I'm not condoning that. Secondly, are you starting a new country? I'd consider joining.

[Socrates]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 15 2004, 01:53 PM'] The point is that it freedom of religion is condemned by the Church, specifically by Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius IX, Pope Saint Pius X, and others. The fact that someone would support these ideals is erroneous. It is impossible to support free practice of religion without contradiction and double-talk. One will say "worship the way you choose" but if this form of worship (human sacrifices, for example) contradict civil law, you cannot do it. On the other hand, some civil laws can be broken (Coptics "Christians" can smoke marijuana in their ceremonies, other religions, like Jews, can offer animal sacrifices even if it is against animal creulty statutes, etc). The fact is that if I create a religion in which I use some sort of drug in my "worship" the government will not allow it. There is only free worship for established religions (at least when it breaks civil law). Either way, that is part of the secular reasoning against free religion. The Catholic logic is easier--it is condemned by the Church. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Easy enough. As far as gambling, I was saying that it is too bad that they are against it. It is not necessarily morally erroneous to oppose private gambling; it's not necessarily a sin, but it would be better if they did not support this. These are just a few of their problems. The fact that they believe in the Constitution means that they believe in all kinds of anti-Catholic "freedoms"--free speech, free press, free religion, free protesting (petition of grievances is not anti-Catholic; it could be useful in some cases). These things are condemned by the Church, most wonderfully by Pope Leo XIII considering the modern Popes. [/quote]
Well, CatholicforChrist, until the day the Catholic Church forcibly seizes all government power and banishes all opposition, you'd better be thankful for these "anti-Catholic" freedoms, because othewise, it would be unlikely you could speak your opinions or worship as you choose without being thrown in the slammer, or even executed! (Witness 17th century Protestant England!)

As long as we live in a society where Catholics to not wield absolute temporal power, certain freedoms are necessary for our existance in society (rather than having to hide in priestholes and the like!)

[jasJis]

People. Put Freedom of Religion into the proper context.

The Church insists that humanity have Freedom of Conscience to choose and follow religion. (Free will...duh!) The Church is quite clear that no other religion or denomination is equal to the Fullness of Christianity which is the Catholic Church.

The Church insists that all governments provide, protect, and allow it's citizenry to have the freedom to practice and follow their religion of choice. That is not the same as the Church saying other religions are equal. That is saying that the clear Superiority and Primacy of the Catholic Church will become evident and be realized in a free Society. The Church is not about conversion by subjugation of will. The Church is about conversion where Grace is free to operate and by the power of the Holy Spirit, will overcome darkness and error.

Edited October 17, 2004 by jasJis