A Catholic For President?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1155613' date='Jan 3 2007, 09:02 PM']
It is rather hard to preach to your family. Even Christ's siblings thought he was crazy for a while.
[/quote]


brothers????

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='geistesswiesenschaften' post='1155589' date='Jan 3 2007, 09:31 PM']The candidates, Mormon, Catholic and Muslim [if Senator Barack Obama is running] will be scrutinized terribly...

...A topic which is already moving closer to the front burner due to Barack Obama's charasmatic islamic presence...[/quote]
Just noticed this. For what it's worth, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. I believe you're thinking of Rep. Keith Ellison.

[mroger]

Yeah, I caught that later. So then I am very wrong about his religion. I think the story I viewed on TV was actually about his name. The many similarities to things and people America does not like, such as that his middle name is Hussein, Barack rhymed with Iraq, and Obama is, well...Obama. I forgot that the show had nothing to do with his religion. My bad. Keith Ellison is who I was confused with. It was tricky with them both being in the media so much this last month.

On another note, I saw a KLRN special tonight about the Tom DeLay scandals with Jack Abramoff and the otehr guy. They seemed to have confiscated their computers or something because they produced all kinds of documents from their computers. The show was able to make the connection all the way to the White House, including GW and Karl Rove, and some guy named Reed [Reid?].

In the end, DeLay, who played fiercely to the Evangelical Christian Right, came out with a real feel good Joel Osteen kind of speech about liking this God character and being close to Him, and so forth.

As you can see I am very skeptical about religion in politics. I hate it when politicians, or anyone else for that matter, invoke God's name in that manner. It feels cheap. Like Christians are being used. That is why I question this Sam Brownback so much. I want it to be right with us first before he goes forward with an election campaign. Cathlolics are the single largest voting majority in America, bigger than VFW, bigger than AARP [when you include non practising Catholics]; and we cross large geographic lines too. We are a target for politicians [and anyone else who wants money; see: lawyers]. So, I feel justified to ask about the genuineness of Sam's conversion because it is all too easy to exploit a person of faith. Not that I am easy to exploit, but I mean I want this guy to be purified like gold so that if he wins the presidency, all God's children will be better for it. I'm sure my argument could be picked apart for many reasons, but that is okay because whatever direction this spins - it can only help him to succeed.

Consider this: In many cases, the best Catholics are converts. Why? For a convert, a Catholic [not in all cases!!!!] has to almost prove every point of their faith. The convert becomes the best advocate for Catholicism ever! I love meeting converts. Often times, they can teach me more about my faith than most people I know who have been Catholic their entire life. So, using that logic - If solid evidence exists that support Sam Brownback should be the Catholic vote, then bring it forward - everything for and against. I want to be a believer, but I am, by nature, a skeptic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='geistesswiesenschaften' post='1157252' date='Jan 6 2007, 01:55 AM']
Yeah, I caught that later. So then I am very wrong about his religion. I think the story I viewed on TV was actually about his name. The many similarities to things and people America does not like, such as that his middle name is Hussein, Barack rhymed with Iraq, and Obama is, well...Obama. I forgot that the show had nothing to do with his religion. My bad. Keith Ellison is who I was confused with. It was tricky with them both being in the media so much this last month.

On another note, I saw a KLRN special tonight about the Tom DeLay scandals with Jack Abramoff and the otehr guy. They seemed to have confiscated their computers or something because they produced all kinds of documents from their computers. The show was able to make the connection all the way to the White House, including GW and Karl Rove, and some guy named Reed [Reid?].

In the end, DeLay, who played fiercely to the Evangelical Christian Right, came out with a real feel good Joel Osteen kind of speech about liking this God character and being close to Him, and so forth.

As you can see I am very skeptical about religion in politics. I hate it when politicians, or anyone else for that matter, invoke God's name in that manner. It feels cheap. Like Christians are being used. That is why I question this Sam Brownback so much. I want it to be right with us first before he goes forward with an election campaign. Cathlolics are the single largest voting majority in America, bigger than VFW, bigger than AARP [when you include non practising Catholics]; and we cross large geographic lines too. We are a target for politicians [and anyone else who wants money; see: lawyers]. So, I feel justified to ask about the genuineness of Sam's conversion because it is all too easy to exploit a person of faith. Not that I am easy to exploit, but I mean I want this guy to be purified like gold so that if he wins the presidency, all God's children will be better for it. I'm sure my argument could be picked apart for many reasons, but that is okay because whatever direction this spins - it can only help him to succeed.

Consider this: In many cases, the best Catholics are converts. Why? For a convert, a Catholic [not in all cases!!!!] has to almost prove every point of their faith. The convert becomes the best advocate for Catholicism ever! I love meeting converts. Often times, they can teach me more about my faith than most people I know who have been Catholic their entire life. So, using that logic - If solid evidence exists that support Sam Brownback should be the Catholic vote, then bring it forward - everything for and against. I want to be a believer, but I am, by nature, a skeptic.
[/quote]
Are you more trusting of irreligious people in government?

And I've really seen no signs of Sen. Brownback's conversion being some kind of political ploy. If he wanted to play to the majority of religious voters in America, it would be safer to be an Evangelical Christian. And there is today no monolithic "Catholic vote."
Kerry did not carry away the whole Catholic vote simply by being "Catholic."
And many American "Catholic" politicians and voters are in fact Catholic-in-name-only.

Generally, I pay more attention to a candidate's positions on the issues, than what religion a candidate claims himself to be.
(And from what I know, Brownback seems a better choice than the other potential candidates thus far.)

And from the article, the way the conversion seems to be a really quiet thing, without a lot of trumpet-blowing, does not make this look like a "public-relations" move.

[mroger]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1157852' date='Jan 6 2007, 11:18 PM']
Are you more trusting of irreligious people in government?
[/quote]

I think the expression goes, "A liar you can always trust to be a liar". We get burned by people who put up a religious "front". Look at Tom DeLay and Mark Foley. Look at Nancy Pelosi suddenly claiming her Catholic heritage, only to put confidence in the Democratic party and take votes away from any Republican. [BTW - I'm neither democratice nor republican, I vote with whatever is in line with the Catholic perspective] Look at how many TV evangelists went bad, incuding the Osteen family. All these people, though, are duping millions of people by claiming their own rite to Christiandom, and sometimes Catholicism [Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi]. So, no, they are not trustworthy, in general principal. As a matter of fact, any politician, any at all, is not worthy of trust to any degree. You can't even trust their voting record, because too often, it only reflects who paid them the most money for that particular case.

John Kerry never had Catholic interest, but I have hope in this guy Brownback, something about him seems different, but somethings seem the same. He keeps the same friends as Bush, despite that he speaks out against Bush. What is his relation to Opus Dei? Anyone on K Street carries with them the burden of being inherently suspect, so the people who helped bring about his conversion bring this discredit to him. The timing of his conversion is suspect and, to me, so is that his family did not convert. I am not putting any blame on other people whose families do not convert. This is not an attack. This guy is very shush about his whole life and has done a remarkable job protecting himself from media attacks in his Senate race and across the board. Could this guy be the real deal? That is all I want to find out. Because maybe he is the real deal, and maybe he does deserve a nationwide Catholic vote.

But I challenge you or anyone, to show why he wouldn't deserve a vote, so I can believe why he does deserve a vote. Obviously, no one has to commit to that, but I'm just throwing it out there. Politics is the nastiest of all things. It is absolutely the nastiest, I have two friends who are good people, who both worked for "good" politicians, but even the wieght of competition underneath those good politicians was so evil they just couldn't bare it any longer and left politics.

This guy, Brownback, he is a very quiet person, an excellent characteristic for his position. He is either the purest of the pure, or he is nothing at all what he seems to be.

BTW - his voting record is inpeccable. Sam is likely to get my vote for that alone, because that alone DOES have merit. Just because I'm a huge skeptic of politics, doesn't mean I can't recognize any good that could come from politics. I give credit where credit is due.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1155631' date='Jan 3 2007, 10:38 PM']
Cause I couldn't find on the website could someone help me answer these questions? Where does he stand on:

The War?
The Cost of Education?
No Child Left Behind?
The Death Penalty?
Social Secruity?
Health Care for Seniors?
Veteran's Issue?
Ethics?
Gun Control?
Global Warming?
Illeagal Immagration?
Gay Marriage?
Foreign Affairs?
Large Busniesses?
Support for our Family Farms?
The rights of Minorities?
Doing more to crack down on Polygamy?

These are all important issues we must look at before we worry about his personal life
[/quote]


Abortion is the top of my list.
This is something I want to know about him
It makes me sick how many politicians make sure everyone is aware of how they are Catholic - yet they promote legalized abortion

But good, orthodox examples of Catholicism like Santorum? gone.

It's pretty sad.

[Socrates]

[quote name='geistesswiesenschaften' post='1158296' date='Jan 7 2007, 07:00 PM']
I think the expression goes, "A liar you can always trust to be a liar". We get burned by people who put up a religious "front". Look at Tom DeLay and Mark Foley. Look at Nancy Pelosi suddenly claiming her Catholic heritage, only to put confidence in the Democratic party and take votes away from any Republican. [BTW - I'm neither democratice nor republican, I vote with whatever is in line with the Catholic perspective] Look at how many TV evangelists went bad, incuding the Osteen family. All these people, though, are duping millions of people by claiming their own rite to Christiandom, and sometimes Catholicism [Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi]. So, no, they are not trustworthy, in general principal. As a matter of fact, any politician, any at all, is not worthy of trust to any degree. You can't even trust their voting record, because too often, it only reflects who paid them the most money for that particular case.

John Kerry never had Catholic interest, but I have hope in this guy Brownback, something about him seems different, but somethings seem the same. He keeps the same friends as Bush, despite that he speaks out against Bush. What is his relation to Opus Dei? Anyone on K Street carries with them the burden of being inherently suspect, so the people who helped bring about his conversion bring this discredit to him. The timing of his conversion is suspect and, to me, so is that his family did not convert. I am not putting any blame on other people whose families do not convert. This is not an attack. This guy is very shush about his whole life and has done a remarkable job protecting himself from media attacks in his Senate race and across the board. Could this guy be the real deal? That is all I want to find out. Because maybe he is the real deal, and maybe he does deserve a nationwide Catholic vote.

But I challenge you or anyone, to show why he wouldn't deserve a vote, so I can believe why he does deserve a vote. Obviously, no one has to commit to that, but I'm just throwing it out there. Politics is the nastiest of all things. It is absolutely the nastiest, I have two friends who are good people, who both worked for "good" politicians, but even the wieght of competition underneath those good politicians was so evil they just couldn't bare it any longer and left politics.

This guy, Brownback, he is a very quiet person, an excellent characteristic for his position. He is either the purest of the pure, or he is nothing at all what he seems to be.

BTW - his voting record is inpeccable. Sam is likely to get my vote for that alone, because that alone DOES have merit. Just because I'm a huge skeptic of politics, doesn't mean I can't recognize any good that could come from politics. I give credit where credit is due.
[/quote]
I do share a lot of your cynicism concerning politicians and politics, which by its nature tends to be a corrupting business.
However, I really see nothing about Brownback or his conversion to make him less trustworthy than other politicians.
You seem to almost be implying that the fact that he converted to Catholic in itself makes him somehow suspect, but you've failed to really provide any real evidence for your suspicion, beyond the fact that he's a politician.

In America, most politicians claim a religion of some sort - there are very few self-professed atheists in American politics. And true, many politicians do not really live up to the beliefs of their religion.

However, I disagree that "religious" politicians are generally any worse than more "secular" politicians. Yes there are blatant religious hypocrites in politics, and the media loves to point that out, especially if they are on the political Right. But they are not the whole story. There have been good, principled Christian politicians out there - Henry Hyde, Chris Smith, Rick Santorum, to give some examples.

And I'd say religious conservatives on the whole have a much better voting record on moral issues than secular liberals - who agressively promote the culture of death in every way - abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Socrates

[Funky_R]

I've looked at his website, and he definitely has potential to gain my vote. However, I do agree, I would like to know more about this man in general, and ask him his positions on current issues that were not mentioned on his website.

I'm just plain sick and tired of politicians who claim they're Catholic, but support heretical ideas like abortion. It almost makes me want to be a politician, just so I can throw some good ol' orthodox Catholicism in the mix. Almost.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1158336' date='Jan 7 2007, 06:36 PM']
Abortion is the top of my list.
This is something I want to know about him
It makes me sick how many politicians make sure everyone is aware of how they are Catholic - yet they promote legalized abortion

But good, orthodox examples of Catholicism like Santorum? gone.

It's pretty sad.
[/quote]

I thought abortion would be answered. But anyhow, I was saying that instead of looking at his personal life, we must to look at where he stands on issues.

[mroger]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1158623' date='Jan 7 2007, 11:20 PM']
In America, most politicians claim a religion of some sort - there are very few self-professed atheists in American politics. And true, many politicians do not really live up to the beliefs of their religion.

However, I disagree that "religious" politicians are generally any worse than more "secular" politicians.

[color="#CC0000"]I would have to disagree. For me, The image of any person of clergy molesting a child is far more harmful than some random dude because that clergy person is a person in leadership and is held to a higher standard to not behave as an immoral, faithless heathen. Anytime a person in leadership messes up, it is without a doubt, more harmful. So apply, if you won't mind, to say, Ethics. Anytime a liberal, amoral, secular person messes up, notwithstanding that they are already in leadership, it does not cause as much confusion and trauma to the "general" public [not counting those persons who can that the issue belongs to an individual and not a group] as say a person who at least professes a faith, but never lives up to that faith. It is decidedly a greater disappointment. I accept your position that, as a group, "religious" politicians are generally any worse than more "secular" politicians, however, their impact can be devastating and sometimes totalizing.[/color]


Yes there are blatant religious hypocrites in politics, and the media loves to point that out, especially if they are on the political Right. But they are not the whole story. There have been good, principled Christian politicians out there - Henry Hyde, Chris Smith, Rick Santorum, to give some examples.

And I'd say religious conservatives on the whole have a much better voting record on moral issues than secular liberals - who agressively promote the culture of death in every way - abortion, homosexuality, etc.

[color="#FF0000"]That is, of course, absolutely correct.[/color]
[/quote]


I really liked your reply! Very sound. I think we are getting there!

[zealousrap]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1155624' date='Jan 3 2007, 10:22 PM']
Senator Sam Brownback came to speak to us at Franciscan University. He's a very genuine and faith-filled man.
[/quote]

I was there, and I really liked this guy. I loved hearing his story told by him. He is good friends with Scott Hahn, and has a tremendously refreshing devotion to the family (staunchly against porn, abortion etc). I remember nothing but good things from the man

[Franimus]

Ditto on what Zealous and Raphael said. I was there too, and he was pretty flippin awesome. He's Catholic through and through, especially on abortion and other humanitarian/familial issues. I dunno if he and Scott Hahn are "good buddies" but Scott Hahn was (according to the books) the one who got him to speak at FUS, and he met him because one of them was on a plane reading a book about the Holy Spirit.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Franimus' post='1158789' date='Jan 8 2007, 02:34 AM']
Ditto on what Zealous and Raphael said. I was there too, and he was pretty flippin awesome. He's Catholic through and through, especially on abortion and other humanitarian/familial issues. I dunno if he and Scott Hahn are "good buddies" but Scott Hahn was (according to the books) the one who got him to speak at FUS, and he met him because one of them was on a plane reading a book about the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]
Yeah, they were both coming from the National Prayer Breakfast and Dr. Hahn say Sen. Brownback reading a book on the Holy Spirit and started asking him questions...then they introduced themselves.

"Sam Brownback"

"Oh, the senator! I've heard of you! Scott Hahn, nice to meet you."

"Scott Hahn...ah, yes, I've read your books...they were instrumental in my conversion."

...or something like that...but Brownback follows Scott Hahn, which can't be that bad.

[isilzha]

[quote]Mr. Brownback
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is a man you want to know if you care
about human rights. Whether you’re talking about the poor in Africa or
the unborn child scheduled to be killed by abortion, you will find an
advocate for them in Senator Sam Brownback.

For us in the pro-life movement, Senator Brownback is a key ally. There
are many in Congress who will vote the right way on pro-life bills.
Fewer are they who will take initiatives to advance the cause - and not
for purposes of political gain, but rather because the cause is right,
and they believe the cause can, must, and will prevail. Sam Brownback is
that kind of Senator.

In the Summer of 2004, the Human Life Review published an article by
Senator Brownback titled, "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,"
Revisited. As you may recall, President Ronald Reagan, one of the most
pro-life presidents in our history, wrote an essay called "Abortion and
the Conscience of the Nation" in 1983. As Senator Brownback writes,
"Twenty-one years later, and 31 years after Roe v. Wade, we need to revisit
"Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation." We need to reflect on
whether we are closer to - or further away from - having a culture of life.
"We need to contemplate what personal and legislative steps we must
take to draw out the best in the freedom-loving, life-loving American
spirit."

Senator Brownback goes on to examine why the American conscience cannot
continue to tolerate abortion any more than it tolerated slavery. He
discusses how Mother Teresa of Calcutta influenced his life and thinking.
He examines how Roe v. Wade has damaged our society. And he expresses
the firm hope that we will win: "I believe that I will live to see the
end of the abortion industry, and the sanctity and dignity of every
human life affirmed. ...Great labors remain before us, but the rights and
lives of unborn children are absolutely worth our efforts."

The Senator makes those efforts, not only by sponsoring legislation
like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Child Pain
Awareness Act, but also by taking the initiative to hold hearings in the Senate
on various aspects of abortion. For example, on June 23, 2005, Senator
Brownback convened a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Constitution
Subcommittee on the topic, "The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v.
Bolton." He had Norma McCorvey (former "Jane Roe") and Sandra Cano (former
"Mary Doe") there to testify, along with various legal experts. The
Senator declared, "To put it simply, Roe was a mistake. A very, very costly
one."

On March 3, 2004, Senator Brownback held hearings called "Examining the
Impact of Abortion on Women," and he is a strong supporter of the
Silent No More Awareness Campaign. On May 25, 2006, he held hearings on "The
Consequences of Legalized Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia."

To see an example of encouraging leadership in the cause of life, read
the Senator's remarks and essays at
[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/brownback.htm"]http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/brownback.htm[/url].

Remember to support our work at www.priestsforlife.org/donate

This column can be found online at
www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2007/07-01-01-brownback.htm[/quote]

[XIX]

isilzha...

I was just about to post that same exact artice. I just found it in my inbox. He looks very solid.