National Party Platforms - In Their Own Words

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1353190' date='Aug 8 2007, 07:51 PM']Also there is nothing within civil marriage that calls for permanence of the marriage or any call for children.[/quote]
Huh, I think someone else said this. I know that you won't be able to bring yourself to acknowledge that so I thought I'd help you out.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1352633' date='Aug 8 2007, 02:06 PM']The primary areas in which marriage has been attacked so far are with regard to contraception (totality/fruitfulness) and divorce (faithfulness). We've lost on both those fronts. And those losses have had major consequences on the abortion front. Contraception, for example, led [i][b]directly [/b][/i]to Roe v. Wade. Even the Republicans for Choice say so: “The Supreme Court’s Decision in Roe v. Wade was based on previous decisions legalizing birth control first for married couples and then for single people, too (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972).” [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/scaperlanda/sexmarriageandprocreation.pdf"]And here's a Catholic take on this very subject[/url].[/quote]
Actually the court's decision in Griswold was based more on the alleged "right to privacy" which did [i]somewhat[/i] contribute to the thinking behind Roe. However, the real philosophy behind Roe is the non-personhood of the fetus. Also, nothing in Church doctrine says contraception must be outlawed. Birth control pills do have medicinal proposes other than contraceptive, and condoms can actually be used for wilderness survival believe it or not.

So basically this leave us with the marriage issue. While I am the first proponent of getting rid of no-fault divorce, I haven't seen anywhere a Church teaching that the State has to perfectly reflect Church law in this matter. I'm for civil divorce in cases of abuse for example. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge the Church has no problem with this.

I acknowledge that our definition of marriage in this country is messed up, and that contributes to abortion. However, I think if you choose not to participate in politics at all, or deicide to throw away your vote for a third-party you won't have any voice in the government to change these policies.

I am a registered Republican because as I see it as they are the party most likely to be pro-life and pro-marriage--especially at the national level. I desire to vote in the primaries in an effort to [b]keep[/b] the Republican that way and give those who have a no voice a voice in Washington. I am sorry that the Republicans might not have a perfect definition of what marriage should be, but quite frankly with six million babies being slaughtered every year in this country I find it a non-issue.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Justin86

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1353965' date='Aug 9 2007, 11:52 AM']Actually the court's decision in Griswold was based more on the alleged "right to privacy" which did [i]somewhat[/i] contribute to the thinking behind Roe. However, the real philosophy behind Roe is the non-personhood of the fetus. Also, nothing in Church doctrine says contraception must be outlawed. Birth control pills do have medicinal proposes other than contraceptive, and condoms can actually be used for wilderness survival believe it or not.[/quote]
So no you're a legal scholar? You've dissected Griswold and Roe and know all the inner workings of the legal issues involved?

Actually the right to privacy, which stems out of the court's interpretation of substantitive due process, is a foundational element of the legal reasoning in Roe. The question of the baby's personhood is an issue as well, yes, but the legal foundation on which the decision rests is substantive due process and a resultant right to privacy. There is a clear linkage between the reasoning established in Griswold and the reasoning in Roe.

[quote name='Justin86' post='1353965' date='Aug 9 2007, 11:52 AM']So basically this leave us with the marriage issue. While I am the first proponent of getting rid of no-fault divorce, I haven't seen anywhere a Church teaching that the State has to perfectly reflect Church law in this matter. I'm for civil divorce in cases of abuse for example. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge the Church has no problem with this.

I acknowledge that our definition of marriage in this country is messed up, and that contributes to abortion. However, I think if you choose not to participate in politics at all, or deicide to throw away your vote for a third-party you won't have any voice in the government to change these policies.

I am a registered Republican because as I see it as they are the party most likely to be pro-life and pro-marriage--especially at the national level. I desire to vote in the primaries in an effort to [b]keep[/b] the Republican that way and give those who have a no voice a voice in Washington. I am sorry that the Republicans might not have a perfect definition of what marriage should be, but quite frankly with six million babies being slaughtered every year in this country I find it a non-issue.[/quote]
As I've stated multiple times, I'm not saying that sacramental marriage needs to be enshrined in civil law. However, I am saying that [i]our societal conception of marriage as expressed in our laws has real-life life-and-death consequences[/i]. I understand the need for political compromise, etc., in order to make marginal advances. However, I think we have been too free with the things we are willing to compromise on.

We have compromised on the definitions of marriage, and we are paying the price for it with the lives of unborn children. The connection is very clear between our societal views of marriage and understanding of life and the reasoning that leads to the deaths of six million babies. Abortion is a horrific symptom of a much deeper illness.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Terra Firma

[kateri05]

[quote]Actually the right to privacy, which stems out of the court's interpretation of substantitive due process, is a foundational element of the legal reasoning in Roe. The question of the baby's personhood is an issue as well, yes, but the legal foundation on which the decision rests is substantive due process and a resultant right to privacy. There is a clear linkage between the reasoning established in Griswold and the reasoning in Roe.[/quote]

Amen!!

THe Catholic Church ALWAYS argued that contraception would lead to abortion, because it creates a false worldview that destroys the family and rightly ordered sexuality. its a slippery, slippery slope, and the Devil was gleefully pleased over Gvs.Ct because even HE knew where it would lead!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1353706' date='Aug 9 2007, 07:18 AM']Well, OK, that's kind of an obvious statement since my argument had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. What's your point?
What the hell are you talking about?

I never once mentioned that gay marriage should be legalized. In fact, I said, "But I am saying that if we're going to have civil marriage, the elements of civil marriage should mirror those set out by the church -- the defining qualities of marriage: free, total, faithful, fruitful union [b]of man and woman.[/b]" That last bolded bit should clear up where I stand on legalizing gay marriage. And frankly I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Is it that you want someone to argue against so badly that you'll twist my words -- even those plainly opposite to what you assert -- to mean something that I don't mean? Or is it really just poor reading comprehension skills?
Well, perhaps that is because you went into it thinking, "TF supports gay marriage" and then tried to make it fit your assumption. Since I said nothing of the sort, it was a little difficult to twist my words to get to that conclusion.

Soc, the whole point of this thread is about how great Republicans are. Curtins made the point earlier that civil marriage isn't sacramental marriage, and I agree that it's not, and I also think that in fighting for "family values" in the sense they're described in today's political arena, we are fighting for something that is not what we believe marriage to be. In fact, it's such a far cry from what marriage is supposed to be that it has directly led to more abortions. And yet we keep supporting it. That's insane. If we want to support family values, then let's support what our REAL values are. It doesn't mean we need to mandate sacramental marriage, but it does mean that we need to be preaching the truth about the things that make marriage something special -- that it is a free, total, fruitful, faithful union between a man and a woman. ALL of these characteristics are necessary. And because we deemed some of these to be unnecessary throughout the years we are paying the price with more abortions. [b]Our faulty image of marriage as promulgated through our civil laws leads directly to more abortions.
[/b]
Now I realize that you're going to twist my words here to mean that I hate puppies and butterflies, but I guess there's not much I can do about that.[/quote]
I thought the whole thing about marriage concerned your opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment.

[Sojourner]

um ... ok

Since that hasn't been specifically mentioned in this thread until [i]your[/i] post perhaps you should reconsider your assumptions.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1354064' date='Aug 10 2007, 05:07 AM']So no you're a legal scholar? You've dissected Griswold and Roe and know all the inner workings of the legal issues involved?

Actually the right to privacy, which stems out of the court's interpretation of substantitive due process, is a foundational element of the legal reasoning in Roe. The question of the baby's personhood is an issue as well, yes, but the legal foundation on which the decision rests is substantive due process and a resultant right to privacy. There is a clear linkage between the reasoning established in Griswold and the reasoning in Roe.[/quote]
It's quite hypocritical of you to accuse me of "dissecting Griswold and Roe and know all the inner workings" when you then go off and do the same.

It would have been smarter for you to say "I think we can agree to disagree", but its too late now.

[quote]As I've stated multiple times, I'm not saying that sacramental marriage needs to be enshrined in civil law. However, I am saying that [i]our societal conception of marriage as expressed in our laws has real-life life-and-death consequences[/i]. I understand the need for political compromise, etc., in order to make marginal advances. However, I think we have been too free with the things we are willing to compromise on.

We have compromised on the definitions of marriage, and we are paying the price for it with the lives of unborn children. The connection is very clear between our societal views of marriage and understanding of life and the reasoning that leads to the deaths of six million babies. Abortion is a horrific symptom of a much deeper illness.[/quote]
So what exactly is the purpose of this rant? Why are you so against Catholics encouraging other Catholics to vote pro-life?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1355159' date='Aug 10 2007, 10:31 AM']It's quite hypocritical of you to accuse me of "dissecting Griswold and Roe and know all the inner workings" when you then go off and do the same.[/quote]
You didn't catch the sarcasm. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. But I was saying that you've not studied these cases in an academic setting, and your comments bely that you are not really familiar with the issues involved ... frankly, I would be surprised if you've read them, but then people often surprise me. I have studied both cases, and have discussed them at length in classes, both with regard to the reasoning in each case and how they fit into the larger legal landscape. I'm not prepared to write a treatise on them, but I am a little better qualified to provide analysis than some may be.

[quote name='Justin86' post='1355159' date='Aug 10 2007, 10:31 AM']So what exactly is the purpose of this rant? Why are you so against Catholics encouraging other Catholics to vote pro-life?[/quote]
Catholics aren't being encouraged to vote pro-life. They are being encouraged to vote Republican. There is a difference.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1355241' date='Aug 10 2007, 02:30 PM']Catholics aren't being encouraged to vote pro-life. They are being encouraged to vote Republican. There is a difference.[/quote]I thought it was discouraging Catholics to vote Democratic. Horrors!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1355241' date='Aug 10 2007, 02:30 PM']Catholics aren't being encouraged to vote pro-life. They are being encouraged to vote Republican. There is a difference.[/quote]I thought it was discouraging Catholics to vote Democratic. Horrors!

[ironmonk]

[mod]Public criticism of mods - Lil Red[/mod]

Second...

Terra... you need to start paying the toll... the price: ATTENTION. Catholics are being told to vote pro-life. Reasoning is something else that is needed here, but you can't reason soundly unless you have the facts.... which you obviously don't.

You really need to read Church documents, especially THIS ONE:
[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]

Show me one dem running for president that meets the priorities goverened by the faith.... you can't, because they go against at least 3 if not ALL of the four MAJOR points (In Order: Life, Family, Social Justice, Global Solidarity).

I don't understand why you argue a point with blatently wrong information.... this is why I don't view your posts... I see them in replies from others.

FACTS:
- DEM NATIONAL AGENDA: Kill Babies, Same Sex Marriage, Depend on Walfare - give them fish to keep our power, Force people to charity through taxes.
- Rep National Agenda: Save Babies, Save Families, Teach people to fish, trust in the charity of Americans

hmmm.... doesn't take much reason to figure out which party at a National level is closer to the Catholic faith teachings.... THEREFORE, right now is a good time to be a register rep so that you can make sure you vote for good Catholics in the primaries... If the reps change for the worst, and the dems change for the better, then it'll be time to switch. As for me, I am FIRST AND FOREMOST Catholic, and I will vote the faith, if I want to vote in primaries so that I can try to keep people like rudy and romney out of office, I need to be registered as a rep. Secondly, I am an American... Thridly, I'm currently registered as a rep because they are closest to the Catholic Church teachings... dems at national level are opposite Catholic teachings...

Anyone who can seperate their faith from their daily lives has no faith at all and cannot be trusted.... all dems at a national level that I've ever seen claim any faith are these type of people.

I just do not understand why these simple obvious concepts of character are so hard for some here to understand... are they that sheltered from real life?

God Bless.


maybe she doesn't view my posts either... but... ahhhhh.... I feel better now. I should one day post a mp3 of me reading a post so people get the right tone...lol

Edited August 13, 2007 by Lil Red

[kateri05]

[quote]Show me one dem running for president that meets the priorities goverened by the faith.... you can't, because they go against at least 3 if not ALL of the four MAJOR points (In Order: Life, Family, Social Justice, Global Solidarity).

I don't understand why you argue a point with blatently wrong information.... this is why I don't view your posts... I see them in replies from others.[/quote]


umm, iron, can you cite one place where terra firma has said you should vote democrat? cuz i'm like 99.9% positive she doesn't

what she is saying, if understand her correctly, and what i pretty much agree with, is that REPUBLICANS also can be pro-death, so its mistaken to make blanket party statements. besides, closest to Catholic standards still isn't the same as dead on, ESPECIALLY when it comes to abortion. and guiliani is pro-death, so why should anyone be ok with voting for him, ever? even if he is a human, vs. robots like hilary

i'm a registered republican but i've become pretty unenamored with the GOP's wishywashy stance on things i care about, like abortion. i just don't think that they're all that great either. sure, democrats smell of elderberries MORE, but the lesser of two evils is still evil. and i think thats all terra is trying to address, that catholic doesn't equal republican. its sure as shootin doesn't equal democrat, but shes not saying it does.

catholic worldview on political issues i really believe in this day and age rises above parties. because they both, in the end, are godless.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1356135' date='Aug 10 2007, 10:28 PM'][mod]Public criticism of mods - Lil Red[/mod]

Second...

Terra... you need to start paying the toll... the price: ATTENTION. Catholics are being told to vote pro-life. Reasoning is something else that is needed here, but you can't reason soundly unless you have the facts.... which you obviously don't.

You really need to read Church documents, especially THIS ONE:
[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]

Show me one dem running for president that meets the priorities goverened by the faith.... you can't, because they go against at least 3 if not ALL of the four MAJOR points (In Order: Life, Family, Social Justice, Global Solidarity).

I don't understand why you argue a point with blatently wrong information.... this is why I don't view your posts... I see them in replies from others.

FACTS:
- DEM NATIONAL AGENDA: Kill Babies, Same Sex Marriage, Depend on Walfare - give them fish to keep our power, Force people to charity through taxes.
- Rep National Agenda: Save Babies, Save Families, Teach people to fish, trust in the charity of Americans

hmmm.... doesn't take much reason to figure out which party at a National level is closer to the Catholic faith teachings.... THEREFORE, right now is a good time to be a register rep so that you can make sure you vote for good Catholics in the primaries... If the reps change for the worst, and the dems change for the better, then it'll be time to switch. As for me, I am FIRST AND FOREMOST Catholic, and I will vote the faith, if I want to vote in primaries so that I can try to keep people like rudy and romney out of office, I need to be registered as a rep. Secondly, I am an American... Thridly, I'm currently registered as a rep because they are closest to the Catholic Church teachings... dems at national level are opposite Catholic teachings...

Anyone who can seperate their faith from their daily lives has no faith at all and cannot be trusted.... all dems at a national level that I've ever seen claim any faith are these type of people.

I just do not understand why these simple obvious concepts of character are so hard for some here to understand... are they that sheltered from real life?

God Bless.
maybe she doesn't view my posts either... but... ahhhhh.... I feel better now. I should one day post a mp3 of me reading a post so people get the right tone...lol[/quote]
1) What Kateri said ... she is right on in her response.

2) I already addressed the fact that I don't have you blocked, and that I believe that refusing to read or respond directly to people you don't degree with is a sign of immaturity. You, of course, didn't see that post because you have me blocked, and so you keep making the same comments again and again. It doesn't make you sound any more mature to keep repeating that you have me on ignore. In fact, your bragging about the fact that you have me on ignore only cements the perception I have of you as a person who doesn't actually think for himself and rather mindlessly follows the dictates of the Republican party. You ask for responses, but are too ... whatever to actually read them, then you spout off with a vent about something you know nothing about ... accusing me of posting "blatantly wrong information." Now that's irony.

3) If the mods wish to edit me for charity, they are more than capable of doing so, and I don't mind being edited where necessary. If you wish to address a mod editing decision the appropriate place to do so, per the phorum guidelines is through a personal message to the mods. Maybe you have those on ignore as well?

4) As I noted in an earlier post, I did (and have) read the USCCB guidelines. The quote I posted was:
[quote]A Catholic moral framework does not easily fit the ideologies of "right" or "left," nor tthe platforms of any party. Our values are often not "politically correct." Believers are called to be a community of conscience within the larger society and to test public life by the values of Scripture and the principles of Catholic social teaching. Our responsibility is to measure all candidates, policies, parties, and platforms by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human person?whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common good.[/quote] Since you have me on ignore, you didn't see this and therefore can't respond intelligently to any of the points I have made.

5) And this baloney you write about reading your post so you can communicate the proper tone ... you know, many people have mastered the written word to the point that they can communicate tone effectively, or close to effectively. If you truly wanted your posts to come across as intelligent and charitable, I'm quite certain you could manage it.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Lil Red

[Justin86]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1356236' date='Aug 11 2007, 02:31 PM']umm, iron, can you cite one place where terra firma has said you should vote democrat? cuz i'm like 99.9% positive she doesn't [/quote]
Umm, kateri, can you cite one place where iron has said being a Republican and a Catholic are the same thing? Cuz I'm like 99.9% positive he hasn't.

[quote]You didn't catch the sarcasm. I didn't "accuse" you of anything. But I was saying that you've not studied these cases in an academic setting, and your comments bely that you are not really familiar with the issues involved ... frankly, I would be surprised if you've read them, but then people often surprise me. I have studied both cases, and have discussed them at length in classes, both with regard to the reasoning in each case and how they fit into the larger legal landscape. I'm not prepared to write a treatise on them, but I am a little better qualified to provide analysis than some may be.[/quote]
In other words, "buzz off".

Look, if you actually have discussed these issues in an academic setting you already know that they're are people who disagree with you. There was no reason for your belittling post other than to say no one else has a right to opinions.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1356265' date='Aug 11 2007, 12:10 AM']Umm, kateri, can you cite one place where iron has said being a Republican and a Catholic are the same thing? Cuz I'm like 99.9% positive he hasn't.
In other words, "buzz off".

Look, if you actually have discussed these issues in an academic setting you already know that they're are people who disagree with you. There was no reason for your belittling post other than to say no one else has a right to opinions.[/quote]
You corrected me on a topic I am fairly familiar with but you are apparently not well versed in, and I felt your corrections were condescending and off the mark, and so I responded as I did. You're more than welcome to offer your opinion. People can decide for themselves whether to accept an interpretation based on study of an opinion or one based on ... whatever you based yours on.

[kateri05]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1356265' date='Aug 10 2007, 11:10 PM']Umm, kateri, can you cite one place where iron has said being a Republican and a Catholic are the same thing? Cuz I'm like 99.9% positive he hasn't. [/quote]

i never said that he DID say that; maybe you should read my whole post before you get snotty

i was merely explaining WHAT SHE SAID. ugh.

ETA: i just re-read my post. where the HECK did you get that i said that he said that? i'm sorry to keep harping, its just irritating being completely misquoted.

Edited August 11, 2007 by kateri05

[Justin86]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1356236' date='Aug 11 2007, 02:31 PM']ETA: i just re-read my post. where the HECK did you get that i said that he said that? i'm sorry to keep harping, its just irritating being completely misquoted.[/quote]

Right here.

[quote]what she is saying, if understand her correctly, and what i pretty much agree with, is that REPUBLICANS also can be pro-death, so its mistaken to make blanket party statements. besides, closest to Catholic standards still isn't the same as dead on, ESPECIALLY when it comes to abortion. and guiliani is pro-death, so why should anyone be ok with voting for him, ever? even if he is a human, vs. robots like hilary [/quote]

[Justin86]

I'm bowing out of this topic. Nobody can make up their minds what they're arguing about, and when you make a rebuttal to someone's snotty/condescending post all they do is accuse you of doing the same thing.

This topic is being removed from my life all together. Good day, Phatmassers.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1356371' date='Aug 11 2007, 03:32 AM']I'm bowing out of this topic. Nobody can make up their minds what they're arguing about, and when you make a rebuttal to someone's snotty/condescending post all they do is accuse you of doing the same thing.

This topic is being removed from my life all together. Good day, Phatmassers.[/quote]
Well alrighty then.


BTW with regard to your comment to kateri ... your comment is a stretch, esp. since Ironmonk has actually advocated each of the things she mentioned at various points in the thread.

[homeschoolmom]

Ironmonk--

By repeatedly announcing that you ignore someone with whom you are engaged in conversation, this is the image you present:

[img]http://www.geocities.com/emmacrew/philip/images/nohear.jpg[/img]

What's the point of having her on ignore if you read her posts in others' replies and respond? What's the point of even mentioning it?