Is It Sinful To Avoid Voting, Even If Its The Lesser Of 4 Evils?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Phazzan' post='1470409' date='Feb 27 2008, 11:59 PM']It is in the psych of the American people, and the election.[/quote]
It should be always on the minds of all Catholics everywhere.

[Red Knight]

[quote name='Phazzan' post='1469760' date='Feb 27 2008, 05:57 AM']Seriously, the issue of abortion is not the only moral and political issue driving your conscience? These are worthy candidates, far better equipped to lead the nation than any of you lot. There's a whole spectrum of issues to contend, and the US has far FAR greater concerns than abortion. What about the appalling health system, war on terrorism, foreign policy etc? People die too you know. You can all have a say in the future of America, you can have an impact on whether America changes for better or worse, yet you are more concerned about upsetting god over little issues. I think it's Church policy for every Catholic American to vote, as a moral duty towards its nation. Just because you don't agree with one issue doesnt' relieve you of that responsibility.[/quote]


That's a mighty sweeping judgment of the participants on this board. How have you become so knowledgeable of everyone's ability to lead and or govern? Why are the candidates better equipped?

Abortion isn't the issue, life is the issue. How do the current candidates measure the value of life? Abortion is an excellent indicator of that measure, that is why there is so much focus on it.

Voting is my responsibility to exercise how I see fit. That is what my moral obligation to vote is. I don't have any moral obligation to vote for the candidate of either major party or vote for President at all. I can exercise my obligation at the local and state level, for that is where real change begins.

Red

[Phazzan]

[quote name='Red Knight' post='1470860' date='Feb 28 2008, 07:07 PM']That's a mighty sweeping judgment of the participants on this board. How have you become so knowledgeable of everyone's ability to lead and or govern? Why are the candidates better equipped?

Abortion isn't the issue, life is the issue. How do the current candidates measure the value of life? Abortion is an excellent indicator of that measure, that is why there is so much focus on it.

Voting is my responsibility to exercise how I see fit. That is what my moral obligation to vote is. I don't have any moral obligation to vote for the candidate of either major party or vote for President at all. I can exercise my obligation at the local and state level, for that is where real change begins.

Red[/quote]

What scientific basis is there for abortion being the measure of value of life? What would George W Bush have to say about this? Pro-life and pro-war aren't mutually exclusive, so if it is the measure, then it's a crappy measure. What about victims in the Middle East, why doesn't the issue of "life" pertain to them? Who are you to question the morality of the candidates? You make no sense.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Phazzan' post='1471087' date='Feb 29 2008, 02:12 AM']What scientific basis is there for abortion being the measure of value of life? What would George W Bush have to say about this? Pro-life and pro-war aren't mutually exclusive, so if it is the measure, then it's a crappy measure. What about victims in the Middle East, why doesn't the issue of "life" pertain to them? Who are you to question the morality of the candidates? You make no sense.[/quote]


It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception and that a human fetus is a human being even if aborted. Abortion has murdered more than 48,000,000 babies in the Untied States, since Roe v Wade. Thats more than all the deaths in US wars combined.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Phazzan' post='1471087' date='Feb 29 2008, 02:12 AM']What scientific basis is there for abortion being the measure of value of life? What would George W Bush have to say about this? Pro-life and pro-war aren't mutually exclusive, so if it is the measure, then it's a crappy measure. What about victims in the Middle East, why doesn't the issue of "life" pertain to them? Who are you to question the morality of the candidates? You make no sense.[/quote]
Sadly, neither do you.

[Red Knight]

[quote name='Phazzan' post='1471087' date='Feb 29 2008, 01:12 AM']What scientific basis is there for abortion being the measure of value of life? What would George W Bush have to say about this? Pro-life and pro-war aren't mutually exclusive, so if it is the measure, then it's a crappy measure. What about victims in the Middle East, why doesn't the issue of "life" pertain to them? Who are you to question the morality of the candidates? You make no sense.[/quote]


Why must there be a scientific basis for abortion being A measure of a persons value of human life? Not I said A measure, not THE measure.

Aren't we questioning the morality of our political candidates? I thought that was what we were doing.

I never stated that the issue of "life" didn't pertain to people in southwest asia. It does.

I don't see how any of what I said made "no sense." Please, enlighten me.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1471111' date='Feb 29 2008, 02:39 AM']It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception and that a human fetus is a human being even if aborted.[/quote]
That's a lofy claim. Have some empirical evidence to support that? After all, you did claim it was a scientific fact...

[Saint_Gemma_Galgani]

If I could vote, I would write in the name of someone who had positions that agreed with those of the Catholic Church, such as Ron Paul.

[Guest SDphisheater]

I think CatherineM's advice is very wise. I think abstaining from a vote is something that should be done only under the gravest of circumstances, when your conscience can in no way permit you to endorse any candidate. And I think it must be done in a public way, so as to contribute to the political life of the group. It does no good to withold your vote only to stay at home on your couch watching tv griping about the decline of american politics. I believe it is morally permissible to choose a candidate that is not in line with your own personal beliefs so long as it fowards a reasonable expectation that more good will come from the candidate than harm. A quick parallel with the arbotion controversy:

Pope John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, ‘limiting the harm done by such a law,” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73).

So, if you can use this same standard that our beloved Pope used with abortion, at least choose the candidate that you believe will have the least negative impact.

Or you can always write someone in.

[Madame Vengier]

I swear, voting in America is treated like the 8th sacrament.

Please. It is NOT a sacrament.

If you you can't vote for someone because they are all wretches (as is currently the case between Hillary, John and Hussein) then don't vote. Simply. I am facing the same problem. I sincerely don't know WHAT to do come November. The only thing that could push me to a positive decision would be if McCain chooses an actual conservative running mate. But McCain is a liberal and would naturally want to choose someone in line with his own agenda, so I can't see it being anyone I would like. But let's see.

Yeah. I get preached at over this, "If you don't vote you have no right to complain". Hey, I have a "right" to complain whether I vote or not. It's not like we would be not voting out of ignorance or laziness. I can't abide by anyone preaching to me about voting as if it's a theological virtue. Ugh, get out my face.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1471544' date='Feb 29 2008, 07:56 PM']That's a lofy claim. Have some empirical evidence to support that? After all, you did claim it was a scientific fact...[/quote]


Go look at some medical encyclopedia, silly. Life DOES begin at conception. And it is a scientific fact. You don't think "science" only refers to planets and chemicals, do you? To argue against this is utter insanity and would make you look like a fool. You're not a fool...are you?

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1471111' date='Feb 29 2008, 03:39 AM']It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception and that a human fetus is a human being even if aborted. Abortion has murdered more than 48,000,000 babies in the Untied States, since Roe v Wade. Thats more than all the deaths in US wars combined.[/quote]

Actually, it's even a holocaust.

[Aloysius]

the Catechism does consider it our moral responsibility to vote if we are able. this is basically an extension of the traditional teaching that rulers of nations have a moral obligation to exercise the duties of their office. in the age of democracy, for better or worse we are all classified as little tiny partial rulers of our nation, and as such we all have the moral obligation to make the best choice that we can.

for some people, they consider the acceptable option voting for the lesser of two evils

for others, they consider the acceptable option to be voting for the best candidate even if he has no chance of winning.

I have come to support the latter position and will be seeking the best candidate possible. but every Catholic who lives in a country where there is voting and is legally capable of voting has the moral obligation to do so. it's not the eighth sacrament, but it is a moral obligation; and it may even be considered a moral obligation of grave matter considering the grave matter involved in the ramifications of a vote... though I could see the argument for it being venial in the sense that your effect on that serious matter is so minimal as to not make you directly involved with any grave matter.

if you vote for a third party candidate, you might be accused of being a micro-leader of the country who is incompetent to practically deal with the problems in the country, but at least you're doing something; if you vote for a pro-choice candidate you might be accused of being a wicked micro-leader of the country; if you vote for McCain, you'll probably be considered a compromising micro-leader who might do good or bad by your decision. but if you do not vote, you are a micro-leader who has refused to carry out your responsibilities at all and ignored it completely.

two of the above four options are sins: voting for the pro-choice candidate and not voting at all.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1466134' date='Feb 20 2008, 10:13 AM']And what exact measurement are you using to disqualify McCain?

Because Santorum said so?
25 years of a zero NARAL rating doesn't hold any bearing?
I'm not trying to be pissy and I'm not even saying I'm a McCain supporter. But I haven't seen anything posted by anyone to suggest that McCain is any different than what the GOP has put out for 20 years on the issues of pro-life.[/quote]


McCain has a strong pro-life record. But that is ALL he has in common with most Republicans. McCain isn't even a conservative--he's a liberal. And he has a very scary, irresponsible agenda. His policies on illegal immigration and open borders are down right vomit-inducing. No, sadly the days are past when we vote based on a candidates's abortion record. I agree with CatherineM...we need to look at other things. Voting for someone just becuase they are pro-life is irresponsible and dangerous at this moment in our history.

[kujo]

I think Father Pavone said it best here:

[quote][u]“And What I Have Failed To Do…”[/u]

What’s this I hear from some people that they might “sit out” the Presidential election because they aren’t comfortable with the likely choice of candidates?

Since when are elections supposed to make us “comfortable?” Since when do we exercise that right to vote, for which people fought and died, only when it’s easy and clear-cut, and our choices are just the way we want them to be?

At Mass we pray, “I confess to Almighty God…that I have sinned…in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…“

What we fail to do can make us just as guilty as what we do. A sin is a wrong choice, and to decide not to do something is just as much of a choice as to decide to do something.

A sin of omission is still a sin - and we are still responsible for the results.

What, then, makes us think that we are more responsible for the results of voting than for the results of not voting?

A vote is not a philosophical statement. It is a transfer of power. It is a pragmatic act to preserve, as much as possible under the circumstances, the common good, and to limit the evils that threaten it.

And in the pragmatic matter of elections, what matters is not how closely a candidate measures up to my preferences and convictions. Instead, it’s a question of who can and will actually get elected. It does little good if the person I felt most comfortable supporting doesn’t get to actually govern and implement those positions I like so much.

The vote can be used just as much to keep someone out of office as to put someone in.

If we fail to use that tool, however, and as a result the person who gets elected is far worse and does far more damage than the other person we did not like, then we still share responsibility for the damage that will be done.

Elections have seasons. In the earliest phases, the field is wide open. We can recruit candidates, or decide to run ourselves. We build up the name recognition and base of support for the person or people who would make the best candidate. This takes years of work.

Then the season of primaries arrives, during which voters choose between the candidates who have been recruited and who have been building up their strength.

Then the general election season arrives, and we may find that we don’t like any of the names on the ballot. At that point, we have to shift our thinking and focus on “better” rather than “best.” The reality usually is that one of several unsatisfactory candidates will in fact be elected. So we use our vote to create the better outcome and to limit the damage. That’s the shift that some fail to make.

And we are still responsible for what we fail to do.[/quote]

[kujo]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1497093' date='Apr 11 2008, 11:26 AM']McCain has a strong pro-life record. But that is ALL he has in common with most Republicans. McCain isn't even a conservative--he's a liberal. And he has a very scary, irresponsible agenda. His policies on illegal immigration and open borders are down right vomit-inducing. No, sadly the days are past when we vote based on a candidates's abortion record. I agree with CatherineM...we need to look at other things. Voting for someone just becuase they are pro-life is irresponsible and dangerous at this moment in our history.[/quote]

While I agree that abortion is not the issue we should be voting based on, I am not sure exactly what is so "vomit-inducing" about McCain's immigration stance. It seems pragmatic to me. It seems the most practical, realistic thing to do. But I am definitely not in favor of open-borders. Didn't know that was his policy...could you possibly cite something to substantiate that? I am not calling you a liar, just curious.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1497092' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:26 AM']but every Catholic who lives in a country where there is voting and is legally capable of voting has the moral obligation to do so. it's not the eighth sacrament, but it is a moral obligation; and it may even be considered a moral obligation of grave matter considering the grave matter involved in the ramifications of a vote...[/quote]

Who do you think you are to tell others what their MORAL OBLIGATION IS regarding something that has nothing to do with religion or faith? Voting is not about virtue or sin, nor is it about MORALS in so far as the act of voting in and of itself (who we vote for would fall under morals). It's a thing you do as part of your civic duties provided you are offered appropriate options for doing so. Oh my gosh, I just can't get over the nerve of anyone to tell Catholics that they have a moral obligation to vote. Give me a break.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='kujo' post='1498049' date='Apr 12 2008, 01:54 PM']While I agree that abortion is not the issue we should be voting based on, I am not sure exactly what is so "vomit-inducing" about McCain's immigration stance. It seems pragmatic to me. It seems the most practical, realistic thing to do. But I am definitely not in favor of open-borders. Didn't know that was his policy...could you possibly cite something to substantiate that? I am not calling you a liar, just curious.[/quote]

I think maybe you don't know the whole story of John McCain and his immigration stance and most importantly, the people backing him.

Take a look over these links--the person you need to be paying special attention to is Juan "Mexico First" Hernandez. He is on McCain's team. When McCain was nailed for this by conservatives he tried to cover it over by saying Hernandez is "just a volunteer". But McCain refuses to get Hernandez off his team and distance himself in any way. This is very, very serious stuff.


[url="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/31/another-open-borders-zealot-on-a-presidential-candidates-team/"]http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/31/anoth...andidates-team/[/url]

[url="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/28/the-mccain-camp-sticks-with-juan-hernandez-denies-it-torpedoed-immigration-enforcement-bill/"]http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/28/the-m...forcement-bill/[/url]

And here's another brilliant idea from McCain: let's fight Islamofascism--the single greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today--by giving "nice Muslims" free scholarships!

[url="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/27/mccains-cringe-worthy-remarks-on-jihad/"]http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/27/mccai...marks-on-jihad/[/url]

Here are also some very remarks on McCain's "League of Democracies" (the comments section is actually more informative than the actual post):

[url="http://hayhurstforamerica.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/mcinsanes-league-of-democracies/"]http://hayhurstforamerica.wordpress.com/20...of-democracies/[/url]

Edited April 13, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[kujo]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1498594' date='Apr 13 2008, 04:47 PM']And here's another brilliant idea from McCain: let's fight Islamofascism--the single greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today--by giving "nice Muslims" free scholarships!

[url="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/27/mccains-cringe-worthy-remarks-on-jihad/"]http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/27/mccai...marks-on-jihad/[/url]

Here are also some very remarks on McCain's "League of Democracies" (the comments section is actually more informative than the actual post):

[url="http://hayhurstforamerica.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/mcinsanes-league-of-democracies/"]http://hayhurstforamerica.wordpress.com/20...of-democracies/[/url][/quote]

Well, let's start with the immigration thing: I see nothing in there of McCain's views.

Secondly, you are grossly mischaracterizing McCain's comments on the War on Terror. He is saying what most rational people believe: that terrorism cannot be defeated with only bullets and bombs. Rather, we must dedicate ourselves to investing in economies and raising the standard of living in these countries. The real question is why do these people, many of whom are moderate Muslims who approach God with similar humility to us Catholics, feel so helpless and hopeless that they fall victim to the lure of martyrdom? McCain is saying increasing the quality education will, longterm, provide us with a helpful tool in the War on Teror; however, the bullets and bombs still need to be used to root out the people who are attacking us. It's a 2-headed beast, really.

Thirdly, I would be more likely to support a League of Democracies than the UN.

Edited April 14, 2008 by kujo

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1498826' date='Apr 13 2008, 08:11 PM']Rather, we must dedicate ourselves to investing in economies and raising the standard of living in these countries. The real question is why do these people, many of whom are moderate Muslims who approach God with similar humility to us Catholics, feel so helpless and hopeless that they fall victim to the lure of martyrdom?[/quote]
Not to hijack, but while I believe it's important to help the people we are fighting for, I believe the idea that terrorism and Islamic fanaticism is caused primary by poverty or economic oppression to be baloney. (Though it is popular among those who hold a neo-Marxist materialist view of the world.)
Osama bin Laden himself was a Saudi oil multi-billionaire, as are many who lead Islamic terrorism. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia is the world's leader in financing and organizing violent radical Islam.
And the 9-11 bombers were not impovershed, but given plenty in the way of material goods, and lived it up before commiting their murderous "martyrdom."

And I'm sorry, but those who commit suicide-bombings are not "moderate Muslims," and their religion cannot honestly be compared with that of Catholics. The difference is one of beliefs and ideology, not economics. Millions of Christians around the world are poorer than these Muslims, yet do not become suicide bombers.