I Attended Obamaroma

[Norseman82]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1531033' date='May 17 2008, 12:02 AM']Bush had a Republican majority in Congress for the first 6 years. Together they could have gotten something done.[/quote]

But they did not have a super-majority.

I think you need to take what the_rev said to heart:

[quote name='the_rev' post='1531059' date='May 17 2008, 12:44 AM']CatholicinSD, I definitley think you need to take a class in American Politics and Government. You'll understand the roles and power of government. I say this as a former political science major.[/quote]

Let's review.

Until and unless the Supreme Court either outlaws abortion or allows a simple federal law sufficient to outlaw abortion, the only way we have left is to pass a constitutional amendment. That requires:

2/3 majorty vote in the House (aka 290 votes)
2/3 majority vote in the Senate (aka 67 votes)
ratification by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states (38)

For the first two years of the Bush administration, after the defection of Sen. Jeffords of VT, the Republicans did NOT have a majority of the Senate. The majority was restored after the 2002 mid-term elctions, but only 51 or 52 seats. The height of Republican numbers occured after the 2004 elections, when they had 55 seats in the Senate. So, in order to pass a constitutional amendment, had the Republicans all voted in favor of an anti-abortion amendment, they still would have needed 12 Democrats to vote for it. What side was Obama on here?

For the House, although I don't remember the actual numbers, I believe, at their height, they had maybe 235 members (give or take two or three)? So, even if every Republican voted for an anti-abortion amendment, roughly 55 Democrats would need to support it as well.

Let me ask you this, CatholicinSD: of what importance do you put the importance of opposing abortion when deciding the lower offices - including the primary elections? Are you part of the solution?

[Norseman82]

Doug Giles has some interesting things to say regarding Obama:

[url="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2008/01/19/obama’s_on_fire_for_jesus_the_jesus_of_h_own_imagination"]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGil...own_imagination[/url]

[url="http://www.clashradio.com/movies/2.14.2008.wmv"]http://www.clashradio.com/movies/2.14.2008.wmv[/url]

Edited May 18, 2008 by Norseman82

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1532370' date='May 18 2008, 01:32 PM']I believe that we're getting into a debate over these words: "desire" and "better". By "desire", I was trying to communicate that this is something interior to Obama as a man. By "better", I was also trying to communicate something interior to him; that he believes he's doing good. [b]I am not saying that I believe that he will succeed in making the country better. I am saying that he thinks that he will.[/b]

In the end, though, I don't want to argue with you about this because it's not important, and is beginning to become bad for my sanctity. [b]The point of this post is not to argue, but is instead to clarify what my intentions originally were: to search for some goodness in a man whom I disagree with.[/b] I felt that this was worthwhile on a forum that tries very hard to practice charity, but like me, questions Obama's values. I decided that Obama's goodness rested in his conviction that he was doing the right thing, even though it is wrong. I trust him when he says that he has this conviction, but disagree with its fruits. Maybe I'm an idealist and naive, but I want to believe that people really are good at heart, or at least have good intentions despite their wrongful actions.

But yes, in the end, this conversation doesn't matter a whole lot, because we agree on what were my intended outcomes: Obama cannot be the man for the job because of his policies, and that there must be some goodness in him. I attribute one source of that goodness to what I believe is a conviction; you don't perceive this quality. That disagreement is fine, because in the end, neither you nor I can provide evidence one way or the other about the man's interior convictions, but may only question his exterior actions, which we both agree are wrong.

Really, I just want to extend a hand of charity to you, and end this debate.

Blessings.
Kris[/quote]

And Adolf Hilter, Josef Stalin, whatshisname Mao, and the radical Islamists all believed they were "doing the right thing", too. They believed it passionately. And because of their passion and drive many people followed them. And they might all have been "of good heart" as well, seeing as how you're convinced that people with evil intentions can also be innately good. I'm just sayin'.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='Dave' post='1530974' date='May 16 2008, 09:58 PM']Alycin:

I'm afraid what zwergel88 said wasn't sarcasm, based on her previous posts.
Zwergel88 and Catholicinsd, why do y'all insist on supporting candidates who consistently go against Catholic teaching (well actually, Christian teaching in general)? You can fool yourselves into thinking it's ok, but you can't fool God. You've both been told over and over again why a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate such as him, but you don't listen. Don't either of you care about your souls?[/quote]


Okay, I believe I have posted my opinion on this matter enough times to not have to reiterate it here, however I will just say this: I have not been told over and over again that voting for Obama is morally wrong. I have been informed via a an internet forum by people I don't know that they believe that it is wrong for me to vote for Obama. The reality is that most clergy I have talked to (I go to the Catholic University of America, so there are many) have said that a Catholic is not obliged to vote for a particular candidate, but may choose they one that will bring about the largest overall good. A Catholic must not directly vote in favor of abortion if for example they were a member of the legislature themselves, but they can vote for whichever candidate they prefer if their vote is based on the candidate's opinion on other issues. They fact is that I really don't think it will make a difference in the ongoing saga of abortion legislation and judicial review, who the president is. THerefore I'm going to vote for Obama because I believe that he will improve the state of this country's domestic and foreign affairs to the point where there will be a net decrease in the amount of abortions performed. Recall that this is what happened in the Clinton administration. Also, looking at the current age and makeup of the Supreme court, it doesn't seem likely that there will be any vacancies in the next four years, so barring the opportunity for a supreme court nomination, what exactly is it that you expect McCain to do to stop abortion. He can't just snap his fingers and make it illegal.

[mommas_boy]

-sigh-

I had offered you an olive branch ...

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1532818' date='May 18 2008, 07:44 PM']And Adolf Hilter, Josef Stalin, whatshisname Mao, and the radical Islamists all believed they were "doing the right thing", too. They believed it passionately. And because of their passion and drive many people followed them. And they might all have been "of good heart" as well, seeing as how you're convinced that [b]people with evil intentions can also be innately good[/b]. I'm just sayin'.[/quote]

Yes. This is precisely Catholic teaching. Please confer CCC 1700:

[quote name='CCC 1700'][b]The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God[/b] (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.[/quote]

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Islamists, Obama, Sanger, Pol Pot ... all of these people possess dignity and goodness that is innate to their very being and substance. This dignity is "rooted in [their] creation in the image and likeness of God". Because our human dignity is rooted in our creation, I posit that this dignity is irrevocable.

Paragraph 1702 tells us, "[b]The divine image is present in every man"; not just in those who live a moral life[/b]. Paragraph 1706 does remark that "[l]iving a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person", but does not state that departing from a moral life deprives one of that dignity. CCC 1706 also states that all people have the "urge to do what is good ... which makes itself heard in conscience"; that is to say, the desire to do good is of God, and ultimately, for God.

CCC 1707 explains, however, that this went wrong somewhere along the way:

[quote name='CCC 1707']"'Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history.' He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. [b]He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin.[/b] He is now inclined to evil and subject to error: 'Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.'"[/quote]

CCC 1707 is the most important paragraph listed here. It paints the picture of sin as a perversion. Now take this word, perversion. We normally think about it in sexual contexts, where a pervert turns sex into a shadow of its intended self. But this perversion does not make sex bad; sex retains its fundamentally good nature, but has simply been misused in this case for the purpose of evil. Similarly, in the case of politicians who do evil, they are misusing a desire for good (leading a country) to produce evil in their policies. This perversion does not negate the person's inherent dignity; nor does the person's goodness give them license to do as they please.

I hope that this helps.

Edited May 19, 2008 by mommas_boy

[mommas_boy]

Note: I am moving my computer over to my new apartment, which does not yet have internet. I may not be able to reply for some time.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='zwergel88']The reality is that most clergy I have talked to (I go to the Catholic University of America, so there are many) have said that [b][u]a Catholic is not obliged to vote for a particular candidate, but may choose they one that will bring about the largest overall good.[/u][/b] A Catholic must not directly vote in favor of abortion if for example they were a member of the legislature themselves, [b][u]but they can vote for whichever candidate they prefer if their vote is based on the candidate's opinion on other issues.[/u][/b][/quote]

I have heard this as well. To support, a quote from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), from [url="http://community.livejournal.com/catholicism/1977334.html#cutid1"]"Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles"[/url]:

[quote][N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate [b]precisely [i]because[/i] of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.[/b] [b]When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which [u]can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.[/b][/u][/quote]

Forgive me if this quote is out of context. I'm not trying to support any particular view; this is just what I have read, and considering it comes from our current Holy Father, I figure it would be of use.

In Christ,
Melissa

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='1533173' date='May 18 2008, 11:18 PM']Okay, I believe I have posted my opinion on this matter enough times to not have to reiterate it here, however I will just say this: I have not been told over and over again that voting for Obama is morally wrong. I have been informed via a an internet forum by people I don't know that they believe that it is wrong for me to vote for Obama. The reality is that most clergy I have talked to (I go to the Catholic University of America, so there are many) have said that a Catholic is not obliged to vote for a particular candidate, but may choose they one that will bring about the largest overall good. A Catholic must not directly vote in favor of abortion if for example they were a member of the legislature themselves, but they can vote for whichever candidate they prefer if their vote is based on the candidate's opinion on other issues. They fact is that I really don't think it will make a difference in the ongoing saga of abortion legislation and judicial review, who the president is. THerefore I'm going to vote for Obama because I believe that he will improve the state of this country's domestic and foreign affairs to the point where there will be a net decrease in the amount of abortions performed. Recall that this is what happened in the Clinton administration. Also, looking at the current age and makeup of the Supreme court, it doesn't seem likely that there will be any vacancies in the next four years, so barring the opportunity for a supreme court nomination, what exactly is it that you expect McCain to do to stop abortion. He can't just snap his fingers and make it illegal.[/quote]

First, CUA isn't known for orthodox priests. In fact, it was the site of the dissident revolution following Humanae Vitae, when numerous theologians from that institution wrote a public letter of dissent to the Holy Father. I'm particularly adverse to CUA's theologians for a good reason: FUS's catechetics program was born from a good priest who was demonized by dissidents at CUA and forced off the faculty.

Second, we have to vote for those who have the most chance of working for good in the non-negotiable areas. While I admit that no president can snap his fingers and make abortion illegal, a president who advocates infanticide and a number of other atrocities will do more damage in the areas of the non-negotiables than an ineffective, moderately or mostly pro-life candidate could ever do. As it is, I plan on writing in Benedict XVI, but McCain, despite his inability to help, at least will not do everything in his power to screw things up more, which is far more than I can say for Barack Obama, a man who has yet to manifest any plan for any definitive positive action in areas of moral concern.

I realize you're disillusioned with the current administration, but Obama's not the answer.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1533195' date='May 18 2008, 10:13 PM']Obama's not the answer.[/quote]
I agree. I cannot vote for a man who accepts abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia as human rights, and who also supports homosexual "marriage".

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='1533173' date='May 18 2008, 09:18 PM']Also, looking at the current age and makeup of the Supreme court, it doesn't seem likely that there will be any vacancies in the next four years.[/quote]
Four of the nine justices are over the age of 70.

[kujo]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='1533173' date='May 19 2008, 12:18 AM']Also, looking at the current age and makeup of the Supreme court, it doesn't seem likely that there will be any vacancies in the next four years, so barring the opportunity for a supreme court nomination, what exactly is it that you expect McCain to do to stop abortion. He can't just snap his fingers and make it illegal.[/quote]

Justice Ruth Ginsburg wants to retire but will only do so if/when a Democrat is in the White House. And Justice Steven Breyers is [i]super old[/i] and would probably like to step down, too.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1533188' date='May 19 2008, 12:57 AM']I have heard this as well. To support, a quote from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), from [url="http://community.livejournal.com/catholicism/1977334.html#cutid1"]"Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles"[/url]:
Forgive me if this quote is out of context. I'm not trying to support any particular view; this is just what I have read, and considering it comes from our current Holy Father, I figure it would be of use.

In Christ,
Melissa[/quote]


Excellent quotes. The key phrase to this is "which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons"---I have not seen ANY reasons which are serious enough to permit voting for a candidate like Obama or Hillary. Especially Obama who, as others have pointed out again and again, doesn't even tell us what he plans to DO. Anyone who think he has provided good enough reasons (despite his stance on the Catholic Non-Negotiables) is fooling themselves big time.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1532145' date='May 18 2008, 03:52 AM']This is technically incorrect. Many of the policies that Obama puts forth (here, I am speaking specifically about his anti-life policies and about nothing else) do perpetuate evil. However, Obama's immoral policies do not make him an "evil" man. To be sure, Obama actually intends for these policies to do good; but despite his best intentions, he is sorely misinformed. I could honestly say that Obama desires to change this country for the better, and I would say that that makes him a very good man. Again, however, he's just doing it all wrong out of a combination of stubbornness and blind ignorance of the rationale that we hold.

I admire Obama for his idealism; you have to admit that it's very refreshing. Now, if only we could get someone who had a similar level of passion, youthful vigor, and romantic idealism who didn't support policies contrary to the Catholic faith ...[/quote]

okay I retract that statement. Let me rephrase. His policies are evil, and I BELIEVE personally that he really is an evil man, through and through. Do I really have anything truly objective to base that on, maybe not. But I do believe that if someone truly believes in and tries to bring into existence, something that is truly evil, then by association, that man is evil. I am absolutely positive that Satan and his minions truly believe in their cause, are they not evil, because technically it is only their actions that are evil? Maybe Hitler wasn't evil, only his actions? I liken Obama at least as bad as Hitler. Maybe worse, you know "wolf in sheep's clothing" type of deal. I do believe a hidden enemy is worse than an admitted public enemy. Maybe Obama's not as bad as Satan, but he can't be far TOO behind. And no I don't equate him to the anti-Christ. As bad as I think he is, he'd only be a proto-type. The worst is yet to come, unfortunately.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='kujo' post='1532264' date='May 18 2008, 10:12 AM']I happen to agree with you. No matter how immoral his policies are, the man himself is not [u]evil[/u]. We certainly need to pray for the Holy Spirit to move in his heart and change his beliefs when it comes to abortion, he is still a good man who honestly believes his direction is the best way to take this country.[/quote]

Maybe. I think it depends on if one believes someone can actually 'be' evil. I tend to believe it so. If he's not evil, I can't imagine who would be. Just believing in something doesn't make one a good person. Satan believed what he did and does is okay, doesn't make him a good spirit, or does it?

[Alycin]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1533278' date='May 19 2008, 03:31 AM']Maybe. I think it depends on if one believes someone can actually 'be' evil. I tend to believe it so. If he's not evil, I can't imagine who would be. Just believing in something doesn't make one a good person. Satan believed what he did and does is okay, doesn't make him a good spirit, or does it?[/quote]

But are Satan's intentions for the betterment of ANYONE but himself?

[kujo]

I'm sorry...everytime I read someone casually throw out the comparison of a anyone who supports abortion to Hitler, I have to think we are being a bit overdramatic. I am not cheapening the depravity of abortion, just saying that men of good faith can disagree on something, even something as vile as this, without one side being painted as "evil." Perhaps you are all using Hitler as a symbol of "ultimate evil." Whatever the case may be, I think the comparison is a tad ridiculous and our points can be made without it.

[quote name='Alycin' post='1533280' date='May 19 2008, 04:40 AM']But are Satan's intentions for the betterment of ANYONE but himself?[/quote]

Good point....

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I want to add in response to zwergel that there is no proof that abortions declined under the Clinton Administration. Either abortions went down (which I find unlikely) or more abortions were done in the privacy of one's own home with abortifacient drugs (which I find far more likely).

[kujo]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1533315' date='May 19 2008, 09:44 AM']I want to add in response to zwergel that there is no proof that abortions declined under the Clinton Administration. Either abortions went down (which I find unlikely) or more abortions were done in the privacy of one's own home with abortifacient drugs (which I find far more likely).[/quote]

Actually, there has been a fairly-steady decline in abortion since 1990, Raph.

[quote][b]Results: A total of 839,226 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2004 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 1.1% decline from the 848,163 legal induced abortions reported by 49 reporting areas for 2003. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 238 in 2004, a decrease from the 241 in 2003.[/b] The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2004, the same since 2000. For the same 47 reporting areas, the abortion rate remained relatively constant during 1998--2004. In 2003 (the most recent years for which data are available), 10 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. No death was associated with known illegal abortion.

The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were known to be unmarried (80%), white (53%), and aged <25 years (50%). Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 61% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2004, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks' gestation, except for a slight decline in 2003. A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.0% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. A total of 35 reporting areas submitted data stating that they performed and enumerated medical (nonsurgical) procedures, making up 9.7% of all known reported procedures from the 45 areas with adequate reporting on type of procedure.

Interpretation:[b] During 1990--1997, the number of legal induced abortions gradually declined. When the same 47 reporting areas are compared, the number of abortions decreased during 1996--2001, then slightly increased in 2002 and again decreased in 2003 and 2004. In 2000 and 2001, even with one additional reporting state, the number of abortions declined slightly, with a minimal increase in 2002 and a further decrease in both 2003 and 2004. [/b][/quote]

Source: [url="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm"]CDC[/url]

See also: [url="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/pregbirths.htm"]CDC Factsheet[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='kujo' post='1533320' date='May 19 2008, 08:55 AM']Actually, there has been a fairly-steady decline in abortion since 1990, Raph.
Source: [url="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm"]CDC[/url]

See also: [url="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/pregbirths.htm"]CDC Factsheet[/url][/quote]
My point is that the CDC can't possibly give us statistics on the at-home abortions now available to women with RU-486, the morning after pill. Since that's become legal, the actual number of abortions nationwide is no longer able to be tracked accurately.

[kujo]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1533329' date='May 19 2008, 10:17 AM']My point is that the CDC can't possibly give us statistics on the at-home abortions now available to women with RU-486, the morning after pill. Since that's become legal, the actual number of abortions nationwide is no longer able to be tracked accurately.[/quote]

That's probably true; however, the statistics I cited still are significant.