Why Traditional Christians and Especially Catholics Should Not Vote For Hillary Clinton

Discussion in 'Test/Politics Board' started by bplionfan, Oct 21, 2016.

  1. bplionfan

    bplionfan Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,781
    Likes Received:
    1,261
    Paul “Mickey” Pohl is a lawyer at the Pittsburgh office of Jones Day, the world’s largest law firm. He served as head of the firm’s Pittsburgh office and recently won the St. Thomas More Society award for exemplary service by a Catholic lawyer. He and his firm represented Bishop Zubik and Catholic Charities pro bono (for free) in the HHS Contraceptive Mandate case that went to the US Supreme Court earlier this year. In our nation’s highest court he (and I) witnessed firsthand how close our religious freedom rights are to extinction. Supreme Court Justices, of course, are appointed by the President of the United States. Please consider his essay below in casting your vote for President on Nov. 8.


    * * *


    On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:30 AM, Paul Pohl wrote:


    I thought you would be interested in this essay I wrote last week. Best regards, Mickey


    Dear Friends:


    Many of you know that for more than 4 years, I have been one of the leaders of the team representing religious organizations, mostly Catholic (including Bishop David Zubik, Bishop of Pittsburgh’s Catholic Diocese) in his case which was consolidated in the U.S. Supreme Court with the case brought by The Little Sisters of the Poor and cases brought by others, against the government over Obamacare’s “contraception mandate.” A great number of religious groups of all denominations filed “friend of the Court” briefs supporting our position that while contraception is and could be available to all who choose to use it, government regulators should not force religious objectors (like The Little Sisters or Catholic Charities) to participate in the delivery of goods and services which offend their religious beliefs.


    The work I have done in these cases , studying the guarantee of “free exercise of religion” in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act , has caused me to read and often to investigate what the Obama administration’s views are of traditional Christian religious beliefs, religion, and especially Catholicism. I have also tried to gather as much information as I can about what Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, their running mates and their respective parties think about religion, Catholicism and traditional Christian religions (which the media often mocks as Evangelicals, “Bible thumpers” or “the religious right”).


    I am a Catholic. Many of my friends know that, like many Catholics who are the children or grandchildren of immigrants, I grew up in a heavily unionized factory town where almost every street corner had a Catholic church and school, a bar, an ethnic club and, very often, bowling alleys. Many of us had relatives that were policemen, firemen, coal miners and almost every family had someone who had served or was serving in the military. And, we immigrants and the grandchildren of immigrants were almost all Democrats. We cheered and cried when JFK was elected President. Many of you are now asking me who I am going to vote for. In this email, I am going to explain to you and present you with evidence to show why I have concluded that Hillary Clinton and today’s Democratic Party is anti-Catholic, and no friends of traditional, observant Christians.


    No one wants a theocracy. No one wants a single denomination imposing its views on government or Congress making any law respecting the establishment of religion as was often done in the 13 colonies. What we want is what the first Amendment guarantees: that all of us are allowed the free exercise of religion. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton, as the evidence detailed below shows, want to keep us from espousing our traditional beliefs because they think them harmful to their vision of what is good for the country. They have been very careful in trying to hide their views to hold the vote of traditional Christians. It is time to expose them.


    Like so many others, I believe there is a God, an afterlife and that there are moral absolutes. Some things are wrong. God made rules and they come to us in the Old and New Testament and through our 2000 year old Christian traditions and beliefs. I believe God made men and women. I believe that there is such a thing as sin, and forgiveness. I think people should be married before they have children and parents are primarily responsible for raising their kids – not the government, as Hillary espouses in her book “It Takes a Village.” I think abortion is the taking of a human life. I happen to believe that marriage is a sacrament involving one man, one woman and God and that sex is not a sport or dating game. When sex is detached from the reproductive act and the intimacy of the marriage bond, it is not right.


    I do not judge anyone. I just happen to have my own beliefs as a Christian, shared by millions of others for 2000 years. I know that there are doctrinal differences between denominations and I know that not everyone in our wonderful nation shares my beliefs. Many of my friends clearly do not. I respect and love atheists and my gay friends even though I may not agree with them on things that I believe are fundamental to my existence and, by the way, in my view, good for our society. Just because I may not approve of certain lifestyles, I am not homophobic and should not be ridiculed or called a “hater” because of my beliefs. I try to love and show compassion to all; I concede that I, like all humans, am a sinner.


    What this essay is about, however, is that I should not have elected officials or those trying to get elected telling me that my sincerely held religious beliefs are not going to be respected , need to be changed by government and, even worse, that I and my children should not be able to espouse them in the public square. Please read on to see what is going on. I am not trying to jam my religious beliefs down on anyone much less the nation; I just want to be free to exercise them and talk about them. I respect those who may not share them.


    Let me say at the outset that I am not getting paid to write this and, if you find my reasoning relevant or persuasive I urge you to circulate this to every traditional Christian and Catholic you know.


    Let me also say at the outset that I have never met Donald Trump. I find much of his speech and action boorish and offensive -- but after a lot of fact checking and reflection – I am going to vote for him because he and his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (whom I am told is a devout Catholic) are more likely to respect the free exercise of religion set forth in the First Amendment to the Constitution and are going to give us much better judges than Hillary Clinton would appoint. You live with a bad president for four or 8 years, but a federal judge gets appointed for life. Obama has appointed very few observant Catholics or pro-life Christians to key positions and to judgeships. He can point to some who might say they were raised Catholic or at election time claim to be Catholic, but the reality is that the only traditional Christians and Catholics who can get appointed now are those that he considers acceptable to Planned Parenthood and his anti-religion friends. Hillary – as the evidence below shows – would be worse. Hillary has not released a list of names of judges she would consider putting on the Supreme Court. Trump’s list is excellent – people who respect the Constitution, interpret the law and do not think they are supposed to make the laws.


    Let’s start with where the Democratic Party is at this point in history. My concern about the Democratic Party began most conspicuously in July 1992. The late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, a pro-life advocate and a major player at the time in the Democratic Party, was slated to give a keynote address at the Democratic Convention at Madison Square Garden. The word got to Democratic Presidential nominee Bill Clinton and his group who were then emerging as the new party leadership that Casey was going to give a pro-life address. By that time, the new “progressive” Democrats led by Bill Clinton had decided to embrace Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion feminists as a key voting bloc. They decided to keep Gov. Casey from speaking because of his pro-life views. He was bumped from the program and he was not allowed near a live microphone.


    How do I know this? It is now widely reported. But more importantly, in February 1993 I attended a dinner in Philadelphia sponsored by the Catholic Campaign for America where Governor Casey was honored. I attended with Fr. Michael Scanlan, TOR, the then President of Franciscan University of Steubenville and spoke with Gov. Casey about the events at the convention. Notwithstanding subsequent efforts by the Democratic Party and their media friends to spin the story, I heard Gov. Casey and those around him verify the facts. When Gov. Casey’s son, U.S. Senator Bob Casey, used to call me to solicit contributions to his campaign, I told him that his father’s treatment by the party and its refusal to allow pro-life views to even be aired was why I switched my registration.


    Very soon after hearing Gov. Casey talk about not being allowed to speak at Madison Square Garden, I changed my registration to Republican. The Democratic Party, the party my whole extended family had automatically belonged to and which cheered when John F. Kennedy was elected, had abandoned us and our beliefs – but continued to think that they could count on the Catholic vote. Catholics, it is time to look at the facts: this party does not only take us for granted, they are attacking us.


    My concerns about what the power people in the Democratic Party really thought about religion were greatly heightened in April 2008 when then candidate Barack Obama made the following comments at a big dollar fundraiser in San Francisco:


    “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them….” “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion….”


    When Obama said people cling to religion because jobs have left their area, it told me that he just did not understand what religion was; or at least the religion I and my Christian friends and relatives embrace. He just doesn’t get it. Or worse, he gets it but he deprecates it because he thinks he will get more votes by dissing believers than respecting the depth of their religious faith. And Obama’s lack of respect for traditional Christian beliefs, apparently shared now by the power people in the Democratic Party, became even more apparent in 2009.


    As I described in detail in the Commencement Address I gave in May at Franciscan University, beginning in 2009 at The Cairo Conference, President Obama started to embrace a subtle but deceptively clever view of freedom of religion. He began to use the term “Freedom of worship” as if he were a champion of religion. But our Constitution gives us the “free exercise of religion,” which is vastly broader than mere freedom of worship. Many of the worst totalitarian governments in the world promise freedom of worship because that keeps religion confined within the walls of churches, temples, mosques, synagogues and houses. The very first freedom in our Constitution promises the free exercise of religion – your ability to practice your religion by having schools, hospitals, universities and preaching your beliefs publicly. Obama and Hillary Clinton see that as getting in the way of things the “progressive” Democratic party want to regulate as part of their vision of an what an ideal society should look like.


    Shortly after President Obama started to embrace the “freedom of worship” terminology, Hillary Clinton began using the same language, beginning as far as my research shows in a speech at Georgetown University and, with some exceptions, repeated and repeated since then.


    Every American, of any faith, should begin to worry about a politician or a party that wants to shrink the first freedom in our Constitution from free exercise of religion to just freedom of worship.


    So, am I just some paranoid lawyer over-analyzing words used in speeches?


    Let’s look at the 2016 Democratic Party Platform, adopted July 21, 2016, with Hillary Clinton’s authorization. What does it say about religion and the free exercise of religion? Here is what it says:


    “We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.”


    Alarm bells should go off. For the first time in American history, a major party does not unequivocally endorse the free exercise of religion but supports only a “progressive view” of religion. This means that Hillary Clinton or someone in government is going to be deciding and telling you whether your view of religion, your beliefs and the beliefs of your faith are the correct ones: the “progressive” ones. If you think this is alarmist, look at what is going on at many colleges and universities – students are being told that if they express what they may believe as part of their sincerely held faith, especially as to LGBT issues -- they are engaging in hate speech.


    So, the Democratic Party has now redefined what its view of religious freedom should be – and that should scare traditional Christians and especially Catholics. Is there any other evidence that Hillary Clinton shares that radical recasting of freedom of religion? Again, let’s look at the evidence there.


    At the Women’s World Summit in April 2015, Hillary Clinton said, “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed.” Shouldn’t it be scaring us traditional Christians and Catholics when a major party candidate speaks of using laws to change deep-seated religious beliefs – and she is obviously speaking of changing the views of those of us whose religious views she disagrees with. When has a major candidate ever advocated an America where she or he is going to decide what religious views the rest of us or some of us may or may not hold? When did it become the job of the President to “change deep seated religious beliefs”?


    It has, of course, been widely reported that Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley was an analysis of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” This was an interesting choice for a college senior since Alinsky was a communist and his views and tactics would have been seen as aggressive even by the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917. Published reports say that Hillary met with Alinsky, he found her charming and offered her a job which she declined. In the introduction or dedication to his work, Alinsky praises Lucifer, the devil, as the first radical to come away with his own kingdom. You decide what you will about what this all tells us about Hillary Clinton.


    In a September 23, 2016 Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Kenneth L. Woodward, who had been the religion editor of Newsweek, wrote about Hillary Clinton’s views as a Methodist. He quotes Hillary’s youth minister who told Newsweek that “we Methodists know what’s good for you.” To be sure, that quote is not attributed to Hillary but it certainly seems apropos – since her own statements seem to reflect that she should be deciding what beliefs can and should be tolerated under the Democratic Party’s views of the “progressive” vision of religion that is going to be backed up by laws, regulations and political will. That has already started to happen. Just look at the government in Obamacare trying to muscle the Little Sisters of the Poor and Catholic Charities of Pittsburgh, by the threat of massive fines, into providing abortifacient and contraception insurance for their employees. Catholics, evangelicals and everyone who wants to be sure we continue to have the free exercise of religion should be concerned. Think about that when you decide who to vote for.


    Many of my friends, relatives, neighbors, fellow parishioners – and especially women religious (who are usually the kindest best people in the world) will take issue with what I have written here. They find Trump outrageously offensive, as do I. They find the Democrats’ promises relating to education, health care and social services kind, and seductive. But it is fair to ask whether those kinds of programs have disserved the unfortunate, marginalized persons of our society who those programs were supposed to help by making them dependents of government rather than educated, free people with hopes and chances for a better future, not just a voting bloc that can be controlled by promises of free stuff. I truly worry about whether the government-subsidized breakdown of the traditional family and the narrowing of religious freedom as now espoused in the Democratic Party platform and by their candidate Hillary Clinton is the right course for Christians, Catholics, Hispanics, observant Jews or Muslims -- or for America. I have spent a lot of my professional career focusing on the free exercise of religion in one context or another. The Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges we will get from a Trump/Pence administration will be light years better than the ACLU types we will get from Hillary Clinton – and America will be living with the consequences for a long, long time.


    The mainstream media, the Hollywood types and the debate moderators have completely ignored these issues about religion. On October 12, news reports of Clinton campaign emails released by Wikileaks showed Hillary Clinton’s staffer Jennifer Palmieri and others staffers bashing Catholics and their beliefs. They think they can just take the Catholic and Hispanic vote for granted because Joe Biden is Catholic or Tim Kaine purports to be a practicing Catholic. But I urge everyone who is Catholic, a traditional Christian or who is worried about the erosion of religious freedom to look at the facts.


    The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a publication titled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” The Catholic Church – which by the way is the largest provider of non-governmental social services in the history of the world – does not endorse or get into politics. That publication recommends that Catholics and all citizens vote their consciences after sincere reflection. But reflection means being informed. I hope you find my efforts here to inform you of the real facts helpful as you make your decision.
     
  2. Osprey Lion

    Osprey Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Location:
    Osprey, Florida
    Thank you for spreading the word of the religiously insane. Not enough of you nutjobs
    spread your garbage.
     
  3. LafayetteBear

    LafayetteBear Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    33,123
    Likes Received:
    12,082
    Eff him. I'm from a traditional Protestant denomination (Lutheran), and plenty of us vote Democratic. (A lot vote Republican as well.) No party has a monopoly on morality or religiosity. He's taken his role as advocate for the Catholic Church and/or Catholic Charities a bit too much to heart, and somehow arrived at the clearly erroneous conclusion that Trump (who has never been religiously observant, and probably not religious, either) is somehow a stuanch guardian of religious values. What a crock.
     
  4. 83wuzme

    83wuzme Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,337
    Likes Received:
    6,187
    Does anybody remember Obama's visit to the campus of Notre Dame University in 2009? A few protestors were there to rain on the parade. They seemed to sense what was going to happen. Obama promised the cheering throngs in that moment that religious rights of conscience would be protected under his health care law. That promise soon expired and saw his Administration suing the Little Sisters of the Poor over this issue. How's that for an optic ? He must have known that this was going to happen at the time of the promise.

    The thing that bugs me is that so few people, most of all Catholics, know or understand what the Church teaches about human sexuality. Opposition to chemical birth control is certainly not something new in the Catholic Church. In fact, pretty much every Christian denomination opposed it until about halfway through the last century. So the powers that be can't start moving the goalposts of religious liberty around on this.

    If an employer provides money for an employee to purchase a health insurance plan and that plan contains coverage for something the employer finds objectionable, that's on the employee. Employees can use their earnings to pay for prostitutes and hitmen and the employer can't do much about it. But to mandate an employer to cover a specific service that violates the employer's religious principles is another story. It smacks of a showdown. Strike down religious liberty on this and we can keep going until there's nothing left.
     
  5. rumble_lion

    rumble_lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    13,278
    Likes Received:
    1,899

    The thing that bugs me is that so few people, most of all Catholics, know or understand what the Church teaches about human sexuality.


    Do they teach about groping women? How about hitting on married women? It that ok now?
     
  6. 83wuzme

    83wuzme Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,337
    Likes Received:
    6,187
    The Church has not and will not endorse Trump, or Hillary.
    I brought up the point because it has everything to do with the rights of conscience false promise the President made back in 2009.
     
  7. Osprey Lion

    Osprey Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Location:
    Osprey, Florida
    The Pope and President Obama agree on far more issues than they disagree. Far right Republicans and Catholics are part of the vocal minority that are dividing this country.
     
  8. LafayetteBear

    LafayetteBear Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    33,123
    Likes Received:
    12,082
    Wuzme: I appreciate your post, but I would submit that your views on the free exercise rights of a religious order that elects to go out into the commercial marketplace are a little absolute. The Little Sisters of the Poor were out there in the business marketplace to make some money For a good cause, no doubt, but once an entity decides to engage in business, it is not strictly a church or a religious institution. Should the Little Sisters refuse to serve gays based on free exercise grounds? I say no. What about blacks? I hope you would also say no. So if you are saying that Obama conscciously misrepresented his position on religious liberties to the folks at Notre Dame, I would take issue with you.
     
  9. 83wuzme

    83wuzme Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,337
    Likes Received:
    6,187
    Bear, this gets to my moving the goalposts anaolgy. Long before Obamacare was even an idea, the Little Sisters of the Poor were doing what they do and weren't being forced to pay for things like contraceptives. Following the logic you are using, hospitals also should not be able to refuse services like abortion and euthanasia should the Judiciary decide these things have now become rights that trump religious liberty.
     
  10. LafayetteBear

    LafayetteBear Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    33,123
    Likes Received:
    12,082
    I'd acknowledge that a religious order or group does not lose its free exercise rights just because it forms a business subsidiary and goes out into the commercial marketplace. But there is plenty of judicial precedent that says those free exercise rights are nowhere near as absolute with respect to the commercial enterprise. For example, although public charities have long been granted exemption from income tax as a general rule, there has also been a long recognized exception to that rule which requires them to pay income tax on unrelated business income (i.e., income from activities unrelated to the principal exempt purpose for which the charity was formed.)

    i happen to believe that, when Obama visited South Bend and made a general statement regarding the benefit of recognizing free exercise protections, he was blissfully unaware of the pending (or future) dustup between the Little Sisters and their employees over provision of contraceptives in their employee healthcare plan.

    I also seem to recall that the Obama administration (via the Dept of HHS, or whatever department oversees Obamacare) made an offer to the Little Sisters in a good faith effort to accomodate their free exercise rights. If memory serves, they offered to allow the Little Sisters to send out a Notice to their covered employees, stating that the Little Sister's do not (for religious reasons) provide contraceptives, but that the employee can make arrangements directly with the insurer to obtain contraceptives should they wish.

    The Little Sisters felt that even sending the notice offended their dignity. Sorry, their rights are not absolute. I think they lose in that instance. They want to enter the commercial marketplace, seek to make money, and hire employees? Then they need to observe substantially the same requirements that every other employer does.
     
  11. 83wuzme

    83wuzme Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,337
    Likes Received:
    6,187
    Many people felt the unanimous decision by the Supremes in this case sending it back to the lower court was a punt, but it also vacated the earlier ruling in the Admin's favor. I think the Administration was especially hard line in this whole affair. The SCOTUS decision gave a lot of people some hope that religious liberty can be maintained, at least for a while.
    Long term, it will be an uphill battle, I believe.
     
  12. LafayetteBear

    LafayetteBear Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    33,123
    Likes Received:
    12,082
    There will always be difficult decisions to make with respect to the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, not to mention numerous other Constitutional provisions.

    That is why the most important value I put on Supreme Court nominees is that they have long and absolutely sterling legal pedigrees. Someone like that is FAR more likely to respect and follow established legal precedent, to depart from it only when it seems clearly advisable, and to be able to articulate to people of all political philosophies a reasonable basis for ruling as he or she did.

    A person who gets on the Court not because they have a great legal resume, but because they appear to satisfy a particular President's ideological litmus tests, is a person who is far less likely to make a great Supreme Court justice.

    William Rehnquist was not necessarily my favorite Supreme Court justice, but he was not openly political, showed good judicial temperament, and he was without question brilliant. I could live with another justice like that, even though I would prefer someone more moderate, like the poor bastard who is sitting there awaiting an up or down vote and may never get one.
     
  13. roswelllion

    roswelllion Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    3,434
    well I didn't read the entire essay and I am not Catholic but I simply can not understand how a devout Catholic or anyone who believes in the rights of the unborn can support the democratic party.There are many issues [immigration, social programs military engagement etc.] where the D's align with the church more than the R's but they pale in comparison to a program that allows 2-3 million abortions [no certain on that number] a year. As a thought we have more abortions in one year than US soldiers lost in Iraq, Vietnam and WW11 combined.
    Now if you don't believe that fine, but as a devout person of faith I can't fathom rationalizing this away.
     
  14. Ten Thousan Marbles

    Ten Thousan Marbles Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    32,196
    Likes Received:
    7,533
  15. Ten Thousan Marbles

    Ten Thousan Marbles Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    32,196
    Likes Received:
    7,533
    Well, women of a certain age know. Men, too. Some did know, but have forgotten. People who are old enough to remember what was happening before Roe v. Wade can find it easy to understand that people are always going to have sex, and that some of that will result in unwanted pregnancies, and that some of those people will decide (rightly or wrongly) that they have no course other than abortion. And, there will always be people willing to perform abortions...trained or untrained.....safe or unsafe....clean or unclean.

    And, people of a certain age who have intact memories know all about what happened when women were resorting to unsafe abortions. Women died. Girls died.

    Bill Clinton once said we should make sure that abortion is "Safe, Legal and Rare." Seems to me that HRC has the same sentiment.

    Now, forced birthers (pro-life extremists,) seek to reject that notion by saying that HRC has never done anything to make abortions rare. But, the biggest thing she did was she used her influence to get a statement like that made by a President of the United States. She has also, for decades, sought to provide forms of assistance to women and girls in need. I am guessing she would have done more to resolve this situation had somebody handed her a magic wand.

    In my view, you cannot be pro-life if that concern for life ends at birth. I don't like the idea of abortion. I also don't like the idea of anybody telling anybody else what they can and cannot do with their body. And, as long as the cord is connected, it is one body. Possibly two spirits. But, one body.

    The thing about hypocrisy is that it is often a two edged sword.
     
    15 Ten Thousan Marbles, Oct 22, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2016
  16. Ten Thousan Marbles

    Ten Thousan Marbles Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    32,196
    Likes Received:
    7,533
  17. dontgojoepa

    dontgojoepa Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Likes Received:
    254
    Nobody is seeking to undermine the church or take away your beliefs on abortion or how you should act. But the division of church and state is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. Not every religion espouses the same views on abortion as the church and not every person has the same moral views as to when life commences. Allowing the woman to make her own individual choice, in connection with her doctor, clergyman, husband or anyone else she deems necessary is the only way to preserve that tenet. Once we allow the church to dictate that policy it's a slippery slope. Does that help rationalize it for you?
     
    Ten Thousan Marbles likes this.
  18. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    98,099
    Likes Received:
    7,898
  19. 83wuzme

    83wuzme Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    8,337
    Likes Received:
    6,187
    Everywhere socialism has been fully implemented it has sought to curtail religious liberty. It is in the nature of an ideology that considers itself a form of benevolent papternalism and wants to organize and regulate every aspect of life. The United States are in no danger of becoming a theocracy, at least a Christian one. The only way abortion will end here would be a cultural change where greater value would be placed on human life.
    Obama's address to the ND commencement crowd in 2009 included an admonition to conform one's values and beliefs to the " new age ". If that's not a poke in the eye to a university that identifies itself as a Catholic school, nothing is.
     
  20. LafayetteBear

    LafayetteBear Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    33,123
    Likes Received:
    12,082
    That picture makes me cringe and guffaw at the same time.
     
    Ten Thousan Marbles likes this.
  21. roswelllion

    roswelllion Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    3,434
    Well I wasn't suggesting anything like what you are saying. I wasn't suggesting there shouldn't be a separation and I clearly said if you don't believe that abortion is the taking of a life fine. My point was simply that IF you believe that abortion is the taking of a life it should dwarf any other concerns. Quite frankly the Catholic Church in my view soft peddles this issue because they don't want to offend their parishioners
     
  22. roswelllion

    roswelllion Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,542
    Likes Received:
    3,434
    10,000
    I am not preaching at all as you and dontgojoe seem to think. I was simply saying and i said it in response to dgj is that IF you are a person who believes the catholic faith the abortion is issue should trump others. I will readily agree it doesn't. if you don't believe that so be it, vote on immigration or health care or whatever is important.
    Now to some of your points.
    I completely agree that some people died from botched abortions, care to give me a guess how many of them there were in a year compared to the number of abortions? Again let me say if you don't think an abortion is the taking of a life it becomes a moot discussion.
    Finally, if you or HRC or anyone who says they believe abortion should be safe, legal AND RARE but don't oppose partial birth abortion, parental notification or any time limits on abortion just saying nonsense.
    Let me ask you this, do you think the Democratic party would support a bill that said
    legal only for the first trimester, and parental notification for any girl under the age of 18? Doesn't that move us toward safe legal and rare?
    One last comment. The science on viability of life would make Roe V Wade a nonstarter today.
    Having said all that my comments were only pointed at folks who claim to be Catholic.
     
  23. Ten Thousan Marbles

    Ten Thousan Marbles Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    32,196
    Likes Received:
    7,533
    I do not agree with your parental notification at <18. (Except in cases where the parent receives notification via an arrest warrant with their name on it.)

    17 is still too old to require that. Some have left home even before that.
     

Share This Page