www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Post Election Confession?

I think the reason we haven't had a terrorist attack in this country is because the terrorists are biding their time. I don't believe terrorist attacks can be prevented. Look at Israel. They have the best, most dedicated military in the world but something happens there almost every month. You can stop some of the attacks but not all.

Further, I have no doubt, bin Laden wanted Bush to be re-elected. Opposition to Bush and his invasion of Iraq has lead to greater sympathy for terrorism in the Middle East. The ME has become increasingly radicalized since 2000, largely thanks to Bush, and this radicalization helps bin Laden.

Do you think that the 3 million plus popular votes garnered by Pres. Bush over Sen. Kerry's (the largest in U.S. history) is indicative of an emerging "Catholic vote"?

The Admin and others here have been pounding on the issue of "moral values" prior to the elections as a deciding factor and it seems the exit and post-election polls show that it was so.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign had hoped that the Midwest States, which have considerable numbers of Catholics, would be on its side.

Amado

I think too many of us can be hypersensitive. We are adults and a lot of things can and should bounce off us instead of wounding us. I fully support someone else's right to say things I don't like because that is the other side of free speech. I can choose not to listen, of course, since I have that right. But I defend their right to say it. But we are a little too quick to jump on others around here when we may not have all the facts. Not to mention, that print communication is by far the most easily misinterpreted. But this is only an election and there will be another one in 4 years. It is not like Jeremiah where we need to:

"Flee, sons of Benjamin,
out of Jerusalem!
Blow the trumpet in Tekoa,
raise a signal over Beth-haccherem;
For evil threatens from the north,
and might destruction.
O lovely and delicate
daughter, Zion, you are ruined!"

We are not ruined and we will survive! Our hope is in Christ, not governments, and will always be. I am not going to flee from either political party.

Alice...
Amen...I was never a big Clinton fan, but I can still think of a few good things he did in his eight years and feel sorry for him that Monica and Hilary ended up his legacy...

I'm the wife of a disabled vet and to be honest, Kerry scared me more than other candidate I have seen, but if he had won..well, he would have been one more in a long line and in four years he might be it again or there might be another...

Alex,
I love your views on constitutional monarchy, but probably because my hobby is studying British history and her evolution from a group of clans and minor kingdoms to the constitutional monarchy she is today...I feel sad when I hear that many Brits would like to get rid of their royals; almost like they don't want anything to do with their history any longer.

everyone...
now that our own election is done, can some one please explain to me what is happening with the Ukranian election? I have seen only bits and pieces in the news about it, where of course, our own election dominates, but it seems like there are worse problems over there than any we have been experiencing.

Vie

Come on Jennifer. Enough with the college age hyperbole. How can anyone know this?

Dan L

Amado,

Re: your comments regarding an emerging Catholic vote...

When I was watching Wolf Blitzer (goo...he creeps me out, he's like the WolfMan) and the election coverage last night, I heard specific mention of the Catholics in, I think, Wisconsin and how they were going heavily for Bush because (Ok, maybe I heard this on NBC by Tom Brokaw) "the Catholic Church has been very critical of John Kerry in an arm's length kind of way."

Judging purely from hearsay and what I've experienced personally, I believe there was a very unified effort among Catholics, especially priests, in informing Catholics of the grave sin associated with voting for pro-abortion politicians if those votes were cast because of their stances on abortion. I really found it surprising how many of my Catholic peers discussed this, totally upheld Church Teaching, etc. I found it very encouraging (and this from me, who pretty much supported Kerry!)

Honestly, I was shocked and pleased with how solidified most Catholics seemed to be over this. Yes, I know you have your occassional nutbags like those crazy "nuns" in Michigan who supported that abortion-rights group and others of the like, but overall...very impressive.

I don't think anyone can deny there was a heavily "Christian vote" in this election- - -the news anchors were all over that 24/7. I think the Catholic vote was a solid subsection of that larger Christian voting bloc.

Those are my personal opinions and experiences, and the experiences of others may differ completely from my own depending on their whereabouts.

By the way, my state passed the Gay Marriage Amendment by 80% to 20%.

And frankly, I don't know who those one out of five voters were!!

Logos Teen

College age hyperbole? It seems Iconophile was right about your lack of charity.

Why don't you answer your own question? You're sure that you're right that Israel has nothing to do with this. How can you know this?

Amado, I think it seems it is rather the result not of an emerging Catholic vote, but a more motivated, vocal, and activist conservative Protestant base.

Sure, some Catholics were out there with a strong pro-life message, but that didn't always equate as in my case to overt support for Bush, as some felt he was lacking also in that category. And some Catholics were quite vocal for Kerry.

It seems many of the Catholic polls have shown a pretty well evenly split 50/50. I don't know if that was the case, but again I think it was the higly motivated Protestant Christian press and radio who are probably more responsible than the Catholics in that regard.

I do thank God that gay marriage was strongly defeated in every state it came up for vote. I also thank God that in my state some good, Christian men were elected to Congress.

I am reading a book by an anonymous intelligence officer called "Imperial Hubris". It is most enlightening; the guy makes the point that the Jihadists do not hate us "because we are free", [the Bushist mantra], but because of our policies, which they perceive as anti-Islamic. This seems to be borne out by the latest Osama Bin Laden tape. The book makes a pretty damning case for re-examination of American policy....
[Did I just use "foul language" by saying "damning"?]
Man, I am really trying to observe the forum's puritanical code, but I keep getting in trouble by my proclivity for colorful language....
-Daniel, trying hard not to offend

My cousin who lives in Atlanta tells me there is a huge gay population there. It's so large that even the stores and other businesses cater to them. That may be part of your one out of five, but I am just guessing.

The question about the "emerging Catholic vote" reminds me of a debate I had with my freshman year poli sci professor. We had to write a paper and I wanted to write about the Catholic vote but this professor wouldn't allow me to write on that topic. He did not believe the Catholic vote was important.

I don't know the official figures on the Catholic vote but the states with the largest Catholic populations went for Kerry (Illinois, PA, New York, CA, etc.). So perhaps the Catholic vote wasn't that important.

But I do believe that Kerry will be the last Catholic major party presidential candidate we'll see for quite awhile. The Democrats won't nominate another Catholic because obviously it didn't help Kerry. The GOP doesn't need to nominate a Catholic to get Catholic votes and a Catholic would likely alienate the real base of their party (as evidenced by yesterday's results), evangelical protestants.

If you want to parse the so-called Catholic vote go to CNN. There are surveys for each state. You will find a 2:1 preference for Kerry in states like Maryland and New Mexico (JFKennedy levels), but a Bush preference in Colorado. Overall, as Diak points out there was a roughly a 50:50 split. A quick look suggests that regional and ethnic characteristics were the salient factors not Catholicism per se. Interestingly, the White Protestant vote, not just evangelicals, was extremely strong for Bush. Are the more liberal mainline Protestants still very Republican or perhaps still anti-Catholic? (I think Jennifer is right about the Republicans not running a Catholic - would the Bob Jones pilgrimage still occur?)

Bush did better with the Catholic votes against Kerry than he did against Gore. It's hard to see this as a real pro-life statement. It has the tinge of another example of the fact that you don't need a lid on the pot when you're boiling more than one lobster.

I think there was a mix of messages from Bishops and Priests. It's no surprise to forumites that I thought the level of many messages was not sufficiently thoughtful or comprehensive; they were a bit like Faux News, and struck me as similarly politically partisan. It was, however, the actions of the laity that leave me with a lingering sadness.

The political process asks that we make judgments in our voting on incomplete information. It is perfectly reasonable to say I am uncomforatble with this position, posture, or whatever and on that basis decline to vote for candidate X, the theory being that it all works out over the course of 120 million votes. But the arguments went far beyond that. Not only in the political forum, where, sad to say, character assassination is the weapon of choice - voter driven - but also in religious forums. This one being better than most.

I remain shocked, genuinely, that any Catholic layperson or group of Catholic laity would be clamoring for the excommunication of anybody - or presume the right to determine communion. I am disturbed at the inclination of people to revel, steadfastly, in rash judgement. I am not referring to vote preference, which as I mentioned is almost inherently rash, or reasoned arguments on policy, but judgments of the state of another's soul - and not just Kerry's, but all of the Catholics who supported him. And I remain distraught in trying to fathom why it is that people take the time to write and post patently false statements. Durng this flurry, my posts were for the most part on these subjects; and if the comments seemed too harsh, I am sorry.

In the end - however one wishes to think about how our vote affects our salvation - it is, ISTM, crystal clear that how we treat members of Christ's body is crucially important. And overall, I think there was some shamefully shabby treatment. The political division in our nation is probably not all that important. I am far more concerned to see the sorry tactics of the politics of division - and the culture war - transferred into the church. That is where I pray for healing, and first, for better appreciation of the wounds.

Alex,

how does the US claim a constitutional monarch to represent our history of rebelling against a monarch. The Founding Fathers (especially George Washington) were quite explicit- NO MONARCHS. To have a monarch betrays our history.

We pledge allegiance not to a President, but to the Flag and all that it stands for- the Republic of the USA, "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." This is our history, this is our legacy, to pledge allegiance to a monarch would offend our sense of history. Government officials, civil servants, and those in the armed forces take the following oath (except thr President, whose oath is slightly different):

As a result, my friend, your continual advocating for a US constitional monarchy puts you at odds with our Constitution and our history, which I will vigorously support and defend against your proposal.


Amado,

In the Wednesday afternoon analyses, the pundits noticed a trend among those who attend worship services vis-a-vis those who do not. A majority of those who attend worship services on a regular basis were voting Republican. A majority of those who do not attend worship services or at least not on a regular basis were voting Democrat.

Father Deacon,

While I'm on the other side of the "constitutional monarchy" question I certainly agree with shifting the the basis for analysis on the election. Gallop showed many years ago that on a whole host of questions the divide wasn't so much between Catholic and non Catholic but between faithful and nominal religious people. Then again I don't think that surprises too many people. It's difficult to convince people of Christian or even broadly religious principles when they don't care enough about them even to attend Church. Moreover, it is clear that the leaders of the Democratic party aren't motivated by religious considerations. For that matter, they seem openly hostile toward them if their public statements are true reflections of what they actually believe.

The only danger I see in voting more and more for Republican candidates in this period of our history is that we won't be taken seriously when we raise and issue but will rather be taken for granted, as the blacks tend to be by the Democratic establishment.

Alan Keyes in 2008 and any number of others who are pro life and pro marriage and strong on anti-terrorism.

Dan L

Sorry, the Republicans do not take Christian morality seriously now. They use it already as a means to a vote, but if they really worked to do effective changes, they know they would lose the vote in the next election. Bring it out on election year, do nominal work which really is essentially nothing, and brag. And brag how you really support the other side (stem cell anyone?) while you are at it.

As long as Republicans are seen as the moral party, they become more party than moral.