|
2 members (melkman2, 1 invisible),
150
guests, and
20
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
When is Abuna Elias Chacour going to win? When is Emmanuel Charles McCarthy going to win? When is Daniel Berrigan or John Dear going to win? It'll be a hearty one if these listed Catholic clergy wins. Sayidna Joseph Raya should have won the last time. Pardon my language but these are the countless few men who have balls of steel. General David Petraeus was certainly not on their radar. Iraqis in towns where the Al-Quida ruled are now enjoying something they never enjoyed: peace. For Al Gore, I have a willing suspension of belief. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Ryan,
All these issues are miniscule to genocide which is happing everyday. They are not miniscule to me; neither are they miniscule to those who suffer on a daily basis. I would also add, in response to your previous post, that the Holy Father has stated that, while it is never acceptable to vote for a candidate on the basis of his or her pro-choice position, it may be acceptable to vote for a pro-choice candidate for "proportionate" reasons. For me, I simply don't believe that most so-called "pro-life" politicians really are serious about ending abortion. You combine that with the positions they tend to advocate on war and the death penalty, as well as the positions they tend to advocate with respect to many other issues that the Catholic Church has identified as matters of social justice, I often find proportionate reasons not to vote for the candidate who claims to be pro-life. I respect your freedom and your judgment to do otherwise-and I do so without condemning or judging you. On behalf of myself and many other Christians who reach similar judgments when it is time to vote, I would ask that you show similar respect to me and the decisions I make based on my understanding of Church teaching and the dictates of my own conscience. Sincerely, Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
What does Global Warming have to do with peace?
Algore has quite a large carbon footprint with all his jet travel and with the energy used at his sizable home.
Terry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
I do not care if people are not Al Gore fans or do not agree with him, but I find some of these posts most uncharitable to Mr. Gore. Very disrespectful and unbecoming of Christians. It is way over the top to put Gore in the same camp as Stalin & Hitler, which a couple of you have.
I believe that many people take a stand on global warming based on what their prior politics are, not on facts or science. One can always find some scientist to butress their argument, specially those funded by the energy companies or right wing think tanks.
Some of the same attitudes displayed on this thread in the public arena put many thoughtful people off to Christ and his church.
You do not like Al Gore, or disagree with him vigorously, or do not believe in global warming, or that it is caused by human activity, that is fine; I can live with that. But I would hope to see more reasoned disagreements and less cavalier and uncharitable postings on a Christian web site.
Last edited by lanceg; 10/13/07 06:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299 |
The basis for all Catholic social justice is the right to life. How can anyone ignore the fact that over a million babies die each year in America? This is sick! How peaceful is it for the baby who is sucked out of the mother's womb? If you add up all the victims of the war they don't even add up to one year of abortions in the US. The womb is the most dangerous place to be in the world.
Bush may be a bad president but at least we are one more judge closer to overturning roe vs wade.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
I am not arguing that no one should not criticize Gore or his positions; I am arguing that we are most uncharitable in our comments in this thread.
Abortion is evil, perhaps the greatest evil, but not the only evil in the world. Because someone is wrong on one issue does not mean that they can't be right on another.
As far as this war goes, the last two popes have condemned this war. Those of us who are against it are in good company. But we are often not treated respectfully by some of our fellow Catholics for our position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,532 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,532 Likes: 1 |
Ryan, Its not a war but a Police action. The real war was with Sadam's genocide of his own people. Hundreds and Hundreds of thousands tortured and killed. The world is a better place without that monster alive. With President Bush's nomination the Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning certain late-term abortions. Don't tell me Pro-Life politicians aren't serious about ending abortion. US Supreme Court allows late-term abortion ban [ csmonitor.com] In a major ruling dealing with abortion rights in America, the US Supreme Court has upheld a federal law banning certain late-term abortions.
In a 5-to-4 decision announ-ced Wednesday, the high court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The move comes nearly seven years after the Supreme Court declared a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a woman's health. You sir, are dead (literally) wrong on your politics.
Last edited by Ray S.; 10/13/07 09:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Ryan, Its not a war but a Police action. The real war was with Sadam's genocide of his own people. Hundreds and Hundreds of thousands tortured and killed. The world is a better place without that monster alive. With President Bush's nomination the Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning certain late-term abortions. Don't tell me Pro-Life politicians aren't serious about ending abortion. US Supreme Court allows late-term abortion ban [ csmonitor.com] In a major ruling dealing with abortion rights in America, the US Supreme Court has upheld a federal law banning certain late-term abortions.
In a 5-to-4 decision announ-ced Wednesday, the high court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The move comes nearly seven years after the Supreme Court declared a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a woman's health. You sir, are dead (literally) wrong on your politics. Ray: Dung by any other name still stinks. Calling a war a police action is absurd-although I was not necessarily referring to the current war in Iraq, simply a pattern I notice among many politicians who claim to be pro-life. I stand by my assertion that I don't believe many so-called "pro-life" politicians are serious about ending abortion. Notice that I said "many" and not "all". Perhaps President Bush is an exception (I am skeptical about that, but I certainly might be wrong), and if that is the case, it is one of the very few redeeming things about him as a political leader, IMO. Again, I respect your right to choose always to vote for those who claim to be pro-life because in your judgment, they are credible. In my judgment, most of them are not, and I cannot abide the positions many of them take on a vast array of other issues. I cannot ask you to violate your judgment and the dictates of your conscience by sustituting my judgment and the dictates of my consience. At the same time, I do not think it is right for me to violate my judgment and conscience by substiting yours for my own. God is my judge. You are not. Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 |
Any candidate who votes against abortion is displaying more than enough sincerity. Plus their aren't a whole lotta issues that could possibly be of more importance than opposing mass murder.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Ray S., Your post was so rich with remarkable comments, I almost don't know where to begin. With respect: I only vote for PRO-LIFE candidates. As a Christian EVERYONE is obligated to do the same! May I humbly suggest that there is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion? I am tardy to coming around to that way of thinking. I used to think that pro life = anti abortion. And, I even admit to voting for Bush in 2004 in large amount because of that. And that, anymore, I think was a mistake. Human life does begin at conception, but it does not end at conception. It has a right to continue till natural death. And therefore, as Cardinal Bernadine of Chicago (memory eternal) taught: Human life is a seamless garb from conception till natural death, and we have a duty to protect it all stages of its developments. Unfortunately, one party (the Republicans) seems to care more about government intervention to protect life at conception and not much at other stages of life. Also unfortunately, another party (the Democrats) seems happy to have government help people in need, but they also seem to think it's fine and dandy to kill people who are not yet born. Both positions are morally unacceptable. Instead, we need to have government, law and society respecting human life at all its stages. However, there is no political party that can actually win national elections that fully reflects pro-life morality. So, who to vote for? I humbly suggest, after a lot of soul searching, that we need to decide our votes on a case by case basis. Going with one party (because it is anti-abortion) or going with another party (because it is pro-social programs) is running the risk of getting take for a ride. After all, the so-called "pro-life" party has embroiled the U.S. in a fruitless war in Iraq, of dubious justification, that has put the Middle East and much of the rest of the world at increased risk for war and terrorism, at a cost of thousands upon thousands of lives, and diminished liberty, and a tarnished reputation around the world. That is not pro-life. Yet, many pro-life people voted for that so-called pro-life party. Meanwhile, the so-called pro-"choice" party thinks it's fine to tax people more and more and to kill unborn people -- without those people having any "choice" in the matter ! Personally, it's a moral catch-22 out there (which is why I am independent). But this time around, I will vote for someone who can end this war, provide health coverage to all, stop the export of our jobs and industry overseas, and save the environment -- because those are, in my opinion, the greatest threats to life currently to Americans and to the world. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
OP
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
I never, ever, vote for pro-abortion candidates for public office.
Dn. Robert Nor do I. We will be in a bit of a difficulty should Guiliani make it to the ticket. I think my wife, who could certainly run the free world, will receive her first vote in a presidential election as a write-in candidate. She is, afer all, smart, conservative, pro-life, and awfully good looking!  Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
It's scary! Who does one vote for? Each is worst than the last! I'm writing in Alan Keyes!
Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299 |
Do you really think if you vote for the democratic candidate that the US will really be a friendly place for traditional Christianity? Have you seen what they want to teach my kids in the school system? Do you remember that Hillarycare would try to force religious hospitals to provide abortion? How about the tax burden to single income families like mine. Higher taxes mean more women going back to work.
As for the war both parties want out of Iraq. They just differ on how to go about it.
What good are some of these social programs if you are killing your children. This is the issue for Christians of our time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Although I do not favor his candidacy, I would welcome an Al Gore presidency over and above a President Hillary (pronounced "Shrillary"). I usually appreciate Dick Morris' insight and thought this was interesting: Al Gore Can Beat Hillary
Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:40 AM
By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Article Font Size
If the bumper sticker of �92 and �96 (Clinton-Gore) divides, and we find Gore running against Hillary Clinton, Al Gore could not only beat the former First Lady for the Democratic nomination, he could win the presidency.
Gore can seize this opportunity as the campaigns of Obama and Edwards are fading, out-fundraised, out-managed and outmaneuvered by Hillary�s campaign machine.
Al Gore � the newly minted Nobel laureate � could steal the nomination from Hillary�s well-oiled machine.
Here�s why.
He immediately demolishes Hillary�s two main claims to the nomination: her electability and her White House experience.
Gore has a proven record of being a vote-getter. Gore won the national vote in 2000, outpolling George Bush by 500,000 votes.
Hillary�s claims of being a proven winner are tenuous. She did prevail in her 2000 Senate bid � but only after Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the race at the last minute, citing his battle with prostate cancer.
In 2006, Hillary won an almost a practically uncontested re-election in 2006. Her opponent was Republican John Spencer, a valiant but poorly funded candidate. And remember, winning in blue state New York does not immediately translate into being a national winner.
Gore also has proven executive experience. Unlike Hillary, Al Gore actually played a major role in the Clinton White House.
The First Lady had little or no impact on public policy in the years after her health care fiasco cost the Democrats control of Congress and before the Lewinsky impeachment.
After the Monica case was uncovered, neither Clinton did anything of note in the realm of public policy-- so focused were they on fending off impeachment and keeping the presidency. Later, they were preoccupied with Hillary winning her Senate bid.
Contrast Gore with Hillary. Gore was, in fact, Bill Clinton�s go-to guy in the White House.
Every time an important task faced the Clinton Administration, Al Gore would step up and get the assignment.
By the end of the first Clinton term, Gore was responsible for policy in the following areas: science, space, Internet, family leave, television violence and sex, government efficiency and cost reduction, drugs, relations with Russia, air safety, tobacco regulation, and a myriad of other assignments.
Indeed, his vice presidency encompassed a very large segment of the Clinton Administration�s agenda.
Also, Gore�s Congressional and Senate tenures dwarf Hillary�s both in duration and achievement. The bottom line: Gore wins the �experience� issue.
On the matter of the Iraq war, Gore is more in sync with the Democratic base. The party�s left increasingly criticizes Hillary for her commitment to keep a residual troop presence in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Gore�s early and outspoken opposition to the war would offer a welcome haven for anti-war voters.
So far, Barack Obama has demonstrated an inability to get to Hillary�s left on the war and win over the party base. Obama has agreed with her about the need for an ongoing troop commitment, something many Democrats find anathema.
Thus, Gore makes the logical place to turn for a real antiwar candidate.
Of course, climate change and global warming, the issue that brought Gore the Nobel, is his personal issue.
With a growing army of environmentalist voters, horrified at photos of polar bears searching in the Arctic Sea for ice on which to stand, Al Gore is not only an advocate. He is a prophet, now brought in from the wilderness.
Can Gore raise the money this late in the race? Sure he can.
By now, many of Obama�s donors must be getting anxious that their candidate isn�t going anywhere. His inability to sustain his early and successful fund raising pace suggests that that reality is beginning to dawn on the Illinois Senator�s donor base.
Gore need only to whistle and he will find Hollywood celebrities falling all over themselves in an effort to help him raise funds.
Gore�s own relationships with Democratic donors run deep and long standing. With environmentalists making up a large segment of Democratic Party money, Gore would quickly rise to the top of the fund raising list.
Does he have enough time to organize in the early primary states?
Gore�s late entry and national celebrity gives him an ability to avoid the micro-primary and caucus in Iowa and New Hampshire.
He can go focus on the big states of Michigan and Florida and come out ahead.
His national positioning and newly enhanced celebrity status will give him traction to overwhelm the organizational efforts of the other campaigns in these large states.
And Gore has one other major asset: it is very difficult for Bill Clinton to attack him.
Having chosen Gore as his Vice President, plucking him from the ranks of defeated presidential candidates (Gore ran and lost to Dukakis for the Democratic nod in 1988), how can he say that he is not qualified to be president?
Having praised Gore lavishly throughout the 1990s, he will have great difficulty now persuading voters that his former running mate is not worthy of election.
Will Al run?
There are good reasons for him to stay out. He has been catapulted to international celebrity status, putting him on a level with Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, and the Dali Lama.
So why should Al and Tipper once again go through the muddy trenches of American politics?
Gore knows he has a historic factoid on his resume, having won the the U.S. popular vote in 2000. Why risk it by perhaps losing a race for the nomination?
Gore has made clear he is motivated by substantive goals for the country and the world.
If he really does care about global climate change and wants to lead the world in stopping it � I believe he is sincere in this pursuit � what better way to make this happen then becoming president of the United States.
I have no doubt that Al Gore would be a very strong candidate and could defeat Hillary for the Democratic nomination.
At this point, Gore may be tempted to make the race. In his view, he wants to save the world. That�s a serious motivator.
|
|
|
|
|
