Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Oct 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Shale-638433 said: Ok, so I came across as focusing on getting a perfect candidate to vote for... I just want one wh...
(Quote) Shale-638433 said:

Ok, so I came across as focusing on getting a perfect candidate to vote for... I just want one who doesnt MAJORLY conflict with my belief system, and hold undefendable beliefs like a Mormon. You can argue that they believe in a lot of good things, but when their faith branched off with such a unwholesome foundation as it did, it corrupts the whole tree.

If Obama and Romney switched faiths it would be a lot easier for me to cast a vote.Do you think Ive never voted for a president before? I have, and I will continue to, but this election is a moral quagmire for me, like many have said Obama is not an option, but what I dont grasp is how a flip flopping Mormon like Romney is someone worth placing my faith, and vote in. I am obviously in a minority, and its probably because I overthink things, and I am more than willing to admit I may be wrong, but I cant justify a vote.
You say if I dont vote its a vote for Obama, and I am condemned, because I was never going to vote for Obama in the first place. I feel bad that either of these men will be our next president, but Id feel worse placing myself in support for them in any way.

--hide--

I hate to tell you, Romneys Morman beliefs are far more defensable than your position.

LOCKED
Oct 12th 2012 new

(Quote) ED-20630 said: With your current attitude, you should probably just give up on everything right now. Nothing approac...
(Quote) ED-20630 said:

With your current attitude, you should probably just give up on everything right now. Nothing approaching perfection (concerning politics) will ever be achieve on this earth until the end of time. Flawed human beings will ALWAYS achieve flawed results.


With your attitude, perhaps the motto for the rest of your life will be.... "Why even bother. The battle is lost." .... (as taken from the last paragraph of your previous message. This is a pathetically passive approach to life. I hope that you change, because this will certainly not be a successful path.


Ed

--hide--

I find that rather judgemental in what I would hope is an open forum of healthy discussion. Why make a post that is simply passing judgement on a fellow member. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the argument, or do not possess the faculties to turn someone around to your point of view, resist the temptation to response with such negativity and hopelessness.


It is right and proper to attempt to help those you feel are in need, but the above is not the way to go about it.

LOCKED
Oct 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: I hate to tell you, Romneys Morman beliefs are far more defensable than your position.
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

I hate to tell you, Romneys Morman beliefs are far more defensable than your position.

--hide--

It is responses like these that make it painfully obvious that most people know little of the Mormon faith. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and admit my position is untenable if you can defend even one of the extremely blasphemous beliefs of Romney's church.

LOCKED
Oct 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Shale-638433 said: Ok, so I came across as focusing on getting a perfect candidate to vote for... I just want one wh...
(Quote) Shale-638433 said:

Ok, so I came across as focusing on getting a perfect candidate to vote for... I just want one who doesnt MAJORLY conflict with my belief system, and hold undefendable beliefs like a Mormon. You can argue that they believe in a lot of good things, but when their faith branched off with such a unwholesome foundation as it did, it corrupts the whole tree.

If Obama and Romney switched faiths it would be a lot easier for me to cast a vote.

Do you think Ive never voted for a president before? I have, and I will continue to, but this election is a moral quagmire for me, like many have said Obama is not an option, but what I dont grasp is how a flip flopping Mormon like Romney is someone worth placing my faith, and vote in. I am obviously in a minority, and its probably because I overthink things, and I am more than willing to admit I may be wrong, but I cant justify a vote.


You say if I dont vote its a vote for Obama, and I am condemned, because I was never going to vote for Obama in the first place. I feel bad that either of these men will be our next president, but Id feel worse placing myself in support for them in any way.

--hide--

Specifically, what beliefs associated with Romney's Mormon faith make him unsuitable to serve as President of the United States?

LOCKED
Oct 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Shale-638433 said: I find that rather judgemental in what I would hope is an open forum of healthy discussion. Why m...
(Quote) Shale-638433 said:

I find that rather judgemental in what I would hope is an open forum of healthy discussion. Why make a post that is simply passing judgement on a fellow member. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the argument, or do not possess the faculties to turn someone around to your point of view, resist the temptation to response with such negativity and hopelessness.


It is right and proper to attempt to help those you feel are in need, but the above is not the way to go about it.

--hide--

I judge your rationale, not you.

If you had not noticed we are always required to judge ACTIONS and IDEAS, not persons.

And I was pointing out that as flawed as Romney's religion is, it is far more reasonable than taking a position that insists that somehow your religion requires you to vote (or not vote as the case may be) based on a 100% of your belief system.

Finally, are you not being judgemental of Romney, solely because you find his religion objectionable.

I guess it all depends on who you think is being judgmental. If you don't like my judging your opinion as being wrong, that is bad. But your judging Romney based on his belief in a flawed religion is okay.

Doesn't fly!

LOCKED
Oct 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: Natural law has nothing to say about political jurisdiction of law, so his stance certainly wa...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

Natural law has nothing to say about political jurisdiction of law, so his stance certainly wasn't in conflict with natural law. Also, the Constitution says nothing about the jurisdiction of abortion, so his stance certainly wasn't at odds with the Constitution either.

If abortion were handled at the state rather than federal level, it would probably currently be outlawed in several states. At present, it's legalized country-wide. Pragmatically, if his stance was currently followed, abortion would be outlawed throughout more of the country than it is now.

Natural law is one thing, prudential judgements on how to bring about an adherence to natural law is quite another.
--hide--



The logical application of natural law is that it is universal. It presumes the intent of God's commands and applies them to situations in the nature of things on earth. It applies to all jurisdictions by its very nature, because of God who created the natural order of law. And yes, for this reason, Ron Paul is at odds with the intent of the constitution and the logic of the laws the founding fathers adopted in this case.

LOCKED
Oct 12th 2012 new
(Quote) Tom-169708 said: The logical application of natural law is that it is universal. It presumes the intent of God's c...
(Quote) Tom-169708 said:




The logical application of natural law is that it is universal. It presumes the intent of God's commands and applies them to situations in the nature of things on earth. It applies to all jurisdictions by its very nature, because of God who created the natural order of law. And yes, for this reason, Ron Paul is at odds with the intent of the constitution and the logic of the laws the founding fathers adopted in this case.

--hide--


Yes, natural law is universal, but again that has nothing to do with the practical way in which humans advance these natural laws. By your own logic, the Constitution is then opposed to natural law because it doesn't purport to enforce itself on the entire planet.
LOCKED
Oct 12th 2012 new

Shale,


Just responding to the issue of voting for a Mormon for president.....


In a recent interview, Cardinal Timothy Dolan (president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and archbishop of the New York diocese) said this:

“There may be reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney as president of the United States,” Dolan said during an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “That he’s a Mormon cannot be one of them.”

Dolan, who is archbishop of the New York diocese, later added: “I don’t think Catholics would have any problem voting for a Mormon at all.”

See the full text of my referenced article at the URL:


> www.nationaljournal.com

Do a little googling and you will likely find the video of the interview. I recall seeing some or all of it on EWTN (I believe) a few weeks ago.


Ed



LOCKED
Oct 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: Yes, natural law is universal, but again that has nothing to do with the practical way in whic...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

Yes, natural law is universal, but again that has nothing to do with the practical way in which humans advance these natural laws. By your own logic, the Constitution is then opposed to natural law because it doesn't purport to enforce itself on the entire planet.
--hide--




Charles, again, you're straying off the subject. It is the logic applied to the intent of the constitution as it was written. And the constitution acknowledged it with its various clauses and separations of powers. The preceding Declaration of Independence stated it. The founding fathers stated it. The inalienable rights stated it. Those were the intentions. That was the reasoning. Natural law shaped it.


And it is not my own logic. Quit twisting, Charles.

LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new
(Quote) Tom-169708 said: Charles, again, you're straying off the subject. It is the logic applied to the intent of the...
(Quote) Tom-169708 said:





Charles, again, you're straying off the subject. It is the logic applied to the intent of the constitution as it was written. And the constitution acknowledged it with its various clauses and separations of powers. The preceding Declaration of Independence stated it. The founding fathers stated it. The inalienable rights stated it. Those were the intentions. That was the reasoning. Natural law shaped it.


And it is not my own logic. Quit twisting, Charles.

--hide--


I'm not twisting anything. Let's review...

The Constitution's intent is that it applies to the United States, and doesn't purport to have jurisdiction anywhere else.

You state that the moral basis of the Constitution is in natural law.

You also stated that "logical application of natural law is that it is universal," and this is the point on which you criticized Ron Paul's position as being at odds with both the Constitution and natural law.

However, the Constitution isn't universal, so by your own previous logic even it isn't in line with natural law. The Constitution does not apply "to all jurisdictions by its very nature," as you stated natural law does.

In your last post, you back-peddle a bit and now claim that only the "logic" of natural law is applied to the Constitution. Fair enough, but that would now make the Constitution a prudential application of natural law rather than some sort of Platonic form of natural law. In this case, you have no basis to criticize Ron Paul, since he's standing by the practical application of the Constitution as it was written.
LOCKED
Posts 101 - 110 of 200