-
Website
http://nashuatelegraph.com/ -
Original page
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080908/OPINION02/309089948 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
As a Catholic myself, I cannot vote for any candidate that advocates war in Iraq or capital punishment, therefore, that leaves out all Republican candidates. Further, if I go along with what you advocate, then I cannot vote for Democrats (because let's tell the truth, thou shalt not lie, your letter was written to support Republicans over Democratic candidates, even though you didn't mention them by name.)
So that leaves me with a couple of choices, for president I can vote for Pope Benedict, I'll have to write his name in on the ballot, that is if he is willing to accept the office of President of the USA.
Or, I can follow what Thomas Jefferson wrote, that a wall of separation exists between church and state, and do what's best for the USA,
that is VOTE OBAMA 2008.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.
However the Catholic Church condemns abortion. The Catechism States
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish .(74)
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.(75)
The Church also condemns Infanticide which Obama is for.
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who co-operate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. (68)
Infanticide, (69) fratricide, parricide and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.
Commonwealth, you are a frequent critic of the Catholic Church for matters birth-control, women’s rights, gay marriage, but when it suits your politics, you don’t mind holding it up! Commonwealth you have no clue about what the church teaches and does not. You are a lightwight and your reasoning makes ZERO sense. A ZERO for a ZERO.
In my opinion, those who raise the charge, such as Jerome Corsi, immediately take themselves out of the reasoned debate on the issues governing our country.
No matter what other arguments you may raise, this charge negates them all, even if they are reasonable.
It is this years 'Swiftboat' attack.
It's a dramatic charge, but here are the facts.
No one disputes that for three years running, while an Illinois state senator (from 2001 to 2003), Barack Obama was faced with a decision about a bill mandating medical care for children born alive during induced abortions. (The Illinois bill was referred to as "Born-Alive Infant Defined.")
No one disputes that in 2001 he voted against medical care for these children in committee and voted "present" on the floor; in 2002, against the bill both in committee and on the floor; and in 2003, as chairman of the committee, kept the bill from going to the floor at all.
And yet in spite of the facts, Obama's backers continue to insist that he should not be considered a supporter of infanticide.
But why shouldn't his opposition to the Illinois bill earn him that label? After all, in opposing the state legislation, Obama signaled his willingness to allow newborns to die without receiving medical attention after surviving a failed abortion.
Why don't you let God decide who gets punished for disobeying? Why don't you vote based on who can properly run a country? Didn't you believe Bush would be wonderful because he SAID he believed these things - then he ran our country into debt - into war - and into thousands of people losing houses, jobs and, health?
Voting for the leader of the free world based on such narrow considerations is just wrong.
It all comes down to 2 laws:
God's law and man's laws and neither are in agreement now.
For example: if both party candidates support homosexuals obtaining equal rights as heterosexuals are afforded, then the religious supportors would have to not vote for either one as they would conflict and be in disagreement with God's law.
Some argue that the constitution (man's law) affords all people( homosexuals included) the same rights.
Maybe there should be a Religious party that could run, but then what religion?
Amen
Athiest Mike
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Many religious Wars have been fought throughout human history which I think is pretty crazy because God has the power to eliminate all life in the Universe in less than a second. It amazes me how many people think God has an ego problem and cares whether people believe in God. It amazes me how many people think God has an ego problem and cares what religion a person belongs to. It amazes me how many so called religious leaders and elected officials use God's name in vain to justify violence, Wars, persecution, hatred of women, and hatred of homosexuals.
We should want to elect the best qualified people to lead us and sometimes those people might be atheists or monotheists or polytheists or devil worshippers.
Knowing the United States Constitution and supporting the United States Constitution is more important than elected office experience. I do want some Amendments to the United States Constitution adopted that would increase the power of State Legislatures, increase the power of the people, and do other things.
Many United States Senators do not care that Congress and not the President of the United States of America is supposed to negotiate trade agreements with foreign nations. Many members of Congress do not fulfill their Article 1, Section 8 responsibilities dealing with the military.
When voters are ignorant of what the Bill of Rights and other parts of the United States Constitution actually say and what they mean, they are likely to elect ignorant people. There are many people who are ignorant of what Amendment Seven says and are hurt by this.
You may read the United States Constitution on the internet.
I am a monotheist and I do think God cares what my religious beliefs are. I think God does care about how I treat myself and others especially people who are very different from me. How you treat the meek I believe is far more important to God than whether you believe in God.
Of course, you should vote your beliefs.
I don't see a need to call upon a higher power, in this case, the Catholic Church, to support your beliefs. If you inform your beliefs on the teachings of the Catholic Church, that's fine. Although it is probably a matter best kept private. I believe Catholics are told when they pray, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Aren't they.
But, I am disappointed that you would use the Church as a support for Public institutions. Why it almost sounds that you wish to turn the United States into a theocratic government, like those in Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Personally, I like my freedom.
My understanding is that thankfully science has found a way to use cells not from embryos for the same purposes so hopefully this is not an issue. But it gets a little tiresome that the Catholic Church drags its heels on anything new. I have nothing whatsoever against the Catholic Church but don't the member ever want to think for themselves.
"I'm a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility," he said in 2007, as he explained his defense of Roe v. Wade.
Biden continued, saying the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion encompasses "the only means by which, in this heterogeneous society of ours, we can reach some general accommodation on what is a religiously charged and publicly charged debate."
Reese said Biden's stance on abortion is more prohibitive than many Democrats' positions. "Biden has opposed government funding for abortion, so basically he doesn't want to put women and doctors in jail, he doesn't want to criminalize abortions, but nor does he want the government to pay for them," he said.
Joe Biden has said of those who disagree with him: “They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life — I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.” He also says that he would not impose his personal views on others, and had indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion.
Sarah Palin and John McCain are to the extreme right on this issues. Denying a victim of rape of incest the chance of a safe, legal abortion is NOT pro-life but that is what they propose to do.
Unfortunately, bringing one's religious teachings into your voting decision is not only archaic but a cop-out. Don't think about who you want to vote for just walk in the booth and check the name after the R. Because the R's are pro-life and hate the terrorist.
I'm a recovering Catholic myself. As a child I sensed there was something truly evil lurking within the church. Unfortunately, I was right.
I must admit however I decided to keep one teaching of the church with me and it has always served me well. Which one you ask? Free will of course.
Making public law and church law the same is exactly what Muslim extremists would like to do - and do - worldwide. Seems to me Mr. Matuszewski would have a hard time if a Muslim or Buddhist or Episcopalian became president, since they would not be the "right" religion. The desperate, like several letter writers here, always want a fascist state, as long as they are the fascists.
Mr. Matuszewski, don't vote for Barack Obama, and, if you win, see if you really get what you thought you would. History - uncounted times - says otherwise.