Confusing faith and politics as dangerous as seperating them.

[Michie]

Catholics are rightly frustrated with an overly rigid seperation of Faith and politics, but confusing the two is dangerous as well, because it can induce Catholics to shift their values to accommodate their candidate rather than the other way around.

Continued below.
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/10/23/confusing-faith-politics-dangerous-separating/

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I used to be a registered Democrat. The reason I left it was because I became instantly disillusioned with John Kerry when he gave his response to a question on abortion. It made no sense when he tried to explain how he's "personally opposed" to abortion but that he thinks it should be legal. It struck me as being very disingenuous, and it reminded me of Pontius Pilate. The same canned response was echoed later by Joe Biden and then by Tim Kaine. I saw back in 2004 how the Democratic party's platform was diametrically opposed to the most basic Catholic teaching on morality. That's why I stopped being a Democrat.

 

[Fantine]

Why is it OK for conservative politicians to say that how to help the poor is debatable but not OK for liberal politicians to say they want to end abortion by ameliorating the circumstances that cause women to believe abortion is necessary?

Maybe to even things up we need to say that yes, private charity should help the poor but if someone doesn't donate 10% of his income to the poor he should be executed.

After all, another poster suggested women who have abortions should be executed--why not selfish, greedy people?

(This is obviously tongue-in-cheek.)

 

[football5680]

but not OK for liberal politicians to say they want to end abortion by ameliorating the circumstances that cause women to believe abortion is necessary?

So the solution for a woman who doesn't want a baby because they feel it may interfere with their career is to ban all women from having jobs? Hmmmmm....This doesn't feel like a practical solution. So yes, it is a problem for a liberal politician to say "Lets do everything except address the real issue." How about we simply ban abortion and stop beating around the bush.

 

[Fantine]

Do you think that conservative politicians who think that private charity can handle every social need is addressing the real problem? Quite frankly, they're passing the buck (of course, if Trump were elected, he wouldn't even do that, since investigators have only been able to find one charitable contribution--to the Boy Scouts for $7.50 in 1988--he ever made).

If providing 12 weeks of paid parental leave would encourage women to have their babies, I don't think it matters whether they think of the fetus as a life or a potential life. It's a good law that helps families.

On the other hand, if a law is passed calling the fetus a baby--as the men who passed the legislation breathe a sigh of relief it doesn't provide for any social programs to help those babies, it does matter.

 

[s_gunter]

Why is it OK for conservative politicians to say that how to help the poor is debatable but not OK for liberal politicians to say they want to end abortion by ameliorating the circumstances that cause women to believe abortion is necessary?

Maybe to even things up we need to say that yes, private charity should help the poor but if someone doesn't donate 10% of his income to the poor he should be executed.

After all, another poster suggested women who have abortions should be executed--why not selfish, greedy people?

(This is obviously tongue-in-cheek.)

You were likely being hypothetical in that first question you asked, but there is an answer for it. These conservative politicians know that if they ameliorate the circumstances that "cause women to believe abortion is necessary," that men would have to be held just as responsible as the woman, financially and socially. The men would no longer get the pat on the back for adding notches to his belt (so to speak). The men could no longer legally disappear, which relieves them of financial responsibility. That's one of the biggest reasons courts give such pithy amounts in regards to child support, and why the court is loathe to enforce its orders. Know why women sometimes lie to the court and say she doesn't know who the father is? It's because she'll get more off of state benefits than she will the baby's father. She already knows the court will cheap-skate her...

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why is it OK for conservative politicians to say that how to help the poor is debatable but not OK for liberal politicians to say they want to end abortion by ameliorating the circumstances that cause women to believe abortion is necessary?

Ameliorate away. But when politicians proclaim the goodness of killing innocent human beings (even Hillary spoke of an unborn baby as a baby in an unguarded moment) that is not amelioration.

Once upon a time, not all that long ago, there were liberal politicians who didn't favor abortion at all. I'm thinking of good people like Eugene McCarthy. He could be for the little guy, not seeking the right to kill the little guy.

Maybe to even things up we need to say that yes, private charity should help the poor but if someone doesn't donate 10% of his income to the poor he should be executed.

A cap on taxes at 10% would be astounding. Go for it.

After all, another poster suggested women who have abortions should be executed--why not selfish, greedy people?
(This is obviously tongue-in-cheek.)

I hope you're tongue in cheek. That would be too many dead people to bury.