Comments on: On not reducing the Church’s politics to voting

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:48:51 +0000

Surely you’re not saying that “the rest” have no real role except to obey the heirarchy, are you?

Do I appear to be saying that from what I wrote? I thought I was pretty clear.

By: 1superdave

1superdave — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:35:41 +0000

The response was to Katerina above where she said
” Where do I start?
1. Sarah Palin is running for vice-president.
2. Sarah Palin knows less about basics Civics of this country than what is required to take a naturalization test to become a U.S. citizen.
3. Sarah Palin doesn’t know how to speak the English language properly. Some of us immigrants know how to speak better than her.
4. Sarah Palin has been very “smart” in not bringing up abortion at all and her pro-life record as to not scare the Hillary supporters, of course.
5. Sarah Palin is classless, sarcastic, and an embarrassment to all the hard-working women in this country and those of us who have a college degree and know more about economic policy, foreign policy than she will ever dream of knowing.”

Sarah palin is being assaulted for being the republican vp canidate. Ya’ll pretend to be about pro-life but you are merely pro-aboma. It wouldn’t be hypocritical if you just said we don’t care about life issues. We only care about promoting Aboma’s socialist/communist, America hating agenda. Most of the post here pretend to hold life as a theme, but who hate Sarah even though see had a very real choice to make and chose life. I think of the saduceses and pharases of Jesus’s day, whited seplecures. Such pious double talk.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:00:04 +0000

Ted Kennedy? Yes, he is terribly ill and he has done more for protecting the uninsured in this country than Sarah Palin has ever done for anyone in this country. Are you aware that citizens of MA are now forced to purchase health insurance? I have an aunt in her 50s who has many health problems that require constant medication and doctor visits. She makes her living as a caretaker for elderly people at their homes. She obviously isn't rich. Yet, she is now forced to pay for health insurance out of her own pocket at a pretty price of $600/month. She would actually be fined by the state if she sought healthcare without private insurance coverage. That's what I call protecting the uninsured.

By: Liam

Liam — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:41:20 +0000

I did. I just disagree. You’ve labelled the argument in favor of abstention unreasonable. I think you are engaging in rhetorical overkill in so doing. I would not criticise you for merely being unpersuaded by that argument in favor of abstension.

By: Zach

Zach — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:32:11 +0000

Liam, your last comment really doesn’t make much sense to me. If you actually read and comment on what I wrote I would be grateful.

By: Liam

Liam — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:31:36 +0000

Zach

Cute. But the “it” was referring to was the argument in favor of abstention, not your position. That is, you’ve labelled it as unreasonable, whereas I think your better if narrower argument should be that it’s not persuasive to you. Catholics at St Blog’s have a regrettable tendency to resort to rhetorical overkill in an attempt to register moral gravity, and it usually subverts their goal.

By: Mike J.

Mike J. — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:26:19 +0000

Dear 1superdave, you wrote:
“What about life? what about the fact that she is human? Her comment fits most of Ya’ll. Read their rights Dano, So much for Christian love. You Hypocrites.”

I’m afraid I’ve read your post about 3 times and can’t make sense of it. Perhaps you could rephrase it to be clearer?

By: 1superdave

1superdave — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:13:37 +0000

What about life? what about the fact that she is human? Her comment fits most of Ya’ll. Read their rights Dano, So much for Christian love. You Hypocrites.

By: Zach

Zach — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:12:22 +0000

Liam,

Fair enough. I happen to think it’s reasonable and persuasive :)

By: Tito Edwards

Tito Edwards — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:57:25 +0000

Assuming that Poli or anyone else are determined not to vote for either Senators McCain or Obama then who? Bob Barr, Alan Keyes, or Chuck Baldwin are good alternatives if one can’t vote for one of the two major candidates.

By: Liam

Liam — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:01:15 +0000

Zach

I think it can be quite reasonable. It may not be persuasive, but it still may be reasonable. One of the great errors in reasoning today is that people confuse persuasiveness with reasonability. There may be several reasonable answers to a question (as well as innumerable unreasonable answers), one of which is subjectively most persuasive. I suspect you are confusing categories.

By: Zach

Zach — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:56:56 +0000

Michael, Right, my position is different in that my plea is more explicit and makes a fairly detailed prudential argument. The Bishops only give us principles: we still have to think for ourselves about how to apply those principles.

You’re free to reject my argument, of course. The point is to see how one Catholic reasons to his vote. I think it’s a reasonable argument, you may disagree and I would like to know why.

But yes Liam, I affirm that a Catholic may morally abstain. I am trying to make a forceful argument that that is the wrong choice. I would never say a different vote is immoral, though. Just unreasonable.