PTR,

Please explain your last post.

In Christ,

There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

DTG - As for Romney's Mormon faith, it is obviously not Catholic, and is obviously confused and incorrect.

However since the office is of a secular nature and since I do not see us electing a Catholic president anytime soon, I think that in choosing a president, we should consider the man's (or woman's) character and their political ideas, and try to determine how capable they seem to be in handling issues that are currently affecting the nation.

I have known Mormons over the years and while no group is without deadbeats, in general I have found Mormons to be decent family men and women; law abiding, and hard-working.  I do not understand their faith and of course I would find some of the tenents of Mormonism to be ridiculous at best; Mormons are certainly not Catholics.

KenB,

Did you read Mary's article in it's entirety?

In Christ,

There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

As I was reading these today didn't someone say something about the "mark of the beast"?

Tarheel (Dave)

Must one vote to particpate in the democratic process? 

From the bishops of my state, Kansas:

"In a democratic society citizens choose  whom they vest with authority for the common good. A choice for one person over another for public office can significantly affect many lives, especially the lives of the most vulnerable persons in society, such as children in the womb and those who are terminally ill. Therefore, Catholic citizens have a serious moral obligation to exercise their right to  vote, whether on the national, state or local level. The Second Vatican Council taught us that “all citizens are to bear in mind that it is both their right and duty to use their free vote to promote the common good ” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, no. 75). What is more, we have a duty to vote guided by a well-formed conscience, and not simply on the basis of self-interest, party affiliation, or the personal charisma of any individual."

Mark of the beast.....I wonder if Bobo????? thinks that anyone with 666 associated with them is wearing the mark of the beast.  If so the look at this:

xxx-xxx-6660

xxx-xxx-0666

xxx-xxx-6660

xxx-xxx-6660

These are all my cell phone numbers.  Of course I left out some to keep the number of calls I get each day.

Tarheel (Dave)

Important points to ponder, DTG.

Consider -- when Abe Lincoln ran for President for the first term, he did not run on a platform of abolishing slavery in USA.  How, then, with a properly formed conscience, did abolitionists justify voting for such a person? Didn't the abolitionists who voted for Lincoln promote the common good?

PTR,

In his campaigning, was he in favor of slavery, of any kind?

How do you know if abolitionists voted for him?

Hindsight is 20/20...

In Christ,

There, now you have a couple of little Abe Lincolns from me...

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

DTG,

Lincoln was nominated as a moderate Republican; he supported the Corwin Amendment to the US Constitution, explicitly protecting slavery in the states which already had it. His message was that slavery was wrong, and ought to be confined to the areas where it already existed, and placed on the course of ultimate extinction, but he had no plan to outlaw slavery in the South.

Lincoln was elected into office on abolitionist votes, he was not even on the ballot in nine of the southern states. Many abolitionists, we may surmise, voted for him in the hopes that his moderate position would, in the long run, allow a majority of free states into the Union and enable the outlawing of slavery by Constitutional means.  Of course, we all know the war broke out and the issue was resolved with bloodshed...

The fact that hindsight is 20/20 is exactly the point -- at the time, conscientious voters were not at all certain Lincoln would not fold, especially when the stakes were raised to open warfare on our fellow citizens. 

The parallel to the abortion issue, in my opinion, is this -- slavery was also the defining moral issue of the time with no middle ground, and yet citizens of conscience found a way to vote into office a candidate who had the strength of character to stand firm on the issue, make hard choices, and see it through. They didn't refuse to exercise their responsibility as co-owners of the franchise.

I am not implying anything more than that.

Since abortion seems to be the issue that's on everyone's mind here, I thought you guys might find this article from MSNBC worth reading.

'Jane Roe' endorses Paul
Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:05 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Paul

From NBC's Gabe Herman

On the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. "Jane Roe," who later changed her views on abortion in the mid-90s) gave Paul her official endorsement today.

"I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn," she said at a press conference in Washington this morning.

Paul accepted the pro-life activist's endorsement, saying of abortion: "It is still one of the most crucial issues of our day that we deal with this. As much as I talk about economic liberties, and civil liberties, and trying to avoid the killing overseas, I think the issue of life is paramount."

Is this the best we can do folks? I have to say that I'm a bit saddened by not just this forum, but by the overall lack of Catholic unity and voice during the primary election period. Where is the discourse? Where is the debate? Is this really going to come down to another single issue year? 

I know politics isn't pretty. Even Jesus got the raw deal from the Roman's in his day, but even he would have voted on principle. 

I know I'm not speaking for a place of sober rationale, but instead from a place of sincere quandary as I ponder why this forum, The Catholic Exchange, and others like it, seem to have literal cyber-dust on them. Is this the best we can do? 

No offense to those who have posted here. Your voices deserve to be heard as much as for my ramblings, but is there a place for this discussion to continue? 

I know that the primary season is a tough one, where people seem to go against the people in their own team, but I was hoping for more discourse when I came here. As the topic of this thread seemed to ask, and I repeat, Who Are We Going To Vote For?

This isn't a question that will ever be answered, but it seems that little has been done beyond asking it. Or maybe it has.

I don't mean to whine, nor do I plan to monopolize this forum with my own chatter, but isn't there something that interests enough to mobilize enough energy to bring this topic to a discussion rather than simple 'political comment of the week'? 

To this end I offer you fodder. For one, it seems that Alan Keyes is a favorite among some of you. Do you still feel the same? To those who vote based on the Pro-Life stance, how can a Republican who is pro war be an effective leader in the Pro-Life movement? Who do you think would best uphold the Constitution? 

Discuss. If you want.

God Bless,

NT 

Ha. Winslow, I probably could have wrote your post myself. :) I too feel the pain of distain when I think about politics. My heart has, for many years, been unmoved to participate in any capacity.

Much like you, my heart is in one of those who has been written off by the media, Dr. Ron Paul. To me, he speaks the truth that I feel our country needs to hear. Not the garble that  politicians speak, but the wisdom of the statesmen that founded our country. I scan the airwaves and hardly get even a glimpse of his name. 

But I will say that passing laws to change that may not be the best way to solve it. CNN, FOX NEWS, and MSNBC are all private companies and have the sovereign right to show and say what they choose. While we may not like that fact, it's those same rights that allow channels like EWTN to air Mother Angelica. And legislation that would make networks equal out programing would pave the way to "Praying the Holy Hours with Joel Osteen". 

But the media is what it is, and always has been. Ideas and people have a way of changing things regardless. And sometimes that change can be slow. The media is only as strong as we let them be. 

All that being said, we need to have hope. When we find people we believe in, we need to let that passion lead our actions and follow in turn. My life has been enriched by this election. I have found that my beliefs do have a voice, and no longer am I alone. 

No matter the outcome of this election, I'll feel like a winner. And someday, by God, I'll be one.

God Bless,

NT 

I don't relish four years of BO either.