Saturday, March 10, 2012

CATHOLIC VOTERS REJECT RIGHT WING EXTREMISM






No doubt, there is a long history of a right wing political extremist element among the Catholic faithful. The accusers of Captain Dreyfus, the collaborators of Marshal Petain, the Falangists of General Franco, not to mention domestically the followers of Father Coughlin, fans of Mel Gibson, and the members of 'Tradition, Family, Property."

But the masses of the faithful never rallied to these right wing elements. Particularly in present day American politics, Catholics reject extremism including the extremist elements within the Catholic community. Catholics have identified with civic leaders and thinkers like Sargent Shriver, George Meany, E.J. Dionne, Mark Sheilds, Mrs. Lindy Boggs, and the Casey family.

Hence we see Rick Santorum losing the Catholic vote even within the Republican Party. Catholic Republicans voting in the Michigan and Ohio primaries showed a strong preference for the moderate candidate (and inventor of 'Obamacare'!!) Mitt Romney. In fact, Romney has bested Santorum among Republican Catholics in every state except Tennessee (who knew there were Catholics in Tennessee?!).

Catholics continue to give President Obama strong support, more so than Protestants. We commend the Catholic faithful for the rejection of the extremism of Rick Santorum and the important support given to the President.

15 comments:

just jake said...

Wow, lots more Catholic Republicans are voting for Mormon Romney than Rick Santorem, a big admirer of Opus Dei and Regnum Christi? That's really got to sizzle the folks at catholicvote.org

Larry B. said...

The conservative vote is split between Gingrich and Santorum. Also, some conservatives believe Romney is the most electable and therefore support him.

With regard to extreme viewpoints, our current occupant in the WH has stated sin is when his actions are not in alignment with his own values. Well, he values the right to kill a baby who survives an abortion. He values the "right" for a woman to choose the end the life of an unborn baby by the act of abortion.

Would you not say that his statement is a bit arrogant and extreme? I thought our actions as Christians should line up with Jesus' values. Jesus valued all life especially the little children.

Ignorant or hard hearted Catholics do all kinds of stupid things like voting for an extremist such as our present leader of the "not so free" world.

fly by night said...

Larry, look at the facts. Your viewpoint is regarded as extremist by the majority of Americans. The person you wrongly, and rather wickedly I might ad, regard as extremist was elected President -- YOUR president. And he will soon enough be re-elected.

Larry B. said...

fly by night:

Perhaps your not a Catholic. Perhaps you see the wickedness in the truth of what I am saying. You say my views are extreme by the majority of Americans. Not sure that is correct but perhaps Jesus' views were considered extreme in His day. A Catholic views abortion and infanticide as evil actions.

If you don't want to say extreme that's fine. There are plenty of people advocating plenty of evil actions nowadays so perhaps his evil actions are mainstream. The Romans were mainstream in their application of crucifying people too. At one point in time slavery was mainstream. Did that make it right?

Here is one more for the evil column: An “abortion premium mandate" that requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion is part of the final rules of Obamacare. If you don't comply you will pay a fine, penalty, or tax (whatever it is).

Kurt said...

Of course, Larry, you have it all wrong on your last point. Unlike now where workers have little choice with insurance other than to take what their boss offers, even if that means the employee premium goes to pay for abortion coverage, the new health care law guarantees every American participating in the exchanges the ability to have an affordable, pro-life health care plan. For those that want to have a plan that covers abortion, they are required to pay for that abortion coverage.

Millions of Americans will have the opportunity to have pro-life health care plans they currently are denied.

fly by night said...

Larry,

Just wondering how you want to punish women for taking "evil actions"?

When you say that President Obama values the right to kill babies and the like, that's wicked. You don't understand why or how that's wicked now, but there will come a time when you will learn.

Larry B. said...

kurt,

I guess I am right on all my other points. Whether there are other plans we can choose without abortion, without suffering a penalty, tax, or fine; I don't know.

The bottom line here is this: The rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion through a direct abortion subsidy. Whatever you subsidize you get more of. Do you want more abortions? Also, this goes against what our leader said previously when he told us how wrong we were:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/its-official-despite-obamas-many-many-promises-obamacare-funds-abortion-after-all/

fly by night:

Never said I want to punish the women.

Are you saying that he does not believe or value the right for a woman to choose to end the life of their baby? When you terminate a pregnany, or took positions supporting a woman's right to end the life of a baby who survived an abortion, what you are doing is terminating a baby. I know many people are ignorant of this but this is his position plain and simple.

If you think it is wicked to speak the truth in this instance, how much more wicked is it to support such vile actions? How do you think the baby feels? Or do you not think it is a baby?

I guess since his belief is not out of alignment with his own value system, then it must be alright to support and promote positions and policies that end the life of an unborn child. Can you say moral relativism????

Kurt said...

Whether there are other plans we can choose without abortion, without suffering a penalty, tax, or fine; I don't know.

Then you are woefully ill-informed of the Affordable Care Act.

The bottom line here is this: The rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion through a direct abortion subsidy.

It does not. You've already shown your lack of understanding of the Affordable Care Act.

Through the exchanges, tens of millions of Americans will have the ability they lack now to have pro-life health care. Under the law, every state exchange must provide for the option for a pro-life health care plan.

States, if they choose, can also offer plans that the individual can purchase an unsubsidized rider than covers abortion. The buyer must pay 100% of the costs for this rider.

Let me put it in simple terms for you. You are at a restaurant for brunch. On the menu there are 10 brunch options for $20. The menu also lists 3 brunch options as "$20Brunch + $5 for unlimited Bloody Mary's."

You have a coupon for 20% off the price of brunch. The waiter informs you that the coupon is good for the brunch meal only, not the Bloody Mary's if you select one of those options. So it is worth $4 regardless of which option you pick. These are the rules management has set. Further, the national chain lets each restaurant not offer any booze if they don't want to.

fly by night said...

Larry,

Their baby? Are you now suggesting that President Obama was involved with this woman you reference?

Can you spell pregnancy?

And I was asking you if you want to punish women who opt to terminate their pregnancy? That's right you still haven't said, still haven't responded.

Also are you against any kind of federally mandated health care insurance system, let alone what you term with a certain animus "Obamacare"? Somehow, I get the feeling that you are hiding your opposition to federally guaranteed heath care for all.

Larry B. said...

Kurt, not as simple as you make it out to be because we are still subsidizing abortion. Abortion is NOT healthcare! I guess you read all 640+ pages and have a full grasp of the entire bill? Here is an excerpt from an article written by R. Cort Kirkwood Wednesday, 14 March 2012 that details the problems with the supposed healthcare legislation.

"This goal of avoiding the use of tax-payer subsidies for abortion coverage was unfortunately achieved by a means that violates the First Amendment; namely, by compelling the taxpayer to personally pay a separate abortion premium.

The unconstitutional scheme can be found in Section 1303, which provides that the issuer of a federally subsidized plan that covers elective abortions “shall” obtain a separate and private payment from every enrollee, without exception, to be used by the insurer solely for the payment of other people’s elective abortions.

Under Section 1303 of the Act, all individuals who, even unwittingly, are enrolled in a plan — either on their own or by their employer — that happens to include elective abortion coverage are compelled by the Act to pay a separate premium from their own pocket to the insurer’s actuarial fund designated solely for the purpose of paying for other people’s elective abortions. As explained below, the Act denies enrollees the ability to decline abortion coverage based on religious or moral objection.

Section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Act refers to elective abortions as “Abortions For Which Public Funding is Prohibited” (“elective abortions”). The Act then provides that the issuer “shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a qualified health plan of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [i.e., elective abortions].” Section 1303(b)(1)(D)(ii) mandates that the abortion premium mandate shall not be estimated “at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.”

The enrollee must separately pay the abortion premium from his or her own private funds by virtue of the Act’s provision stating that in plans covering elective abortion, “the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to” either tax credits or “cost-sharing reductions” for “the purposes of paying for [elective abortion] services.”

Why should anyone have to subsidize abortion in any healthcare plan that they are enrolled in? Once again, abortion is NOT healthcare. If you subsidize abortion, you get more abortions. Shouldn't we be implementing policies to reduce killing of the unborn children? Isn't this problematic for you??

Kurt said...

I guess you read all 640+ pages and have a full grasp of the entire bill?

Yes, I have. It is actually one of the duties of my day job.

This goal of avoiding the use of tax-payer subsidies for abortion coverage was unfortunately achieved by a means that violates the First Amendment; namely, by compelling the taxpayer to personally pay a separate abortion premium.

If the exchanges only offered ONE health care plan, that could be a problem. But in fact they will offer a wide variety of plans, many if not all will be without abortion coverage. No one is "forced" to pay for abortion. If you don't want a plan that includes an abortion rider fully paid by the individual, pick a different one. That is, if you live in a state that allows plans that include an abortion rider at all.

Under Section 1303 of the Act, all individuals who, even unwittingly, are enrolled in a plan — either on their own or by their employer — that happens to include elective abortion coverage are compelled by the Act to pay a separate premium from their own pocket to the insurer’s actuarial fund designated solely for the purpose of paying for other people’s elective abortions.

No one is unwittingly enrolling in a plan that includes abortion (unlike the situation now with most private employers). Before you enroll, it will be clear which plans cover abortion (and therefore require an additional premium) and which plans do not. You will have to authorize a separate payment for abortion coverage before you enroll. The person will have a free choice to pick a plan that does not cover abortion.

Employers don't enroll people in the exchange plans. It is for people who do not have employer provided insurance.

As explained below, the Act denies enrollees the ability to decline abortion coverage based on religious or moral objection.

This is like going to Baskin Robbins with 31 flavors (or is that HoJos?) and ordering the butter pecan but DEMAND that you are not forced to have any nuts. ORDER A DIFFERENT FLAVOR YOU NINNY!

Larry B said...

fly by night: "Their baby? Are you now suggesting that President Obama was involved with this woman you reference?"

No. Of course not. Typing too fast and not proofreading too much.

"Can you spell pregnancy?"
Yes, just can't type it.

"And I was asking you if you want to punish women who opt to terminate their pregnancy? That's right you still haven't said, still haven't responded."

I guess you missed my answer in my other post. Never said I want to punish the women who decide to end the life of their baby. They need psychological or spiritual counseling.

Do you acknowledge when you "terminate a pregancy" that you are killing a baby?

"Also are you against any kind of federally mandated health care insurance system, let alone what you term with a certain animus "Obamacare"? Somehow, I get the feeling that you are hiding your opposition to federally guaranteed heath care for all.

Not hiding anything. I definitely believe Churches and other charitable organizations can do things better. Perhaps local government can be there for the extreme hardship cases but providing abortion services does not fit my definition of an extreme case or the proper use of a safety net.

Please answer my questions. Do you believe a person should be able to abort their child? Do you agree that terminating a pregnancy is terminating a baby?

Kurt said...

Larry,

An intelligent and civil response. I thank you for it.

You write: "I definitely believe Churches and other charitable organizations can do things better. "

Given that the Christian churches themselves don't claim any ability to provide insurance to the tens of millions withhout, why do you think it would work?

fly by night said...

Larry,

You think that Churches can handle health care better than the government but this has never been the case in the US, predominantly because the possibility has been blocked by the GOP -- until President Obama entered the Oval Oval Office. And during all those years many millions of humans, including babies, went without health care.

You ask about babies. Babies are creatures who can survive outside the wombs of their mothers. I do not think that if I could get pregnant that I would choose to terminate a pregnancy that would result in the death of my human baby.

Finally, your idea of psychological or spiritual counseling for women who opt for abortion sounds more than a bit like punishment to me. Spiritual succour or inducement of guilt?

Anonymous said...

Who and where to edit this summer on furlough, slice your information.