The Catholic Vote

Every time I turn on a Talk Radio station, I’m hearing about Obama Administrations SNAFU with the Catholics. You’ve all heard of this already, I’m sure, so I’m not going to rehash it. But basically the Obamistration is telling the Catholic Church that they must go against their faith and do something they believe to be wrong. A clear violation of the First Amendment. This is a Freedom Of Religion issue. Forcing them to go against their religion is not freedom for it. Compulsion, regardless of reason or purpose, is an ugly thing. This is going to effect not just the Catholics, but all Faiths. As such, all Faiths are outraged.
For example, if you believe homosexuality is wrong, the administration is saying you have to. That’s going against a principle of your faith. Now the administration is saying that they can compromise. Okay, so now instead of going all out in an act you believe is wrong, they are saying “Okay, just put the tip in”. Yeah, that’s not going to work either… The only thing that is going to be acceptable is a complete reversal of the order.
Here’s the thing though… The talking heads are all saying that the Catholics are going to all vote against Obama now and the Democrats and this is going to really hurt them. I don’t think that’s going to pan out. Looking bad, yes. Hurt them? Maybe a little. Because when it comes right down to it, Democrats regardless of faith is still going to vote Democrat. Catholics vote 54% to 60% for the Democrats depending on who you listen to. Democrats have always supported Planned Parenthood, Abortion Rights, and the distribution of contraceptives at schools. Yet the majority of Catholics have been still voting in favor of the Democrats. This isn’t going to change because of the guy in the Oval Office all the sudden. Sure, they crossed the line. But those that don’t vote their convictions will just move that line.
Here’s the way I see it. If you are a Good Catholic, or a Good Mormon… as the Policies of those Churches dictate – you can not vote Democrat because you are voting against your faith.

33 thoughts on “The Catholic Vote”

  1. How about this… I’m tired of hearing about religion in politics altogether. I really don’t give a damn who’s Catholic, Mormon, or whatever. To me, a person’s particular brand of faith is not indicative of their character. I know Mormon saints and Catholic scumbags, Catholic angles and Mormon dirtbags. Judge based only on religion and you’re really doing nothing more than rolling the dice.

    Voters who vote for (or against) candidates based solely on their religious affiliation really need to be kicked in the shins repeatedly with steel-toe boots. Candidates who pander to that demographic should be beaten with a telephone handset from 1972.

    The only time I’d let religion influence my vote is if the candidate wore it (or lack of it) on his sleeve. That then becomes an automatic no-vote. I don’t want a zealot in the Whitehouse. I want someone who’s going to make the hard decisions and do what needs to be done without his faith becoming an obstacle.

      1. You’re right. My bad. I let my annoyance over the whole thing get the best of me. This Catholic thing that’s silly, the whole Romney-Mormon hoopla doesn’t have any bearing on anything… I guess this election season is starting to get on my nerves. Lord help me after the primaries. *facepalm*

          1. Really… my root problem is that I dislike that religion has anything to do with this. This is not a matter of *religious* freedom, it’s a matter of *freedom in general*. That the loudest detractor is a Church should not factor. All employers ought to be screaming bloody murder. EVEN if they don’t object to the specific requirements, they should object to it being forced on them.

            As I said, I’m just getting sick of religion cropping up all the time where it shouldn’t be the point, and as a result I made a left turn when I should have kept going straight. My apologies.

    1. I dunno man, I think you know a whole lot about a person based on what they believe about God. I fully expect people to make decisions grounded primarily on their own personally held beliefs. Ergo, I expect Catholics and Mormons and Baptists to more or less hold to a set of morals that work out basically the same in real life (even though I find two of the above to be somewhere between apostate and heresy). Religions like Atheism, Buddhism, and Islam don’t, and while some may live similar to the way those of one of the Christian faiths do, it isn’t because they have a basic religious foundation to do so, so I don’t trust them politically as far as I can throw them.

      Everyone who actually believes in their religion of choice lets it drive them, anyone who actually believes and claims that it doesn’t drive their decisions, is a liar and therefore untrustworthy.

      1. For starters, Atheism is no more a religion than off is a TV channel. Second, is very wrong to assume that different sects of Christianity hold the same moral values. I know Atheists who are more “Christian” than those that are supposed believers. You can’t make assumptions just off of labels.

  2. I’m with T., voting for someone based on their professed faith is nothing short of naive. It’s actions that matter, not words. Frankly, I’m fed up enough that every time a candidate parades their religion, whatever it may be, I feel less and less motivated to vote for them.

    That being said, if you believe the recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute the Catholic Church is much more strongly opposed to contraception than its members. After all, no matter what a religion preaches there are always going to be some rules that the majority quietly ignores. Contraception seems to be a big one for Catholics but I’m sure there are many analogues among Mormons, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, ect.

  3. Kennedy was a Catholic. And a notorious womanizer. But a strong, defend America president.

    Carter was a Baptist. Who wore his religion on his sleeve. And was one of the worst presidents of the 20th century. If he had won re-election, the hostages would have probably died in Iran. He just didn’t have what it took.

    But back to the issue at hand. The federal government telling any church-run program that they must do something that directly contradicts the tenets of their faith is a direct violation of the first amendment, which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  4. The issue isn’t the candidates’ religion. It’s that Catholic voters tend to do as their clergy sway them to, and the Catholic church org. chart in the U.S. is very liberal. I left a couple of years ago after getting fed up with liberal politics from the pulpit instead of religion. You’re exactly right, the Catholics who voted for Obama a few years ago will vote for him now even after he gave them what everyone knew was coming.

  5. if you use the gun inside the law of the land i see no problem in free choice of guns. If you are a devout fan of any religion who set their own rules above the law of the land I see a problem.


    1. Within the law.

      Religion can do little harm without the co-effort of Government. I’d say letting authoritarians do whatever they want is a bad idea. If they cloak their crimes in theocratic nonsense or the pious crown of social justice, the effect is the same.

      And this topic had nothing to do with the threat of theocracy. If anything it was covering an apparent trend in the opposite direction. But that’s no big. We now all know that you’re too wise for any religion, and I for one, am VERY impressed. I’ve never heard of such a thing and value your unique mental liberation.

    2. Every religion sets its tenants above the law of the land mate.
      Most adherents (myself included) believe that their scripture comes from God(s) and God trumps state every time.

      1. Every socialist retard sets their political agenda above the Constitution, mate.

        Most adherents to socialism ( myself NOT included ) believe that the ends always justify the means, and will not hesitate to trample rights or even kill people to inflict their politically correct socialist misery on others, for their own good.

        Obama only follows the establishment clause of the first amendment when it harms a religious organization. The parts that forbid the state to govern religion itself always get ignored.

        1. Right I agree, also Communism and socialism really do come down to being religious as well. My point wasn’t to argue just to point out that that people who believe in a holy scripture whether it be ancient writ or Marxist drivel, hold that writing in higher regard than what they understand to be the mere laws of man.

          Ergo saying what Mr. STIG said pretty much counts out every follower of every religion. Which was more my point.

          Or you know, they aren’t really believing in their scripture. (nothing I am saying here is to be extrapolated into a soteriological statement, I am talking about day to day life not eternal status)

      2. The difference is whether they attempt to enforce their tenets upon others.

        If you hold your belief higher, but do not insist that others obey your beliefs, then you are not setting your tenets above the law of the land – you are setting them apart.

        You may veiw your beliefs as more important than the laws, but if you are viewing them as separate, then they cannot be “above,” because they are on a different axis. The distance between NYC and LA is less than the height at which the moon orbits, just as some view laws as less important than beliefs, but one is “length” and the other is “altitude,” so they are not in competition.

        The problem isn’t the devout Muslim whose wife and daughters wear veils. The problem is the one who wants the government to force all other women to wear veils, as well. Both view their beliefs as more important than mere laws, but the first sets his beliefs apart from the law, while the second seeks to remake the law to match his beliefs.

    3. Please point to the place in the constitution where the government is allowed to mandate employer paid health insurance, and then mandate what the insurance must cover.

      1. Haven’t you heard? Our Constitution is old, myopic, unfair, and hateful. It’s an inconvenience to DEMOCRACY. It’s valued only by ungrateful vagabonds who use the word “Republic” far too often.
        (Oh, the umbrella argument. *sigh* When will the peasants move on and accept pure state power?)

        Enlightened people know that good government should operate without limitations. It must be free to dictate and command whatever the cadre of superior beings in DC think is best. Only through our intellectually advanced Oligarchy can the vast horde of ignorant subjects be properly managed.

        But seriously, The STIG probably isn’t a socialist. Just a cranky Atheist who was wanting attention. Western Socialists seldom have anything nice to say about guns.

        The Raub:)

        1. To be fair, good old TJ had this to say about old constitutions: “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right”.

          Not saying I agree with the dude, but he’s no slouch when it comes to knowing the aims of the founding fathers.

          1. That is true. And if anyone of TJ’s caliber or philosophy were advocating a re-write or re-build, I’d be game to discuss it in detail. But in this enlightened age or ours, we tend to hear people decrying the Constitution for its failure to describe or allow a total autocracy.


        2. Hmmm … I’m an atheist, but I don’t have any desire to force the religious to pay for other people’s activities.

          1. Dear me. No. That wasn’t meant as a judgement against Atheists in general, just a light-hearted guess at our friend STIG’s possible state of mind when typing. He was possibly just a little cranky while skimming Mr. Ogre’s blog. We all have our off-days and moments of flawed manners. There are endless truckloads of religious people who can give one a dim view of organized religion. The trick is to remain intellectually honest about it and avoid universal statements or declarations that are overly generalized or pointlessly rude. Ie; don’t be a bigger dick than you have to be. It doesn’t really help.


  6. This is about obedience to the government, nothing else.

    Plan B cost, what, $20?

    If someone wants to buy Plan B, they could just not buy a pizza that day, and go down to a Planned Parenthood clinic.

    Obama has no business forcing religious organizations to pay for this. I foresee a bunch of religious organizations cutting their health insurance out completely over this.

  7. As a Catholic, I can say unequivocally that a young, Catholic female college grad stacked with $150,000 in student loan debt and no job prospects is still 50% likely to vote against Romney only because he is pro-life. The whole “Catholic Vote” angle dies with the 60’s. Obama and he buddies know this. That is why they were so brazen to act as they did against the Church. We’re in serious decline folks. And there ain’t no comin’ back from it. Keep your powder dry…….

    1. As a devout practicing Roman Catholic, I would have to say that there are more DFL Clergy then Laity (congregation). You will find a slight majority of pro-infanticide reprobate Catholics east of the Mississippi, but west of ol’ Miss we are majority Pro Life. Us Knights of Columbus see to that. My daughter and her catholic girlfriends wouldn’t think of aborting. The young girls that have gotten pregnant are keeping their kids or giving them up for adoption.
      Remember, if you are pro-infanticide, you automatically excommunicate yourself from the Catholic Faith and choose do damn your soul to eternity. Pope John Paul II saw to that. So, unless Pelosi repents, and I pray she will, she has set foot to follow her master Satan into hell of her own volition.
      Now, if the Catholic Church ever allows gay priests like the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., I will be joining the Church of LDS, my second religion of choice. All Catholics I know have zero problems with Mormons. In fact, outside a few lunatic fundamentalist churches, Mormons are a non factor and this is just something the press keeps alive and tries to make it an issue because Romney is a GOP taking going after their boy, President Obama.
      I don’t like Romney because of his political record, end of story. Same goes for the other two front runners. I like the guy in last place, but, unfortunately, he is getting no traction so I will likely be forced to hold my nose at the booth again in December.

      1. DB:

        Romney will be the Republican candidate come November. I pray that your dislike for him does not prevent you from voting for him. I’m sure you won’t be voting for Obama, but please do NOT stay home on election night because you don’t care for Romney. I have too many friends who are already talking that way. Every election I hear about how we need to defeat the Democratic candidate “or the country will be lost”. I heard that line with Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. But the reality is that THIS WILL BE an election whereby the results may likely change the country forever. Romney is not the greatest, I get that. But Obama is so far worse that the implications of another 4 years for him is hard to contemplate. He will get to choose at least one more Supreme Court justice. Just at Elena Kagan. Kagan has said repeatedly that her “model” supreme court justice is retired Israeli supreme court justice Aharon Barak. Mr. Barak is clear in what he believes a judge should be: a person who does not look to the letter or intent of the law, but someone who weighs the circumstances and decides how to rule based upon what the “social good” dictates. Barak is Kagan’s “hero”. She’s used that term. Thus, her idea of what the constitution says depends on what her personal beliefs are. Can you imagine that? Forget about the second amendment, which she believes does not confer an individual right, but consider the fact that she has been on record as saying that the public should be disarmed. Obama, Kagan and their ilk are the people who worship at the alter of Man. They are Godless. They reject the idea of natural law. The law is whatever they believe or say it is. We cannot have another 4 years of Obama. You must vote for Romney. You must tell your friends to support Romney. It’s a moral imperative to keep Obama from another 4 years.

        1. Mitt Obama and Barrack Romney are the same.

          Remember, ObamaCare is modeled after RomneyCare. They have essentially-identical records on guns, and similar anti-gun beliefs. If you put them each in a box with a computer terminal, so you couldn’t see or hear them, and asked them questions, I doubt you could tell which was which.

          If it’s between those two anti-Americans, I will be writing in “none of the above candidates is acceptable.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *