OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 08:09:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: No Communion for Arnold?  (Read 14356 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« on: May 01, 2004, 11:01:34 AM »

Like many (probably most) Republicans, he's pro-choice.  He's also a Catholic.  Will he be refused communion?  

BTW, if any of you live in CA and voted for him, I think you committed a major sin and go to confession ASAP.   Wink
Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2004, 03:57:16 PM »

lol
Logged

B
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2004, 04:36:45 PM »

Arnold was raised Catholic in Austria, but I don't think he goes to church anymore. If he does go, then he should be refused like the rest of them. If you don't agree with that Jennifer, then you must think you're better than Cardinal Arinze.
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2004, 06:24:32 PM »

Arnold was raised Catholic in Austria, but I don't think he goes to church anymore. If he does go, then he should be refused like the rest of them. If you don't agree with that Jennifer, then you must think you're better than Cardinal Arinze.

He claims to be a Catholic but I don't know if he goes to Mass.  I notice it was never an issue on this board.  Why all the hysteria about pro-choice democrats but no uproar about pro-choice Republicans?  

Your statement about being "better" than Cardinal Arinze doesn't make much sense.  I'm a Roman Catholic and defer to the moral teachings of the Church.  Are you insinuating otherwise?  

I think the Church can refuse to give communion to Catholics.  They have the authority to say what are the essential teachings of Catholicism.  

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2004, 06:49:45 PM »

I wouldn't have voted for Arnold probably given his sell-out of abortion.  He did donate 2 million dollars last year to his parish of St Monica's, though.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2004, 06:50:50 PM »

lol

How is that funny? I don't think it's funny.  I agree with her, but I don't think it's pointing out any great hypocrisy.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2004, 06:55:48 PM »

Good, I agree with you there.  The Church should certainly deny communion, but I was unclear how you were joking about going to confession for voting for Arnold.  I think it's a serious matter, Republicans, Democrats, or whatever.

I had the wrong impression from an interview he gave, so apparently he attends church with his family regularly.
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2004, 07:43:40 PM »

How is that funny? I don't think it's funny.  I agree with her, but I don't think it's pointing out any great hypocrisy.

Why isn't it hypocritical?  We see a lot of hysteria here about "evil dems."  I never see any posts about "evil reps" who support abortion.  Why only the hysteria about the "dems?"  

Most of the Republicans in the senate (including most of the female senators) are pro-choice.
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2004, 07:45:48 PM »

Good, I agree with you there.  The Church should certainly deny communion, but I was unclear how you were joking about going to confession for voting for Arnold.  I think it's a serious matter, Republicans, Democrats, or whatever.

I had the wrong impression from an interview he gave, so apparently he attends church with his family regularly.  

Some here have alleged that it's a very "serious sin" (meaning requires confession) to vote for a pro-choice candidate.  I disagree.  I think what matters is the person's intent in voting for that candidate.  But if we're going to scream about how catholics voting for Kerry need to go to confession then it seems to me that we should also scream about how catholics voting for Arnold should also go to confession.  

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2004, 08:21:40 PM »

Oh Arnold is a republican?  That took my by surprise.....perhaps that is why there is no reaction.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2004, 08:23:07 PM »

Jennifer,

Most of the Republican Senators are Pro-Choice?  Perhaps.  What about House Republicans?  Everyone in the senate is a millionaire the last time I checked, and rich politicians tend to become more liberal (a study I read suggested).

I think the issue of Kerry receiving communion has been talked about more is because he presents himself as a religious person.  Also, Arnold was a governor, not running for president.

Your whole post just seemed to mix lots of different issues up.

Of course, as I said, I agree with you that Arnold should be held to the same standards.

And I disagree with you, voting for pro-abortion candidates no matter what your reasoning is a sin.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2004, 08:33:29 PM »

Where has Kerry "presented himself as a religious person?"  I don't think he's presented himself as a religious person at all.  I hardly ever hear him talking about religion.  He says he's a Catholic and talks a little bit about it but that's all.  

He says he's a practicing Catholic but that doesn't mean he's presenting himself as a religious person.  He's just a run of the mill catholic, I'd say.  Just as 'religious' as about 80-90% of us.  

I think he's allowed to say he's a Catholic and the Church is allowed to say his beliefs aren't Catholic and refuse him communion.  But he's a baptized member of the Church and allowed to say he's Catholic.  And he's also allowed to say his faith has influenced him.  He's allowed to show up at Mass and talk about religion.  

I'd rather someone a little bit catholic over someone not at all catholic.  I get the feeling that some of you would rather have a total atheist over an 'impure' catholic.  I think there's a kind of rigidness evidenced here.  

BTW, there are plenty of religious people who are pro-choice.  For example, I saw a car the other day with a bumper sticker that said "pro faith pro family pro choice."  The guy driving the car was wearing a yamulke.  Of course Judaism allows abortion.  

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2004, 08:58:31 PM »

Quote
Of course Judaism allows abortion.  

And if you put on an Israeli uniform it's ok to murder too.
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2004, 09:26:50 PM »

And if you put on an Israeli uniform it's ok to murder too.  

Sorry but that doesn't follow.  The argument against Kerry is that he claims to be Catholic yet rejects a tenet of his religion.  A religious Jew (like the one in the example I gave) isn't rejecting a tenet of his/her religion by being pro-choice.  Which is why I qualified my statement.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2004, 11:08:34 PM »

Jennifer,

OK with Kerry and how he presents himself it's a matter of perception and I can't prove my case so I concede it.

Just because someone has that bumper sticker (which I find to be very sad), doesn't mean that one can be religious and support pro-choice. To me it means someone is confused.

Could you please delve into Judaism being pro-choice?  I have heard that only the liberal Jews are pro-choice and that Orthodox jews are not.  In fact, I heard that some Jews issued a symbolic excommunication against Liberman last election.  I don't know much about Judaism and you do so perhaps you could explain this for me?

As for voting for Catholics, I would like to vote for Catholics and Orthodox over non-Catholics or non-Orthodox but feel that that is not rational because just because someone is Catholic or Orthodox doesn't make them good. The issue to me is not "ok Catholic" versus "pure Catholic" because abortion to me is a black or white issue.  However, if he were impure in the sense of not living an upright Catholic moral life I might have voted for him anyway becuase I know I am a sinner.  Clinton's sex scandals never really got to me for this reason--a great number of people live like this and I am not perfect so I don't want to judge.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2004, 12:27:42 AM »

What does "religious" mean?  Do you get to decide what "religious" means?  I've known quite a few people who considered themselves "religious" who were pro-choice.  

Abortion is allowed in Orthodox Judaism to save the life of the mother.  It is only allowed by mandatory because Judaism doesn't view the fetus as a living soul.  It's a potential life.  There are differences of opinions amongst Orthodox rabbis about what constitutes a threat to the mother's life.  Some rabbinic authorities would allow abortion if having the child would psychological suffering for the mother.  What got Lieberman in trouble is his stance that abortion on demand should be allowed.  

Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,452


« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2004, 01:36:34 AM »

It appears we have forgotten the name "Gray Davis" by now (even though he is on a Yahoo! commercial).  Since we're arguing and pointing fingers, anyone know the religous (or lack thereof) offiliation of Davis?  This would seem to be a major factor in this thread.
Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2004, 08:52:15 AM »

I thought it was funny because the shrill voices in similar threads that attack democrats for being pro-death are absent from here, noticeably so, because it IS hypocritical. The silence is deafening.

It is one thing to say that you should not vote for any politician that is pro-choice.  I don't agree with that position, but it is a more defensible one than the partisan bias we have seen in other threads.  If those who are so vociferous in attacking Kerry on his abortion stance would be as comfortable attacking Arnold on his, then there would be no hypocrisy.  But the silence is deafening.  Therefore I thought Jennifer's bringing up the issue of Arnold's stance was a clever thing to do, and it made me laugh because it was such a clever riposte.

Brendan
Logged

B
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2004, 10:34:32 AM »

Regarding partisan politics, let's not forget that a certain poster has an "icon" of our current president.  Doesn't anyone else think that's a bit strange?  

Of course I have a picture of a cat.  Does that mean I worship my cat?  Actually he probably thinks so.  

Regardless, I would never dream of putting a picture of a candidate in the field where everyone else has an icon.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2004, 02:51:05 PM »

What does "religious" mean?  Do you get to decide what "religious" means?  I've known quite a few people who considered themselves "religious" who were pro-choice.

Yes, I get to decide what it means.  And so do you.  And we can argue about it.  That's what makes this country great, we can all have opinions. In my opinion, one cannot be religious and pro-choice.  If one thinks s/he is, s/he is a hypocrite.

Quote
Abortion is allowed in Orthodox Judaism to save the life of the mother.  It is only allowed by mandatory because Judaism doesn't view the fetus as a living soul.  It's a potential life.  There are differences of opinions amongst Orthodox rabbis about what constitutes a threat to the mother's life.  Some rabbinic authorities would allow abortion if having the child would psychological suffering for the mother.  What got Lieberman in trouble is his stance that abortion on demand should be allowed.  

Thank you.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2004, 02:51:45 PM by anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2004, 02:53:47 PM »

Regarding partisan politics, let's not forget that a certain poster has an "icon" of our current president.  Doesn't anyone else think that's a bit strange?  

Of course I have a picture of a cat.  Does that mean I worship my cat?  Actually he probably thinks so.  

Regardless, I would never dream of putting a picture of a candidate in the field where everyone else has an icon.  

I had a picture of Bush up for awhile, and I have also had a picture of an ocelot, Metropolitan Cyprian, myself, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, etc.  One poster has a picture of himself playing a guitar. You have a picture of a cat.  Who cares? Anyone can put up what he or she wants as long as it's not some type of explicit sexual thing or racist thing.  Why do you care, may I ask?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2004, 02:54:12 PM by anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2004, 06:05:15 PM »

Quote
He says he's a practicing Catholic but that doesn't mean he's presenting himself as a religious person.  He's just a run of the mill catholic, I'd say.  Just as 'religious' as about 80-90% of us.

If 80-90% of the Roman Catholics are as religious as john kerry, then the Roman Catholic church is sure in a dire situation. (this could explain why so many RC's vote for secularists)


Quote
I'd rather someone a little bit catholic over someone not at all catholic.  I get the feeling that some of you would rather have a total atheist over an 'impure' catholic.  I think there's a kind of rigidness evidenced here.

I'd rather have a protestant or an athiest who supports Christian values and promotes a culture of life than a "Catholic"  who advances the culture of death.

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2004, 07:27:09 PM »

I thought it was funny because the shrill voices in similar threads that attack democrats for being pro-death are absent from here, noticeably so, because it IS hypocritical. The silence is deafening.

It is one thing to say that you should not vote for any politician that is pro-choice.  I don't agree with that position, but it is a more defensible one than the partisan bias we have seen in other threads.  If those who are so vociferous in attacking Kerry on his abortion stance would be as comfortable attacking Arnold on his, then there would be no hypocrisy.  But the silence is deafening.  Therefore I thought Jennifer's bringing up the issue of Arnold's stance was a clever thing to do, and it made me laugh because it was such a clever riposte.

Brendan

The reason the silence from me was "deafening" is because I haven't been on the Internet all weekend, until now.

Otherwise, I would have been glad to be the first one to say that Arnold is wrong.

As long as he advocates the so-called Pro-Choice position, he should not receive the Eucharist, nor can he be considered a Christian.

Had I been a California voter, I would not have voted for Arnold. I would have voted for the Pro-Life candidate, McClintock (hope I got that name right).

The main reason the focus of criticism has been on Kerry is because he is running for President of the United States.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2004, 07:32:28 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2004, 09:12:22 PM »

Personally, I wouldn't have voted for Arnold either.  I don't vote for someone just because they belong to a certain party or don't.
Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #24 on: May 03, 2004, 01:31:26 AM »

Quote
Like many (probably most) Republicans, he's pro-choice.  He's also a Catholic.  Will he be refused communion?  

Ahhh, Here we go again......Jennifer, what are you talking about?? Most republicans are pro choice??? Most, (like 90%) are Pro life.


Quote
He claims to be a Catholic but I don't know if he goes to Mass.  I notice it was never an issue on this board.  Why all the hysteria about pro-choice democrats but no uproar about pro-choice Republicans?

Wow!!! Why don't you try to give us alteast a few days to respond please before you make accusations. You posted this on a Saturday. Alot of people are busy over the weekend. I hate pro choice(abortion) republicans just about as much as I hate pro abortion democrats.  

Quote
Most of the Republicans in the senate (including most of the female senators) are pro-choice.

Balloney..... Cheesy Out of the 52 republicans in the Senate, only 3 at the very most are pro abortion. Lincoln Chafee, Arlene Spector & Olympia Snow........Wow, where are you getting your facts from??? Sounds very dubious to me.
Even when there are a few pro abortion republicans out there, you won't ever see them going out parading themselves in front of the worshippers of death abortion groups like the democrats do. The republicans who are also for abortion aren't for full blown abortion like the democrats who want no limitations on it.


Quote
Good, I agree with you there.  The Church should certainly deny communion, but I was unclear how you were joking about going to confession for voting for Arnold.  I think it's a serious matter, Republicans, Democrats, or whatever.

I agree, lets call evil evil no matter what political party it is that advocates death.


Quote
Some here have alleged that it's a very "serious sin" (meaning requires confession) to vote for a pro-choice candidate.  I disagree.  I think what matters is the person's intent in voting for that candidate.  But if we're going to scream about how catholics voting for Kerry need to go to confession then it seems to me that we should also scream about how catholics voting for Arnold should also go to confession.  

What do you mean "alleged". I have said many times & have simply stated what has been known for 2000 years that abortion is a grave sin. If the persons intent is to vote for evil, then they are depraved  and in grave sin for supporting such politicians that continue the genocide on the innocent. I don't care what political party it is.


Quote
I thought it was funny because the shrill voices in similar threads that attack democrats for being pro-death are absent from here, noticeably so, because it IS hypocritical. The silence is deafening.

Wow, this was just posted the other day & on the weekend. Lets give people a few days to respond before any knee jerk reactions. I know I'm being consistant in what I beleive, I hope others do the same...


Quote
Where has Kerry "presented himself as a religious person?"  I don't think he's presented himself as a religious person at all.  I hardly ever hear him talking about religion.  He says he's a Catholic and talks a little bit about it but that's all.

Hmmmm.........When John Kerry brings cameramen to mass with him as a political trick to get unsuspecting Catholics to vote for him.......then I would say he is presenting himself as a church going religious person who is parading it in front of the public eye.

Quote
Regarding partisan politics, let's not forget that a certain poster has an "icon" of our current president.  Doesn't anyone else think that's a bit strange?  

Hmmmm, I wonder who that could be?? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
What I think is strange are people who vote for someone who is rabidly pro abortion & makes a point of it by parading himself in front of hundreds of thousands pro abortion groups. I don't know how someone who is "personally" against abortions as Kerry says he is could then go out & activley promote it. This sounds like another big lie of John Kerry. If he does win, we'll have to rename the white house the "Waffle House."  Wink



Quote
I'd rather have a protestant or an athiest who supports Christian values and promotes a culture of life than a "Catholic"  who advances the culture of death.

I would too, but that would be too much common sense for some people to handle.


Quote
If 80-90% of the Roman Catholics are as religious as john kerry, then the Roman Catholic church is sure in a dire situation. (this could explain why so many RC's vote for secularists)

Go figure. The spirit of "protestantism" is running rampant in the Roman Catholic Church & it's affecting many members who think they have a right to rebel against church teaching and the magesterium, alot of them call themselves cradle catholics also.

Quote
The reason the silence from me was "deafening" is because I haven't been on the Internet all weekend, until now.

LoL, there must be a new rule out that says those with more conservative leanings have to post within 24 hours on a topic over the weekend, or they are being hypocrytical.



Quote
Otherwise, I would have been glad to be the first one to say that Arnold is wrong.

Same here

Quote
The main reason the focus of criticism has been on Kerry is because he is running for President of the United States.

Yea, & Kerry "claims" to be personally against abortion. Well, I don't know any people who are "personally" against abortion & then to go out & make time to actively promote it & speak in front of the left wing sewer groups who also actively promote it. This sounds like a big whopper on Kerry's part. He's not Clinton & he's not going to be able to get away with his lies because he is not smooth like slick willy was.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #25 on: May 03, 2004, 09:26:01 AM »

Ahhh, Here we go again......Jennifer, what are you talking about?? Most republicans are pro choice??? Most, (like 90%) are Pro life.

90% of republicans are pro-life?  Hardly.  Do you have any evidence to support your claim?  Oh, wait a minute you don't need evidence.  You "just think" it.  BTW, I found an article on the web suggesting that about 68% of republicans are pro-life.  http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVarticle.asp?ID=19350&pid=1137

Quote
Wow!!! Why don't you try to give us alteast a few days to respond please before you make accusations. You posted this on a Saturday. Alot of people are busy over the weekend. I hate pro choice(abortion) republicans just about as much as I hate pro abortion democrats.  Balloney..... Cheesy Out of the 52 republicans in the Senate, only 3 at the very most are pro abortion. Lincoln Chafee, Arlene Spector & Olympia Snow........Wow, where are you getting your facts from??? Sounds very dubious to me.
Even when there are a few pro abortion republicans out there, you won't ever see them going out parading themselves in front of the worshippers of death abortion groups like the democrats do. The republicans who are also for abortion aren't for full blown abortion like the democrats who want no limitations on it.

Abortion was a big issue in the recent PA primary where Spector (the supposed liberal) won.  If 90% of republicans are pro-life as you claim, then how could Spector win his party's nomination?  

Quote
I agree, lets call evil evil no matter what political party it is that advocates death.What do you mean "alleged". I have said many times & have simply stated what has been known for 2000 years that abortion is a grave sin. If the persons intent is to vote for evil, then they are depraved  and in grave sin for supporting such politicians that continue the genocide on the innocent. I don't care what political party it is. Wow, this was just posted the other day & on the weekend. Lets give people a few days to respond before any knee jerk reactions. I know I'm being consistant in what I beleive, I hope others do the same...Hmmmm.........When John Kerry brings cameramen to mass with him as a political trick to get unsuspecting Catholics to vote for him.......then I would say he is presenting himself as a church going religious person who is parading it in front of the public eye. Hmmmm, I wonder who that could be?? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
What I think is strange are people who vote for someone who is rabidly pro abortion & makes a point of it by parading himself in front of hundreds of thousands pro abortion groups. I don't know how someone who is "personally" against abortions as Kerry says he is could then go out & activley promote it. This sounds like another big lie of John Kerry. If he does win, we'll have to rename the white house the "Waffle House."  ;)I would too, but that would be too much common sense for some people to handle. Go figure. The spirit of "protestantism" is running rampant in the Roman Catholic Church & it's affecting many members who think they have a right to rebel against church teaching and the magesterium, alot of them call themselves cradle catholics also. LoL, there must be a new rule out that says those with more conservative leanings have to post within 24 hours on a topic over the weekend, or they are being hypocrytical. Same hereYea, & Kerry "claims" to be personally against abortion. Well, I don't know any people who are "personally" against abortion & then to go out & make time to actively promote it & speak in front of the left wing sewer groups who also actively promote it. This sounds like a big whopper on Kerry's part. He's not Clinton & he's not going to be able to get away with his lies because he is not smooth like slick willy was.

I'm sorry I didn't even read the rest of your rant.  It's just the same old "I think" "I just know" "I don't care about evidence."
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2004, 02:17:32 PM »

Yes, I get to decide what it means.  And so do you.  And we can argue about it.  That's what makes this country great, we can all have opinions. In my opinion, one cannot be religious and pro-choice.  If one thinks s/he is, s/he is a hypocrite.

But how is a religious Jew who is pro-choice a "hypocrite?"  His religion allows abortion.  

Certainly we all have a right to our opinions but "religious" has a definition that we're bound to.  A religious Jew is religious even though he's not a Christian.  Your definition of "religious" is obviously Christian which isn't an accepted definition of "religious."  

Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #27 on: May 04, 2004, 08:04:38 AM »

So what's your point in all this, Jennifer?

If you were alleging that we were attacking Kerry only because he is a Democrat and giving Arnold a free ride only because he is a Republican, I think the responses have proven you wrong.

Are you advocating the so-called Pro-Choice position or saying it's a legitimate option that should not be held against political candidates?

Trying to convince yourself that it's okay to vote for Kerry despite his anti-Christ position on some important issues?

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #28 on: May 04, 2004, 10:35:10 AM »

I think that some posters here are overly partisan and will excuse being pro-choice against a republican and not a democrat.  I'm unconvinced by their claims otherwise given their other responses.  People don't often understand what their motives are.  

I think the overly partisan tone of some posters is evidenced by overly harsh comments about "evil dems" and outright lies like "90% of all republicans are pro-life."  That someone would say that indicates that they are overly partisan because they see the facts in a light most favorable to their political party.  

I also don't think that we are commanded to be 'single issue' voters.  Abortion is an important issue and if we had a truly pro-life candidate, we would have to vote for him.  But being anti-abortion doesn't make someone pro-life.  The pope cautions against a 'culture of death.'  A 'culture of death' is manifested in many ways.  Including executing retarded people or people who can't speak english.  I don't the death penalty is immoral by itself but if it's used then we must ensure that we safeguard life and Bush's actions in Texas don't indicate a "respect for life."  And undoubtedly some of the people executed are innocent.  

I also think a pre-emptive strike (condemned by the pope as well) is not indicative of a "respect for life."  

Overall, Bush won't do anything to outlaw abortion so voting for him when we know he'll do other anti-life things isn't the 'moral' choice in my opinion.  

Truthfully what is Bush done to stop abortion?  He passed a law outlawing partial birth abortions which everyone knows is unconstitutional so it will be struck down.  

I think his claim to be pro-life is an easy for him to make because the average american (squeamish about abortion but doesn't think it should be illegal) knows that voting for him won't make abortion illegal.  

Abortion is allowed in this country because of the supreme court and the majority of justices sitting on the court were appointed by republican presidents.  

If Bush had indicated an overall respect for life in a catholic way I'd give his anti-abortion stance more credit.  But I think his disrespect for life and protestant affiliation proves that his anti-abortion stance is 'establishment.'  Since it's 'establishment' he won't go against the norm.  Look what 'life' issues he chooses to care about.  Unborn children over potentially innocent illegal immigrants and off-white people far away.  Being anti-abortion isn't just concern for unborn children.  There's a 'maintenance of the sexual status quo' as well.  I suggest that his anti-abortion stance is more the latter reason than a catholic 'respect for life.'  
Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #29 on: May 04, 2004, 04:00:52 PM »

Quote
90% of republicans are pro-life?  Hardly.  Do you have any evidence to support your claim?  Oh, wait a minute you don't need evidence.  You "just think" it.  BTW, I found an article on the web suggesting that about 68% of republicans are pro-life.  

LoL, OK Jennifer, you know that I'm reffering to the politicians themselves, not the general voting public. 90% of republicans politicians are in line with the pro life platform of the republican party. I would venture to guess that maybe 2% of democrat poloticians are pro life. I have acdtually never heard or know of any current democrat politicians that are pro life.

Quote
I also don't think that we are commanded to be 'single issue' voters.  Abortion is an important issue and if we had a truly pro-life candidate, we would have to vote for him.  But being anti-abortion doesn't make someone pro-life.  The pope cautions against a 'culture of death.'  A 'culture of death' is manifested in many ways.  Including executing retarded people or people who can't speak english.  I don't the death penalty is immoral by itself but if it's used then we must ensure that we safeguard life and Bush's actions in Texas don't indicate a "respect for life."  And undoubtedly some of the people executed are innocent.  

Your right, the Pope is against the "culture of death" & I would put my money that the pope would vote republican if he could. If you read the "Catholic Voters Guidlines", that gives you 4 good reasons to vote against the democrats. It also gives you 5 good reasons to vote for Bush when seeing how thier views stack up to what the guidlines call for in voting for a candidate.


Quote
Truthfully what is Bush done to stop abortion?  He passed a law outlawing partial birth abortions which everyone knows is unconstitutional so it will be struck down.  
Enough for 1,400 pro abortion organizations, close to 1 million pro abortion supporters & John Kerry to march on Washington to denounce Bush's pro life policies & how they have limited a women's right to "choose."

Quote
Overall, Bush won't do anything to outlaw abortion so voting for him when we know he'll do other anti-life things isn't the 'moral' choice in my opinion.  
Jen, Bush can't do it all on his own. He couldn't anyway because repubicans don't have a majority to get it passed in the house in senate to bypass a filibuster.

Quote
If Bush had indicated an overall respect for life in a catholic way I'd give his anti-abortion stance more credit.  But I think his disrespect for life and protestant affiliation proves that his anti-abortion stance is 'establishment.'  Since it's 'establishment' he won't go against the norm.  Look what 'life' issues he chooses to care about.  Unborn children over potentially innocent illegal immigrants and off-white people far away.  Being anti-abortion isn't just concern for unborn children.  There's a 'maintenance of the sexual status quo' as well.  I suggest that his anti-abortion stance is more the latter reason than a catholic 'respect for life.'  

It's sad to see a "Catholic" post such drivel. So in other words because Bush is a protestant & a republican, he can't have a true geniune stance on abortion without having a hidden agenda??




Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2004, 04:08:42 PM »

I don't think the pope would vote for either Bush or Kerry.  His criticism of Bush's attack of Iraq was very severe.  And the pope has criticized many other foundations of the Republican party.  

I didn't say he didn't have an agenda because he's a republican but because he's a protestant.  

I don't think you understood what I wrote.  It goes a bit beyond your simplistic talk radio, "Catholic voter guide" mentality.  


Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 04, 2004, 04:09:13 PM »

Quote
Enough for 1,400 pro abortion organizations, close to 1 million pro abortion supporters & John Kerry to march on Washington to denounce Bush's pro life policies & how they have limited a women's right to "choose."

Dude, this is the biggest crock you've posted.  You're acting like Bush alone was the reason why the pro-death folks marched on Washington.  As someone who lives here, this kind of thing happens all the time, especially in an election year, no matter who's in charge.  This crap happened when Clinton was president, too.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2004, 04:25:02 PM »

Quote
didn't say he didn't have an agenda because he's a republican but because he's a protestant.

What??? So protestants now have "ulterior" motives???

Quote
I don't think you understood what I wrote.  It goes a bit beyond your simplistic talk radio, "Catholic voter guide" mentality.  

In typical Jen style, attack the mesenger & not the content of the message itself.

Quote
Dude, this is the biggest crock you've posted.  You're acting like Bush alone was the reason why the pro-death folks marched on Washington.  As someone who lives here, this kind of thing happens all the time, especially in an election year, no matter who's in charge.  This crap happened when Clinton was president, too.

Well, from all the anti bush speaches they gave & saying things like, "Bush, keep you hands off our bodies & that he should go to hell", you would have thought they came there for that. Also, it's been since 1992 that they have organized anything on this magnitude. It seemed just as much an anti bush rally as a pro abortion rally.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 04, 2004, 04:40:08 PM »

Did it ever occur to you that they said those things because, oh, he happened to be in office?  You're really turning this into some personal thing when it doesn't matter who is in office at the time if that person is pro-life.  

You're one paranoid dude, Nacho, paranoid for a guy you don't even know and who looks at you not as an individual but as a vote.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2004, 05:05:58 PM »

What??? So protestants now have "ulterior" motives???In typical Jen style, attack the mesenger & not the content of the message itself.

But Nacho, you don't have a message.  If you do have a message you're incapable of expressing it in a way that others can understand.  I think it's obvious from your posts that you merely parrot what you hear on talk radio.  It's not your own message.  

Quote
Well, from all the anti bush speaches they gave & saying things like, "Bush, keep you hands off our bodies & that he should go to hell", you would have thought they came there for that. Also, it's been since 1992 that they have organized anything on this magnitude. It seemed just as much an anti bush rally as a pro abortion rally.


Now that's just absurd.  This is indicative of the overly partisan tone of your posts.  

Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,945


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2004, 06:36:34 PM »

Being anti-abortion isn't just concern for unborn children.  There's a 'maintenance of the sexual status quo' as well.  I suggest that his anti-abortion stance is more the latter reason than a catholic 'respect for life.'  

What is "maintenance of the sexual status quo"?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2004, 06:43:46 PM »

People can be against abortion because the idea of women being able to have control over reproduction is threatening to the sexual status quo.  The same can be said about divorce.  

Of course that doesn't make abortion or divorce right.  But there are 'right' reasons to be against them and 'wrong' reasons to be against them.  For example, abortion was forbidden in some Soviet bloc countries.  Certainly protection of life was not the motivation for outlawing abortion.  It was eugenics which is undoubtedly an evil philosophy.  

Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #37 on: May 04, 2004, 07:16:58 PM »

Quote
You're one paranoid dude, Nacho, paranoid for a guy you don't even know and who looks at you not as an individual but as a vote.
If defending a "culture of life" makes me paranoid, I'll wear that title on my sleves any day... Cheesy

Quote
But Nacho, you don't have a message.  If you do have a message you're incapable of expressing it in a way that others can understand.  I think it's obvious from your posts that you merely parrot what you hear on talk radio.  It's not your own message.  

Wow Jennifer, you sure like to make it personal. Again, I have posted & stuck to the ideas of the teachings of the Catholic church on the issue at hand. You choose to attack me & say absurd things like I must have got it from talk radio. I stuck to such things as "The Catholics Voter Guidlines", (which by the way was not from talk radio) and you dismiss it & make up other tedious arguements that have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Quote
Now that's just absurd.  This is indicative of the overly partisan tone of your posts.  
How's it absurd??? I watched it on TV & saw alot of the speeches & that's what they said. How is that partisan??? I'm just repeating what I heard from some of the speeches. By the way, I think it's partisan of Congresswomen Maxine Waters to get up there & say that "Bush should go to Hell." I don't think any republican could ever get away with saying something like that.  
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #38 on: May 04, 2004, 09:01:11 PM »

Nacho, you're not a Roman Catholic so you're hardly in the position to "stick to the ideas of the Catholic Church."  Further, as I've told you before I think you're still overly protestant and haven't yet adopted a catholic worldview.  Frankly you just don't get *it.*  You'll need to be catholic for a while longer before you move past this 'literalist' mindset.
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 04, 2004, 09:29:11 PM »

I also don't think that we are commanded to be 'single issue' voters.  Abortion is an important issue and if we had a truly pro-life candidate, we would have to vote for him.  But...Bush's actions in Texas [with respect to the death penalty] don't indicate a "respect for life."...I also think a pre-emptive strike (condemned by the pope as well) is not indicative of a "respect for life."

Well said, Jennifer.  I think we've got to look to more immediate matters right now; Bush has proved himself to be impulsive at best, his black-and-white version of the world having left a bad taste in the world's mouth as far as we're concerned.

As horrific a holocaust as legalized abortion is, we as a nation have to play our cards realistically, fixing the messes we CAN fix at the moment.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #40 on: May 04, 2004, 11:03:43 PM »

It's ok Jennifer we all love you anyway, but just save us all some time and energy and just admit that you are pro-abortion.
Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #41 on: May 04, 2004, 11:11:12 PM »

Quote
Nacho, you're not a Roman Catholic so you're hardly in the position to "stick to the ideas of the Catholic Church."  Further, as I've told you before I think you're still overly protestant and haven't yet adopted a catholic worldview.  Frankly you just don't get *it.*  You'll need to be catholic for a while longer before you move past this 'literalist' mindset.

Deeming the quality of the "content" of your post, I think I have a better handle of what the RC teaches than you.

More reasons why it's never acceptable to vote for pro abortion candidates:

Questions about voting (from EWTN.com, a highly respect Catholic website)

3. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?

If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.
----------------------------------------------

4. If I have strong feelings or opinions in favor of a particular candidate, even if he is pro-abortion, why may I not vote for him?

As explained in question 1 above, neither your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience. Neither your feelings nor your opinions can take the place of your conscience. Your feelings and opinions should be governed by your conscience. If the candidate about whom you have strong feelings or opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and opinions need to be corrected by your correctly informed conscience, which would tell you that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opinions to give lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a moral evil.
-----------------------------------------

5. If I may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can’t vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?

It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such “rare” possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.
---------------------------

6. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?

Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the response to question 3 above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a “disqualifying issue.” Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.” If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.
--------------------------

7. If a candidate says that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels the need to vote for it under the circumstances, doesn’t this candidate’s personal opposition to abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the poor?

A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. Outside of the rare case in which a hostage is forced against his will to perform evil actions with his captors, a person who carries out an evil action né+ such as voting for abortion né+ performs an immoral act, and his statement of personal opposition to the moral evil of abortion is either self-delusion or a lie. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even, as explained in questions 3 and 6 above, you think that the candidate’s other views are best for the poor.
---------------------------------

8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “GǪwhen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.
-----------------------------------

9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?

In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.
-------------------------------------

10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?

Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.
----------------------------------

11. Is not the Church’s stand that abortion must be illegal a bit of an exception? Does not the Church generally hold that government should restrict its legislation of morality significantly?

The Church’s teaching that abortion should be illegal is not an exception. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this way: “Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.” [ emphasis added]. Abortion qualifies as a grievous vice that hurts others, and the lack of prohibition of this evil by society is something by which human society cannot be maintained. As Pope John Paul II has emphasized, the denial of the right to life, in principle, sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of all other rights.
------------------------------------

12. What about elected officials who happen to be of the same party affiliation? Are they committing a sin by being in the same party, even if they don’t advocate pro-choice views? Are they guilty by association?

Being of the same political party as those who advocate pro-abortion is indeed a serious evil IF I belong to this political party IN ORDER TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF with that party’s advocacy of pro-abortion policies. However, it can also be true that being of such a political party has as its purpose to change the policies of the party. Of course, if this is the purpose, one would have to consider whether it is reasonable to think the political party’s policies can be changed. Assuming that it is reasonable to think so, then it would be morally justifiable to remain in that political party. Remaining in that political party cannot be instrumental in the advancing of pro-abortion policies (especially if I am busily striving to change the party’s policies) as can my VOTING for candidates or for a political party with a pro-abortion policy.
-----------------------------------

13. What about voting for a pro-abortion person for something like state treasurer, in which case the candidate would have no say on matters of life in the capacity of her duties, it just happens to be her personal position. This would not be a sin, right?

If someone were running for state treasurer and that candidate made it a point to state publicly that he was in favor of exterminating people over the age of 70, would you vote for him? The fact that the candidate has that evil in his mind tells you that there are easily other evils in his mind; and the fact that he would publicly state it is a danger signal. If personal character matters in a political candidate, and personal character involves the kind of thoughts a person harbors, then such a candidate who publicly states that he is in favor of the evil of exterminating people over the age of 70 - or children who are unborn - has also disqualified himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. I would go further and say that such a candidate, in principle - in the light of the natural law - disqualifies himself from public office.
-------------------------------------

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #42 on: May 04, 2004, 11:14:14 PM »

Quote
Nacho, you're not a Roman Catholic

He's Antiochian that is close enough.
Logged
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #43 on: May 04, 2004, 11:22:23 PM »


Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

Does one not become an accomplice in the moral evil of murder when one votes for a candidate who will hurl our country into pointless wars which will take tens of thousands of innocent lives?

What if the pro-life candidate appears to be pro-life in word alone, but either does not have the power to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, or will not push for it to be overturned because it would alienate him from a large segment of the voting population? What if you believe this pro-life candidate will destabilize entire regions of the world, which will lead to countless deaths in the future, world wide turmoil, and will do nothing but stir up other nations' hatreds for us?

Is it still safe to vote for the pro-life candidate, solely because he is pro-life, banking on the extremely slim possibility that he will overturn Roe V. Wade which the majority of Americans support?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2004, 11:23:04 PM by Bogoliubtsy » Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #44 on: May 04, 2004, 11:24:08 PM »

Quote
It's ok Jennifer we all love you anyway, but just save us all some time and energy and just admit that you are pro-abortion.
I'm also waiting for the "moment of truth." She should read what I posted from EWTN. I would like to see her explain that away.....
 Wink


Quote
Nacho, you're not a Roman Catholic

He's Antiochian that is close enough.

LOL, woooooohooooo Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Ahhhh, I needed that little humor break.
Most of the time I'm accused of being a "protestant"  Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 04, 2004, 11:39:07 PM »

Peter J:

Yes but Bush has already done some measures to undo the gravity of abortion, such as signing the partial birth abortion ban, which Clinton did not do.  R v W may never be overturned, but at least we can work to restrict abortion.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #46 on: May 04, 2004, 11:52:11 PM »

It's ok Jennifer we all love you anyway, but just save us all some time and energy and just admit that you are pro-abortion.  

I am appalled that you would suggest that I am "pro-abortion."  There is absolutely nothing that I have written that could suggest that I support abortion.  

In fact, I have been very clear that I am opposed to abortion.  

Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #47 on: May 04, 2004, 11:56:07 PM »

He's Antiochian that is close enough.

No it's not even remotely close enough.  

But I find it incredibly bizarre that an Orthodox Christian would be so 'supportive' of an ultimate expression of 'western' catholicism.  

I think it proves something that I've believed for some time, scratch an Orthodox convert and you'll find a western christian lurking underneath.  Sure he/she likes to play 'eastern.'  Icons are 'cool' and we all like to pretend we're unique.  But when it comes down to it, he/she's just as western as a Roman Catholic.  

Which of course raises an interesting question, can Orthodoxy survive in the west?  I'm not optimistic.

Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #48 on: May 04, 2004, 11:57:48 PM »

Peter J:

Yes but Bush has already done some measures to undo the gravity of abortion, such as signing the partial birth abortion ban, which Clinton did not do.  R v W may never be overturned, but at least we can work to restrict abortion.

anastasios

But it's a meaningless gesture and he knows it because the Supreme Court has already decided a case which struck down a law almost identical to the partial birth abortion act.  

Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #49 on: May 05, 2004, 12:02:12 AM »

I'm also waiting for the "moment of truth." She should read what I posted from EWTN. I would like to see her explain that away.....
 ;)LOL, woooooohooooo Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Ahhhh, I needed that little humor break.
Most of the time I'm accused of being a "protestant"  Tongue Tongue Tongue Tongue

I've tried to explain this numerous times but you still don't get it.  Catholics are different from protestants.  A website associated with the catholic church isn't the catholic church.  It lacks the authority of the Church.  When I want spiritual guidance, I don't go to the web or turn on the TV or radio.  I speak to my priest in confession.  

BTW, Nacho you are essentially a protestant.  You have not jettisoned your protestant background.  You still don't understand what it means to be a catholic.  It's not something that can be learned from a website or from reading a book.  It's something that comes about through living a catholic life in a catholic community.  
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 05, 2004, 12:03:52 AM »

Just because the SC struck down a law doesn't mean it will always. It can be very inconsistent.

As far as your jab at Western converts to Orthodoxy, I know people like you describe but Nacho doesn't prove your point at all.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2004, 12:23:19 AM »

Just because the SC struck down a law doesn't mean it will always. It can be very inconsistent.

As far as your jab at Western converts to Orthodoxy, I know people like you describe but Nacho doesn't prove your point at all.

anastasios

But the court has the same makeup that it had when it struck down the first partial birth abortion.  

And people like Nacho definitely substantiate my fears about western converts to Orthodoxy.  He's obviously a frustrated Roman Catholic.  I guess Orthodoxy was more 'exotic' or he maybe he got turned off by a whacko RC priest, but it's obvious that he thinks like a western christian.  

Of course I think you also think like a western christian just like almost every other poster here.  Frankly it's just impossible for you to overcome your cultural heritage.  You can go off to St. Vlad's and have icons in your house but you still approach these issues with a western mindset.  

Like I asked, what is the future of Orthodoxy in the west?  Is this convert movement something that can be sustained?  Frankly I don't think so.  I think most converts are frustrated Roman Catholics.  So what will happen is that either they'll end up where they philosophically fit or they will 'taint' American Orthodoxy.  

The fear of the 'corruption' of Orthodoxy by protestants is the primary reason why I haven't 'doxed.'  At least at my parish, the people are catholic.  They might vote for Kerry because they're ethnic but they're catholic because they grew up in a catholic culture.  They have an almost inborn catholic sensibility.
Logged
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2004, 12:28:50 AM »

If we have to overcome our cultural heritage to become Christians, then we might as well worship trees again.

Matt
Logged
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2004, 12:35:34 AM »

Quote from: Jennifer
Like I asked, what is the future of Orthodoxy in the west?  Is this convert movement something that can be sustained?  Frankly I don't think so.  I think most converts are frustrated Roman Catholics.  So what will happen is that either they'll end up where they philosophically fit or they will 'taint' American Orthodoxy.  

The fear of the 'corruption' of Orthodoxy by protestants is the primary reason why I haven't 'doxed.'  At least at my parish, the people are catholic.  They might vote for Kerry because they're ethnic but they're catholic because they grew up in a catholic culture.  They have an almost inborn catholic sensibility.  
Quote

As members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we have faith that the Holy Spirit will guide the development of the Orthodox Church here in America. I don't agree that most converts to Orthodoxy are from Roman Catholic backgrounds, but even if they were, the Orthodox Church promises the "renewing of the mind" if one worships in faith and sincerity. This can and will lead to the uprooting of the person's formerly incorrect understanding of Christianity.  We have to trust in the Holy Spirit and preach genuine Orthodoxy to converts for this to take place.
And what say you about the millions of pagans in Rome, the Middle East, and Russia who became Christians? Perhaps if you were living in that time you would have doubted the ability of the Holy Spirit to work amongst them?
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2004, 12:46:17 AM »

When I say "frustrated Roman Catholics" I don't mean that they are former Roman Catholics.  What I mean is that they are western catholics and western catholicism is Roman Catholicism.  The way they approach problems is essentially Roman Catholic.  

What is particularly today though is the leadership position in the Orthodox Churches of very recent converts.  Also the "we're saving Orthodoxy from the ethnic Orthodox" attitude.  

In order for true conversion to occur, one has to 'reject' one's culture and few to no western converts to Orthodoxy want to 'reject' western culture.  They merely put a little eastern 'shine' on their western sensibility.  

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2004, 12:49:53 AM »

Dear Jennifer,

Why would anyone want to shed his or her cultural past and traditions?  My point was only that not all converts are like Nacho, not that we can shed our cultural past.  I believe as Konrad Nimcheck (one of the rare times I agreed with him) said, that you can add another cultural identity but not lose your own cultural patrimony.  The two work together.

I am proud to have been raised Protestant.  I like Protestants and don't have animosity towards them as you do.  I don't need to make fun of them each time I get the chance.  You also have a very Western mindset as you are constantly obsessed with what Protestants think and you see Protestantism lurking behind every corner.  "Oh no, something is wrong in Orthodoxy! It must be those Protestant converts again!"

I also value my Catholic moral education.  Being Catholic helped form me. I am eternally greatful to my Byzantine Catholic priest who taught me how to share with others and love unconditionally.  I will never turn my back on that.

Your attempt to turn this western convert discussion onto me was nothing more than a personal attack and was of course totally unnecessary.  I merely said Nacho didn't prove your point because not all converts are like him, and you begin accusing me of having a western mindset.  Well, I do have a western mindset and the only thing I can do is try to be aware of it and when it differs from Orthodoxy, I submit.  When it doesn't differ from Orthodoxy, why should I give it up since it is my cultural heritage?

In fact, I don't really understand why you tried to turn the tables on me as if you actually knew me (which you don't, since what I post online is not the totality of who I am) you would know that I spend most of my time at ethnic Orthodox parishes (specifically Greek ones) and am learning Modern Greek so I can communicate better with the people in the pews next to me.  I don't particularly like the outcome of the Antiochian convert boom myself.  It was a great idea but the people weren't all formed in Orthodoxy well enough.

I don't think hanging an icon in my icon corner or going to St Vladimir's makes me Orthodox.  Holding to the Orthodox faith and living an Orthodox life makes one Orthodox.

Frankly, I don't think Orthodoxy rests on people becoming Orthodox.  Orthodoxy is the truth and it is going to live on even if it is small.

It's interesting that you mention that most converts to Orthodoxy are frustrated Roman Catholics, yet you then say you won't convert to Orthodoxy because of protestants corrupting Orthodoxy.  So who is causing the damage? And how are you, a Roman Catholic raised in a family of Protestant heritage, exempt from this?

One further point: I think you think Orthodox consider Catholics to be "small-c catholic".  I think this because you said that at least the Roman Catholics in your parish are catholic.  You implicitly assume that ethnic Orthodox are catholic too.  But as you know, Orthodox don't view you as catholic (and it has nothing to do with ethnic vs. convert). They view you as a Latin heretic.  You would be bringing your Latin mindset into the Orthodox Church, so don't cast stones when you live in a glass house.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2004, 12:49:58 AM »

Pardon me for popping in...

I wasn't aware that one had to adopt an eastern "ethnicity" or completely eastern culture in order to be Orthodox.  What exactly does this eastern culture entail?  Please explain?
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2004, 12:53:33 AM »

Also the "we're saving Orthodoxy from the ethnic Orthodox" attitude.  

I agree, that is a very dangerous attitude. That's why I am glad I hang out with ethnics.

Quote
In order for true conversion to occur, one has to 'reject' one's culture and few to no western converts to Orthodoxy want to 'reject' western culture.  They merely put a little eastern 'shine' on their western sensibility.  

As I said above, I don't think that's possible. One should try to add on an eastern patrimony but one is going to have to live with and be aware of his former identity.  THink of it like this. If I am married twice, I am always going to relate to my second wife with a bit of the patterns I learned from relating to my first.  You just can't get around it.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2004, 01:07:23 AM »

Dear Jennifer,

Why would anyone want to shed his or her cultural past and traditions?  My point was only that not all converts are like Nacho, not that we can shed our cultural past.  I believe as Konrad Nimcheck (one of the rare times I agreed with him) said, that you can add another cultural identity but not lose your own cultural patrimony.  The two work together.

I am proud to have been raised Protestant.  I like Protestants and don't have animosity towards them as you do.  I don't need to make fun of them each time I get the chance.  You also have a very Western mindset as you are constantly obsessed with what Protestants think and you see Protestantism lurking behind every corner.  "Oh no, something is wrong in Orthodoxy! It must be those Protestant converts again!"

Of course I have a western mindset.  I'm a Roman Catholic.  

Quote
I also value my Catholic moral education.  Being Catholic helped form me. I am eternally greatful to my Byzantine Catholic priest who taught me how to share with others and love unconditionally.  I will never turn my back on that.

Your attempt to turn this western convert discussion onto me was nothing more than a personal attack and was of course totally unnecessary.  I merely said Nacho didn't prove your point because not all converts are like him, and you begin accusing me of having a western mindset.  Well, I do have a western mindset and the only thing I can do is try to be aware of it and when it differs from Orthodoxy, I submit.  When it doesn't differ from Orthodoxy, why should I give it up since it is my cultural heritage?

In fact, I don't really understand why you tried to turn the tables on me as if you actually knew me (which you don't, since what I post online is not the totality of who I am) you would know that I spend most of my time at ethnic Orthodox parishes (specifically Greek ones) and am learning Modern Greek so I can communicate better with the people in the pews next to me.  I don't particularly like the outcome of the Antiochian convert boom myself.  It was a great idea but the people weren't all formed in Orthodoxy well enough.

I don't think hanging an icon in my icon corner or going to St Vladimir's makes me Orthodox.  Holding to the Orthodox faith and living an Orthodox life makes one Orthodox.

Frankly, I don't think Orthodoxy rests on people becoming Orthodox.  Orthodoxy is the truth and it is going to live on even if it is small.

It's interesting that you mention that most converts to Orthodoxy are frustrated Roman Catholics, yet you then say you won't convert to Orthodoxy because of protestants corrupting Orthodoxy.  So who is causing the damage? And how are you, a Roman Catholic raised in a family of Protestant heritage, exempt from this?

When I say "frustrated Roman Catholics" I mean western catholics which I believe most Orthodox converts are.  They're western catholics which is Roman Catholicism.  

Quote
One further point: I think you think Orthodox consider Catholics to be "small-c catholic".  I think this because you said that at least the Roman Catholics in your parish are catholic.  You implicitly assume that ethnic Orthodox are catholic too.  But as you know, Orthodox don't view you as catholic (and it has nothing to do with ethnic vs. convert). They view you as a Latin heretic.  You would be bringing your Latin mindset into the Orthodox Church, so don't cast stones when you live in a glass house.

I understand that the Orthodox don't consider Roman Catholics to be catholics.  I, however, as a Roman Catholic believe Orthodox and Roman Catholics are catholic.  When I write catholic I (as a Roman Catholic) mean Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox.  I understand that when an Orthodox writes catholic they mean Orthodox.  But I'm not Orthodox so I'm not bound by that.  

And of course I'm bringing my 'latin mindset" into this.  I can't help but have a 'latin mindset.'  I'm a western catholic.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #59 on: May 05, 2004, 01:13:58 AM »

Well Nacho the trad Orthodox say that Papalism* is the oldest form of protestantism, so there :-P  

* I am trying to just refrence the heresy (from the Orthodox POV ) of the powers assumed by the modern bishops of rome, this is not meant to be offensive.

Jennifer,

Once you get over being appalled if you didn't spend so much time defending pro-abortion canidates people would not think that you are pro-abortion.  And FWIW I find talk radio to be rather obnoxious and do not consider myself a true republican.  

Your argument about western thought among Orthodox converts is a strawman unless you actually show how someone has thought in an un-Patristic manner.  Most of my learning of Orthodoxy has come from a monastery where zero English is used liturgically and ethnic Orthodox are in large numbers.  But rationalistic type thinking is niether ethnic nor convert....I have known plenty of both to think in that many, and plenty of both who are entirely Orthodox.  But it is a process and not instantaneous.  

Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #60 on: May 05, 2004, 01:16:55 AM »

I agree, that is a very dangerous attitude. That's why I am glad I hang out with ethnics.As I said above, I don't think that's possible. One should try to add on an eastern patrimony but one is going to have to live with and be aware of his former identity.  THink of it like this. If I am married twice, I am always going to relate to my second wife with a bit of the patterns I learned from relating to my first.  You just can't get around it.

anastasios

But as a western christian with a western patrimony why should you be forced to embrace a 'foreign' patrimony?  If western christianity wasn't in such trouble there would no need for western christians to embrace eastern christianity.  

I understand how western christians can feel 'drawn' to eastern spirituality.  But western christians are also 'drawn' to hinduism and all other kinds of 'exotic' things.  In my own spiritual life, I am 'drawn' to eastern spirituality.  But intellectually, philosophically, etc. I'm a western christian and denying that fundamental truth is a lie.  

When I say that many Orthodox are "frustrated Roman Catholics" what I mean is that there wouldn't be the need to reject their western 'patrimony.'  Of course protestants don't think like catholics but there's more 'congruence' between catholicism and protestantism.  I think that many Orthodox converts will struggle throughout their lives with the 'patrimony' issue and may never feel at home being 'eastern' which is understandable given that they're not 'eastern.'  

This fundamental 'problem' is what makes me suspect that the convert phenomenon won't last.  How can 'confused' people pass eastern patrimony onto their children?  

Orthodoxy should acknowledge this 'truth' and 'divert' interested protestants to western Orthodoxy.
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #61 on: May 05, 2004, 01:22:12 AM »

Well Nacho the trad Orthodox say that Papalism* is the oldest form of protestantism, so there :-P  

* I am trying to just refrence the heresy (from the Orthodox POV ) of the powers assumed by the modern bishops of rome, this is not meant to be offensive.

Jennifer,

Once you get over being appalled if you didn't spend so much time defending pro-abortion canidates people would not think that you are pro-abortion.  And FWIW I find talk radio to be rather obnoxious and do not consider myself a true republican.  

I haven't "defended" any pro-abortion candidate.  I've written that I prefer Kerry over Bush but I don't like either one.  That's hardly a "defense."  

Quote
Your argument about western thought among Orthodox converts is a strawman unless you actually show how someone has thought in an un-Patristic manner.  Most of my learning of Orthodoxy has come from a monastery where zero English is used liturgically and ethnic Orthodox are in large numbers.  But rationalistic type thinking is niether ethnic nor convert....I have known plenty of both to think in that many, and plenty of both who are entirely Orthodox.  But it is a process and not instantaneous.  

Literalism isn't patristic.  The Church's authority cannot be separated from the Church.  Catholic Answers is not the Catholic Church.  To claim otherwise suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the Church's authority.  

BTW, protestant thought isn't just found in Orthodoxy.  Unfortunately many Roman Catholics are so ignorant of their faith that they find 'conservative' protestant thought appealing.  Witness the charismatic movement.  The fundamental difference between conservative Catholics and traditionalist Catholics is that the former group is 'infected' with protestantism.  There's a lot of talk about "feelings" and the Bible.  
Logged
Twenty Nine
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 198



« Reply #62 on: May 05, 2004, 08:25:54 AM »

Quote
I believe as Konrad Nimcheck

Huh, what ever happened to that guy?

Greg
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. - Philippians 4:8
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #63 on: May 05, 2004, 08:34:39 AM »

Quote
Jennifer:
I think that some posters here are overly partisan and will excuse being pro-choice against a republican and not a democrat.  I'm unconvinced by their claims otherwise given their other responses.  People don't often understand what their motives are.

I agree that sometimes we don't understand our own motives, but that is probably true for you, as well.

What makes you think that you understand the motives of others and that you know what those are despite the plain language of what they have posted here?

Aren't we obligated to judge their opinions by what they post, and not what we wish to read into it?  

Quote
Jennifer: I think the overly partisan tone of some posters is evidenced by overly harsh comments about "evil dems" and outright lies like "90% of all republicans are pro-life."  That someone would say that indicates that they are overly partisan because they see the facts in a light most favorable to their political party.

To conservatives, your tone is harsh and overly partisan.

Pardon me, but your posts sound very left of center.

They come off not as the objective "voice of reason," but as rabid, anti-Bush rant.  

Quote
Jennifer: I also don't think that we are commanded to be 'single issue' voters.  Abortion is an important issue and if we had a truly pro-life candidate, we would have to vote for him.  But being anti-abortion doesn't make someone pro-life.  The pope cautions against a 'culture of death.'  A 'culture of death' is manifested in many ways.  Including executing retarded people or people who can't speak english.  I don't the death penalty is immoral by itself but if it's used then we must ensure that we safeguard life and Bush's actions in Texas don't indicate a "respect for life."  And undoubtedly some of the people executed are innocent.

How does the inability to speak English render a person immune to the death penalty for capital crimes?

I have never read of anything Bush did in Texas that was wrong.

Your argument sounds like clutching at straws to try to justify voting for a man (Kerry) whose positions are anti-Christian.

You can vote for him if you wish, but it's not right.

Quote
Jennifer: I also think a pre-emptive strike (condemned by the pope as well) is not indicative of a "respect for life."

What "pre-emptive strike?"

There was loads of justification for our actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Pope offered his opinion, which, in this case, I don't believe even the staunchest RCs would regard as infallible.

Good thing, because he was wrong.

Quote
Jennifer: Overall, Bush won't do anything to outlaw abortion so voting for him when we know he'll do other anti-life things isn't the 'moral' choice in my opinion.

We don't "know he'll do other anti-life things."

We do know Kerry is pro-abortion and supported by the disciples of Death.

Bush would not veto anti-abortion legislation. He supports overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Quote
Jennifer: Truthfully what is Bush done to stop abortion?  He passed a law outlawing partial birth abortions which everyone knows is unconstitutional so it will be struck down.

Everyone does not know it is unconstitutional if, in fact, it is.

At least Bush signed the legislation.

Clinton vetoed similar legislation. Kerry would do likewise.

Bush in the White House means anti-abortion legislation has a chance at success.

Kerry in the White House (God forbid!) would mean that Pro-Life legislation would be dead on arrival.  

Quote
Jennifer: I think his claim to be pro-life is an easy for him to make because the average american (squeamish about abortion but doesn't think it should be illegal) knows that voting for him won't make abortion illegal.

I don't think it's so easy.

His actions (in signing anti-abortion legislation, for example) prove his Pro-Life stance is more than a mere "claim."

When Kerry says he is a Catholic, now that is just a claim.  

Quote
Jennifer: Abortion is allowed in this country because of the supreme court and the majority of justices sitting on the court were appointed by republican presidents.

It may be true today that most of the justices were appointed by Republicans (I'm not sure), but was that true of the Court that decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973?

Besides, that's not important.

What is important today is to elect a president who is Pro-Life.

Is Kerry Pro-Life?  

Quote
Jennifer: If Bush had indicated an overall respect for life in a catholic way I'd give his anti-abortion stance more credit.  But I think his disrespect for life and protestant affiliation proves that his anti-abortion stance is 'establishment.'  Since it's 'establishment' he won't go against the norm.  Look what 'life' issues he chooses to care about.  Unborn children over potentially innocent illegal immigrants and off-white people far away.  Being anti-abortion isn't just concern for unborn children.  There's a 'maintenance of the sexual status quo' as well.  I suggest that his anti-abortion stance is more the latter reason than a catholic 'respect for life.'  

I think you're erecting a pacifist, Quaker sort of standard of "overall respect for life" and calling it "Catholic."

I don't see the things Bush has done as inconsistent with his Pro-Life stance.

How is it consistent with an "overall respect for life" to allow a nasty dictator who torments his own people and threatens the peace and safety of the entire world to remain in power?

Sounds to me like Neville Chamberlain would be your ideal "Catholic" candidate.

How is being Pro-Life "establishment?"

The liberal establishment has foisted the culture of death upon us and made the murder of innocent infants a fact of law.

We Christians struggle today against that terrible establishment.

Kerry is the Establishment's standard bearer.

His flag is a Death's Head with a baby in its gaping maw.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2004, 09:52:38 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #64 on: May 05, 2004, 09:26:21 AM »

I agree that sometimes we don't understand our own motives, but that is probably true for you, as well.

What makes you think that you understand the motives of others and that you know what those are despite the plain language of what they have posted here?

But no reasonable person would conclude that I am 'pro-abortion.'  In fact, I have repeatedly written that I don't approve of abortion.  It is simply silly to conclude that someone is "pro-abortion" because they are "anti-Bush."

Quote
Aren't we obligated to judge their opinions by what they post, and not what we wish to read into it?  To conservatives, your tone is harsh and overly partisan.

To radicals, I might sound "overly partisan."  But actually to a moderate reasonable person, it's obvious that I'm a moderate.  This reminds me of how my 'radical' left-wing boss recently accused me of being 'reactionary' and 'right-wing.'  He's a 'zealot' just like Nacho and some other posters here.  Nacho listens to Michael Savage and this guy reads 'liberal' texts that convince him President Bush wants to get rid of Medicare.  Radicals are the same, no matter the political philosophy they embrace.  To a 'radical,' everyone who disagrees is the 'other.'  Radicals can't understand moderation.  

Quote
Pardon me, but your posts sound very left of center.

By whose definition of "left of center?"  It's obvious, if you care to notice, that I'm a moderate.  I absolutely detest political 'my daddy can beat up your daddy' games.  "Liberal" "conservative" what do those terms mean?  Jesus was "left of center" in terms of economic philosophy.  The pope is "left of center" in many issues.  In fact, he's only "right of center" in social issues.  The pope's economic philosophy is much closer to socialism than capitalism and much more radical than my own.  

Quote
They come off not as the objective "voice of reason," but as rabid, anti-Bush rant.

Because I don't "love" Bush, I "hate" him.  Because I don't write how wonderful he is I write "anti-Bush rants."  This is probably the 10th time I've asked this, but can we move beyond this kind of simplistic dialogue.  This is like back in the 3rd grade when you talked to some boy and your friends said you would marry him.  

My posts about Bush are very reasoned and can hardly be construed as "anti-Bush rants" except to "Bush lovers" who see any criticism as "hatred" of him.  

Quote
 How does the inability to speak English render a person immune to the death penalty for capital crimes?

If they are unable to speak english and don't have counsel who speak spanish then they have a fair trial.  

Quote
I have never read of anything Bush did in Texas that was wrong.

Proving how selective your knowledge of the world is.    

Quote
Your argument sounds like clutching at straws to try to justify voting for a man (Kerry) whose positions are anti-Christian.

You can vote for him if you wish, but it's not right.What "pre-emptive strike?"

Oh please.  Even the Bush/Cheney crowd charectorized it as a "pre-emptive strike" along with the pope who condemned it for being a "pre-emptive strike."  

Quote
There was loads of justification for our actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yeah, "loads" of "justification."  Believe whatever makes you sleep well at night.  

Quote
The Pope offered his opinion, which, in this case, I don't believe even the staunchest RCs would regard as infallible.

No one said it was infallible, however, I (a Roman Catholic) am more likely to be look to the pope for moral direction in times of war than our protestant president.  

The pope's "opinion" is just an "opinion" but it's an opinion of a man who has proved through his life that he values life and knows how evil war can be.  

What do you know of war?  What does Bush know of war?  

Quote
Good thing, because he was wrong. We don't "know he'll do other anti-life things."

We do know Kerry is pro-abortion and supported by the disciples of Death.

Bush would not veto anti-abortion legislation. He supports overturning Roe vs. Wade.Everyone does not know it is unconstitutional if, in fact, it is.

At least Bush signed the legislation.

Clinton vetoed similar legislation. Kerry would do likewise.

Bush in the White House means anti-abortion legislation has a chance at success.

Kerry in the White House (God forbid!) would mean that Pro-Life legislation would be dead on arrival.  I don't think it's so easy.

His actions (in signing anti-abortion legislation, for example) prove his Pro-Life stance is more than a mere "claim."

When Kerry says he is a Catholic, now that is just a claim.  It may be true today that most of the justices were appointed by Republicans (I'm not sure), but was that true of the Court that decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973?

Besides, that's not important.

What is important today is to elect a president who is Pro-Life.

Is Kerry Pro-Life?  I think you're erecting a pacifist, Quaker sort of standard of "overall respect for life" and calling it "Catholic."

That's silly.  

Quote
I don't see the things Bush has done as inconsistent with his Pro-Life stance.

Of course.  Because you only see what you want to see.  

Quote
How is it consistent with an "overall respect for life" to allow a nasty dictator who torments his own people and threatens the peace and safety of the entire world to remain in power?

Is is "consistent with an overall respect for life" to kill someone who suspect will commit a crime tomorrow?  The Catholic Church allows self-defense but only when there are no other alternatives and the attack is imminent.  It's the same under our law.  You can't kill your neighbor if you hear him saying he's going to kill his wife tomorrow.  

Quote
Sounds to me like Neville Chamberlain would be your ideal "Catholic" candidate.

Now that's just silly.  

I'll leave your ignorance about WWII for another time.  

Quote
How is being Pro-Life "establishment?"

It's beyond you.  

Quote
The liberal establishment has foisted the culture of death upon us and made the murder of innocent infants a fact of law.

We Christians struggle today against that terrible establishment.

Kerry is the Establishment's standard bearer.

His flag is a Death's Head with a baby in its gaping maw..

Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,945


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 05, 2004, 09:33:17 AM »

The fear of the 'corruption' of Orthodoxy by protestants is the primary reason why I haven't 'doxed.'  At least at my parish, the people are catholic.  They might vote for Kerry because they're ethnic but they're catholic because they grew up in a catholic culture.  They have an almost inborn catholic sensibility.  

Dear Jennifer,

I think I have a pretty good handle on where you think "catholicism" may be found, but I am still unsure of what, to you, "catholicism" is.  What is "catholicism"?  What is a "catholic culture"?  What is an "inborn catholic sensibility"?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #66 on: May 05, 2004, 09:36:55 AM »

This is like back in the 3rd grade when you talked to some boy and your friends said you would marry him.  

Jennifer and Kerry sittin' in a tree.
K-I-S-S-I-N-G. :aktion031:
First comes love,
then comes marriage,
then comes [insert name here] in a baby carriage!

 Grin  

Yeah, I know what you are saying; "Act your age and not your shoe size!"

Sorry, I don't mean nothin by this -- but when you wrote that statement, that old teasing diddie from my childhood just popped into my head!

:smiley1:
« Last Edit: May 05, 2004, 09:57:14 AM by Tom+ú » Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #67 on: May 05, 2004, 10:01:04 AM »

Dear Jennifer,

I think I have a pretty good handle on where you think "catholicism" may be found, but I am still unsure of what, to you, "catholicism" is.  What is "catholicism"?  What is a "catholic culture"?  What is an "inborn catholic sensibility"?  

It's not something that can be defined precisely.  But we know it when we see it and we know what isn't it.  

Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 05, 2004, 10:08:32 AM »

Quote
It's not something that can be defined precisely.  But we know it when we see it and we know what isn't it.  



I'm sorry, Jennifer, but you can't have it both ways.  You derided Zollars for not being able to articulate a "Southron Culture" yet now you're trying to do the same with "Catholic Culture".

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #69 on: May 05, 2004, 10:24:40 AM »

I'm not voting for either Kerry or Bush...  their both shadey...,
The choice comes down to
- Vote for someone pro-choice, but will likely improve the economy and not have any more pre-emptive strikes.
- Vote for someone pro-life, but the economy will not improve, war will continue & more American soldiers will die (not talking about how many Iraqis, Afgans, etc will die as well).  
Nah, I think I'm gonna chill out at home come Election Day.  Their both evil.
Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #70 on: May 05, 2004, 10:25:54 AM »

If you don't vote, then you have no justification to complain.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #71 on: May 05, 2004, 10:30:03 AM »

Quote
Jennifer: Now that's just silly.  

I'll leave your ignorance about WWII for another time.
 

Jennifer -

You should wait to post until you have something substantive to say.

My "ignorance about WWII" didn't prevent me from graduating with honors in History, or from being made a member of Phi Alpha Theta, the international honor society for historians.

I'm not trying to brag; but having you accuse me of historical ignorance calls for a response.

Quote
Jennifer: But no reasonable person would conclude that I am 'pro-abortion.'  In fact, I have repeatedly written that I don't approve of abortion.  It is simply silly to conclude that someone is "pro-abortion" because they are "anti-Bush."

Who said you were "pro-abortion?"

Your defense of Kerry does make it seem, however, that abortion is not much of an issue for you one way or the other.

Your distaste for Bush is apparently much more important.

Quote
Jennifer: To radicals, I might sound "overly partisan."  But actually to a moderate reasonable person, it's obvious that I'm a moderate.  This reminds me of how my 'radical' left-wing boss recently accused me of being 'reactionary' and 'right-wing.'  He's a 'zealot' just like Nacho and some other posters here.  Nacho listens to Michael Savage and this guy reads 'liberal' texts that convince him President Bush wants to get rid of Medicare.  Radicals are the same, no matter the political philosophy they embrace.  To a 'radical,' everyone who disagrees is the 'other.'  Radicals can't understand moderation.

Guess I must be some kind of "radical."

'Cause you don't seem very moderate or reasonable to me.

There's irony in what I quoted from you above. Hope I'm not the only one of the "others" who can see it.

Quote
Jennifer: By whose definition of "left of center?"  It's obvious, if you care to notice, that I'm a moderate.  I absolutely detest political 'my daddy can beat up your daddy' games.  "Liberal" "conservative" what do those terms mean?  Jesus was "left of center" in terms of economic philosophy.  The pope is "left of center" in many issues.  In fact, he's only "right of center" in social issues.  The pope's economic philosophy is much closer to socialism than capitalism and much more radical than my own.

Please.

Your comment about Jesus being economically left of center makes my point.

Quote
Jennifer: Because I don't "love" Bush, I "hate" him.  Because I don't write how wonderful he is I write "anti-Bush rants."  This is probably the 10th time I've asked this, but can we move beyond this kind of simplistic dialogue.  This is like back in the 3rd grade when you talked to some boy and your friends said you would marry him.  

My posts about Bush are very reasoned and can hardly be construed as "anti-Bush rants" except to "Bush lovers" who see any criticism as "hatred" of him.

No, they aren't "very reasoned," Jennifer.

They are largely unsubstantiated and are, therefore, assertions.

You've convinced yourself, which makes you a moderate in your own eyes.

Quote
Jennifer: If they are unable to speak english and don't have counsel who speak spanish then they have a fair trial.

But that isn't what you wrote.

You said executing someone who doesn't speak English is wrong.

I used to live in Texas.

Take my word for it; there are plenty of Spanish-speaking lawyers there.

How many non-English speakers are tried in this country these days without benefit of translators?

Has Bush advocated denying them translators or bilingual attorneys?

Bogus "issue."

Quote
Jennifer: Proving how selective your knowledge of the world is.

Your response proves that your claims about Bush's actions in Texas are mere assertions without support.

You cannot offer an instance of the wrongdoing that you claim.

So, rather than supply proof, you attempt to insult me.

Quote
Jennifer: Oh please.  Even the Bush/Cheney crowd charectorized it as a "pre-emptive strike" along with the pope who condemned it for being a "pre-emptive strike."

Boy, for a "moderate," you sure use a lot of leftist rhetoric.

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were justified.

Quote
Jennifer: Yeah, "loads" of "justification."  Believe whatever makes you sleep well at night.

If you think Saddam should have been left in power to torture and murder his own people, to sponsor terrorism throughout the world, and to eventually develop a nuclear arsenal, then I suppose there was no justification for attacking his regime.

You're the "moderate," after all.

Quote
Jennifer: No one said it was infallible, however, I (a Roman Catholic) am more likely to be look to the pope for moral direction in times of war than our protestant president.  

The pope's "opinion" is just an "opinion" but it's an opinion of a man who has proved through his life that he values life and knows how evil war can be.  

What do you know of war?  What does Bush know of war?

Hey! What a concept!

Listening to the Pope!

Think he would want you to vote for the "Pro-Choice" candidate?

As much as I respect the Pope, he is not qualified to direct the foreign policy of this nation.

Quote
Jennifer: That's silly.

What a "reasoned," "moderate" response!

It is interesting that you doctored my post before quoting it and then wrote that response.

Quote
From Linus7: I don't see the things Bush has done as inconsistent with his Pro-Life stance.

Quote
Response from Jennifer: Of course.  Because you only see what you want to see.

Once again, you attempt to insult me rather than to support your assertions.

Not very convincing from the voice of moderation and reason.

How are we radicals ever to become enlightened?

Quote
From Linus7: How is being Pro-Life "establishment?"

Quote
Response from Jennifer: It's beyond you.

Interesting thing.

You are not the first person with whom I have argued who has resorted to insults upon discovering themselves unable to answer my legitimate questions.

Now, either I really am as stupid as you say, or you were merely blowing smoke.

I find the latter conclusion more comforting than the former, so I'll go with it.


« Last Edit: May 05, 2004, 10:35:11 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #72 on: May 05, 2004, 11:06:44 AM »

I'm sorry, Jennifer, but you can't have it both ways.  You derided Zollars for not being able to articulate a "Southron Culture" yet now you're trying to do the same with "Catholic Culture".




True, but I think we can all agree that there is a fundamental difference between catholic culture and protestant culture.  I disagree with Zollars in his contention that there is a fundamental difference between southern and northern culture.  
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #73 on: May 05, 2004, 11:21:01 AM »

 

Jennifer -

You should wait to post until you have something substantive to say.

My "ignorance about WWII" didn't prevent me from graduating with honors in History, or from being made a member of Phi Alpha Theta, the international honor society for historians.

I'm not trying to brag; but having you accuse me of historical ignorance calls for a response.

I have a hard believing that an expert in history would equate the situation in Europe before WWII to the pre-war situation in Iraq.  

Quote
Who said you were "pro-abortion?"

That guy.  I don't remember who.  

Quote
Your defense of Kerry does make it seem, however, that abortion is not much of an issue for you one way or the other.

That's silly.  Again, I have not "defended" Kerry.  In fact, I don't think I've written much of anything about Kerry.  I don't have much of an opinion of him.  

Quote
Your distaste for Bush is apparently much more important.

I haven't posted much about Bush either.  

Quote
Guess I must be some kind of "radical."

Definitely.  

Quote
'Cause you don't seem very moderate or reasonable to me.

I'm definitely more moderate than you.  I also think your support for the war in Iraq demonstrates that you are either recklessly ignorant about the facts or you are unreasonable.  

Quote
There's irony in what I quoted from you above. Hope I'm not the only one of the "others" who can see it.Please.

Your comment about Jesus being economically left of center makes my point.

No, it doesn't make your point.  The fact that it offends you makes my point that you are importing political philosophies into Christianity where they don't belong.  Christianity isn't 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'left/right of center.'  

Quote
No, they aren't "very reasoned," Jennifer.

They are largely unsubstantiated and are, therefore, assertions.

If you're going to brag then I will too.  I'm about to ready to graduate from a top law school.  True what I've written are "assertions."  This isn't a "debate."  I had to give Nacho a lecture about the difference between fact and opinion.  What we see on these boards is largely opinions.  For me and from everyone else.  

Some opinions are more 'reasoned' than others.  And in my opinions, the more 'reasoned' opinions come from those who are not blinded by partisanship and those who are to justify simplistic political terms like 'liberal.'  Can't you think of a better to describe things than 'liberal' or 'conservative.'  It's just so lazy.  

Quote
You've convinced yourself, which makes you a moderate in your own eyes.

No I'm definitely a moderate.  And everyone would agree except for radicals.  To my radical boss, I'm a right-wing 'nazi.'  To you, I'm a 'liberal.'  

It's all so 'tiresome.'  

Quote
But that isn't what you wrote.

You said executing someone who doesn't speak English is wrong.

I used to live in Texas.

Take my word for it; there are plenty of Spanish-speaking lawyers there.

How many non-English speakers are tried in this country these days without benefit of translators?

Has Bush advocated denying them translators or bilingual attorneys?

Bogus "issue."Your response proves that your claims about Bush's actions in Texas are mere assertions without support.

You cannot offer an instance of the wrongdoing that you claim.

I could spend the time searching for proof that you'll dismiss because it doesn't fit your radical world view but I really don't have time.  

Quote
So, rather than supply proof, you attempt to insult me.Boy, for a "moderate," you sure use a lot of leftist rhetoric.

Here we go again..."leftist rhetoric."  What does that mean?  Who gets to decide what terms are appropriate for 'moderates' and 'liberals' and 'conservatives.'

Unfortunately we live in a very simplistic political culture.  It's 'liberal' and 'conservative' but no one ever attempts to go beneath the label.  

It's easier that way.  It doesn't as much effort to figure people out.  

Quote
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were justified.If you think Saddam should have been left in power to torture and murder his own people, to sponsor terrorism throughout the world, and to eventually develop a nuclear arsenal, then I suppose there was no justification for attacking his regime.

Your argument techniques leave much to be desired.  Here we go again with the strawman argument.  

You're the "moderate," after all.Hey! What a concept!

Listening to the Pope!

Quote
Think he would want you to vote for the "Pro-Choice" candidate?

As much as I respect the Pope, he is not qualified to direct the foreign policy of this nation.What a "reasoned," "moderate" response!

It is interesting that you doctored my post before quoting it and then wrote that response. Once again, you attempt to insult me rather than to support your assertions.

Not very convincing from the voice of moderation and reason.

How are we radicals ever to become enlightened? Interesting thing.
Quote

I think education is the key.  

Quote
You are not the first person with whom I have argued who has resorted to insults upon discovering themselves unable to answer my legitimate questions.

Now, either I really am as stupid as you say, or you were merely blowing smoke.

I find the latter conclusion more comforting than the former, so I'll go with it.

What "legitimate" questions?  

Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #74 on: May 05, 2004, 11:24:56 AM »

True, but I think we can all agree that there is a fundamental difference between catholic culture and protestant culture.  

That may have been true in the past. But now they look, act, and vote pretty much like liberal protestants to me.

Christianity isn't 'liberal' or 'conservative' or 'left/right of center.'  

I have tried to sit this one out, but you are just getting CRAZY here.

What???!!! How can you say that??!!! How can seriously evaluate traditional, Orthodox Christian teachings against the morals of todays world and NOT come to the conculsion that true Christianity (and by this I mean Orthodox and not the corrupted Christianity of the RCC) would be considered anything BUT "conservative"HuhHuh?

« Last Edit: May 05, 2004, 11:34:41 AM by Tom+ú » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2004, 11:47:05 AM »

I think Christianity transcends traditiona political labels, Tom.

On many issues, especially moral ones, traditional Christian teachings are incredibly conservative.  However, on others, entirely liberal.  For example, the Bible tells us that the Apostles had a "common purse" and implies a communal lifestyle.  Hardly "conservative" politically.

Die-hard conservatives of today would even call the Apostles, who were commissioned to go out and preach without a walking staff or food or extra clothes, as shifty loafers.  They didn't "work" for a living; they were, in effect, on welfare.  They walked through the fields and plucked grain from the stalks that Jewish law set aside for the poor: yet another form of welfare.

All I'm saying is that Christianity transcends ridiculous mundane politics; we are called to rise above it all and live for the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of Mammon.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2004, 11:58:29 AM »

On many issues, especially moral ones, traditional Christian teachings are incredibly conservative.  However, on others, entirely liberal.  For example, the Bible tells us that the Apostles had a "common purse" and implies a communal lifestyle.  Hardly "conservative" politically.

I don't think that you are entirely correct here. Conservatives support "social compassion", they just want to deliver it, and apply it, differently. And if I may say so, MORE in line with what occurred in the early Church.

"Conservatives" believe (at least the ones I have listened to), that it should be done at the local level through local and "faith based" organizations. The Apostles relied on the Church to house and feed them - not the Roman government.

This is why "Conservatives" are "spot on" when they want to move some types of the "social net" to local and faith based organizations.



« Last Edit: May 05, 2004, 12:03:03 PM by Tom+ú » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #77 on: May 05, 2004, 01:22:05 PM »

The Apostles relied on the Church to house and feed them - not the Roman government.

Maybe not the Roman government, but as I pointed out, Jewish law, which before the Romans constituted the "government", provided welfare for the poor.

From my own personal observations, the conservative ideal of charity and welfare being performed on a "local" level is just that...an ideal.  When it comes into practice, at the local level, its still decried as governmental intervention.  For every conservative who gives generously to charity, there's a liberal who does the same.  For every conservative who eschews charity, there's a liberal who does the same.

I don't think politics enter into it as much as people think they do.  It all boils down to one's deeply personal values.  Sure, political affiliation can affect that, but I know Democrats who are more conservative than Ronald Reagan on many issues and Republicans who are more liberal than Chariman LBJ on the same.  

I don't see something as earthly as politics having any bearing on Christianity.  We, as Christians, are called to rise above it, as I've said before and will continue to say.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 05, 2004, 01:32:34 PM »

I don't see something as earthly as politics having any bearing on Christianity.  We, as Christians, are called to rise above it, as I've said before and will continue to say.  

Good call, Schultz, though are you talking political party affiliations (i.e., straight-down-the-ticket Reps or Dems), or stances on certain issues that have become political?

It seems to me with the former, you'd be correct.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #79 on: May 05, 2004, 01:33:51 PM »

Whoops...never mind.

There I go again, not reading thoroughly enough....
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #80 on: May 05, 2004, 01:43:40 PM »

I think Christianity transcends traditiona political labels, Tom.

Exactly!  

That's why I find political labels so 'offensive.'  

In fact, I would argue that what we think of as 'conservatism' is essentially 'liberalism.'  Every american political philosophy developed from classical liberalism.  Democracy is 'liberal.'  

Quote
On many issues, especially moral ones, traditional Christian teachings are incredibly conservative.  However, on others, entirely liberal.  For example, the Bible tells us that the Apostles had a "common purse" and implies a communal lifestyle.  Hardly "conservative" politically.

But then there's issue as to why someone has conservative social beliefs.  The communists and the facists frowned on abortion.  Communist countries were more 'conservative' in terms of sexuality than 'conservative' countries like the US.  

Quote
Die-hard conservatives of today would even call the Apostles, who were commissioned to go out and preach without a walking staff or food or extra clothes, as shifty loafers.  They didn't "work" for a living; they were, in effect, on welfare.  They walked through the fields and plucked grain from the stalks that Jewish law set aside for the poor: yet another form of welfare.

I read a fascinating book a few years ago about the people who converted to Christianity in the early days.  I think that we like to imagine that we would be among the 'chosen few' but I doubt that we are counter-cultural enough to have converted to christianity.  

Quote
All I'm saying is that Christianity transcends ridiculous mundane politics; we are called to rise above it all and live for the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of Mammon.

People transcend "ridiculous mundane politics."  There is no "pure liberal" or "pure conservative."  Life is too messy and people are too complicated to fit into little political boxes.  
Logged
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #81 on: May 05, 2004, 01:50:40 PM »

Communists frowned on abortion? Women in Russia and Ukraine today have had more abortions than other country in the world. If communists or fascists ever did oppose it, then good for them. They are at least getting something right.
Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #82 on: May 05, 2004, 02:15:28 PM »

"Conservatives support "social compassion", they just want to deliver it, and apply it, differently. "

Can't say this as a general statement, I think.  It is true that *some* American conservatives think this way ... others are simply knee-jerk anti-government, anti-tax, and vote for political conservatives because they do better financially under them than they do under political liberals, using American categories.

"In fact, I would argue that what we think of as 'conservatism' is essentially 'liberalism.'  Every american political philosophy developed from classical liberalism.  Democracy is 'liberal.'"

This is an excellent point.  Europe, by contrast, has very weak "liberal" parties, but true conservative parties and true socialist parties.  Our Republican party is really a rightist version of liberalism and our democratic party is really a leftist version of liberal, but our republicans are not like Europe's conservatives and our democrats are not like Europe's socialist parties.  On the one hand, the ideological ground that separates our own political parties appears narrower than is the case in Europe.  On the other hand, however, the conservatives and socialists in Europe share a tremendous degree of common ground that seems to be disputed between American political ideologies ... both conservatives and socialists in Europe support a state structure that, even from the US democrat perspective, appears somewhat paternalistic.  It's strikingly different from the United States, really.  The conservatives in Europe are more likely to be "compassionate" conservatives than their American counterparts, in my own personal experience, and I think that this is because the somewhat"laissez-faire" approach of the right wing of classical liberalism hold remarkably little currency in Europe, even among political conservatives there, who see it as somewhat barbaric and unacceptably tolerant of substantial income disparities.  

Brendan

Logged

B
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #83 on: May 05, 2004, 02:35:57 PM »

Communists frowned on abortion? Women in Russia and Ukraine today have had more abortions than other country in the world. If communists or fascists ever did oppose it, then good for them. They are at least getting something right.

They opposed abortion because of eugenics.  In Nazi Germany, "good" German women couldn't get abortions but people of 'inferior' stock were forcibly sterilized (if not killed).  

The Communists didn't like abortion because they wanted to have a high birth rate.  In Romania no birth control or abortion coupled with an immoral communist state led to many many children being deposited in state run orphanages where they were exposed to aids.  

So being against abortion isn't good enough.  What matters is why you're against abortion.  Because if you're abortion for the 'wrong' reasons, i.e. eugenics, then you'll end up engaging in evil activities.  
Logged
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #84 on: May 05, 2004, 03:47:19 PM »

I'm not voting for either Kerry or Bush...  their both shadey...,
The choice comes down to
- Vote for someone pro-choice, but will likely improve the economy and not have any more pre-emptive strikes.
- Vote for someone pro-life, but the economy will not improve, war will continue & more American soldiers will die (not talking about how many Iraqis, Afgans, etc will die as well).  
Nah, I think I'm gonna chill out at home come Election Day.  Their both evil.

Ania, I totally agree with you on all points.  I am seriously tempted not to vote in this election, unless a good third party candidate decides to run.  This would be the first presidential election I have not voted in, but I seriously cannot bring myself to vote for either Kerry or Bush.
Logged
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #85 on: May 05, 2004, 04:20:05 PM »

If you don't vote, then you have no justification to complain.

I CAN AND WILL complain about the fact that the 2 candidates being paraded in front of us STINK TO HIGH HEAVEN.  
I am not not voting out of laziness, or ignorance, or anything like that.  I am not going to vote since I consider both cadidates very lousy.  
I support pro-life, but I also support (yes call me a tree hugger) environmental reforms. I am anti-war.  I am all for free public access to healthcare (if that requires higher taxes, so-be-it, at least I won't have to worry so much about breaking a bone or getting the flu).  I am anti-gay marriages. I'm against the death penalty.  I'm for better education system (lets face it, ours stinks).  Please tell me, who should I vote for?  Neither of the candidates inspire any sort of confidence.  I am not voting because I took an all around look at both Bush & Kerry, and liked neither.  
I long for a multi-party system, such as there are in Europe, as they seem much more democratic to me.
Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #86 on: May 05, 2004, 04:44:00 PM »

"I am not voting because I took an all around look at both Bush & Kerry, and liked neither."

This may be where I end up as well.

"I long for a multi-party system, such as there are in Europe, as they seem much more democratic to me."

Well, be careful.  Many of them are de facto two party systems with relatively powerless third parties.  Others have radical third parties (like Germany's Die Gruenen) who garner enough votes to get to play kingmaker in parliamentary elections, even though they are supported by relatively very small slice of the electorate, and I question how democratic that is.  Countries that have true muliparty systems, like Italy, really function badly.  It most often comes down to "conservative" (of whatever name) vs. "socialist" (of whatever name) with sometimes a third party playing kingmaker.  Plus virtually every European country follows a system whereby you do not really choose the candidate who is running in your district (who may often be someone with no ties to your district at all), the national party does, so you are in effect voting for a party rather than a person.

Brendan
Logged

B
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #87 on: May 05, 2004, 04:49:45 PM »

Quote
Plus virtually every European country follows a system whereby you do not really choose the candidate who is running in your district (who may often be someone with no ties to your district at all), the national party does, so you are in effect voting for a party rather than a person.


That sounds as screwed up as our present Electoral College system.  Remember, folks, the Electors do not have to follow the popular election at all whilst deciding for whom to cast their votes.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #88 on: May 05, 2004, 05:25:07 PM »

Ania, again you and I totally agree.
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 05, 2004, 06:16:34 PM »

Bogoliubtsy

Quote
Does one not become an accomplice in the moral evil of murder when one votes for a candidate who will hurl our country into pointless wars which will take tens of thousands of innocent lives?

etc, etc.

This is the p.o.v. I'm coming from when I look at your up coming election - yes, Bush is "pro life", but in the balance what does that mean?  While I may find Kerry's view of this topic abbhorent, what is the real cost of a Kerry Whitehouse as opposed to a Bush one?  Infants slain at home, or people of all shapes and sizes slain over seas (and more of less all of the same number of infants slain at home anyway)?

I'll give Bush credit, he has done some positive things (such as banning "partial birth abortion".)  That would never have happened in a Democratic Whitehouse.

Honestly, as time goes on, my confusion about just what is going on in the Middle-East, and how I feel about Bush's administration grows.  Grave misgivings mixed with admiration for some very positive things he has done (partial birth abortion ban, working to outlaw "gay marriage", etc.)  Bush is in some ways, a very lonely voice for "traditional" western values...on the other hand, I do not think his administration has dealt squarely with the American public, whether it be on the subject of Iraq and WMD's or just what happened on 9/11.

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 05, 2004, 06:27:33 PM »

Jennifer,

Quote
No it's not even remotely close enough.

Mmm..depends how you look at it.  Far be it from me to say much nice about the Antiochians (snicker), but the truth is (from my exposure to both Antiochians and Roman Catholicism) most Antiochian parishes are "more Catholic" in terms of their agreement with the "official" faith and morals of the RCC than most of the RC parishes I've been in.  And certainly, in terms of liturgy, they're "more Catholic than the Pope."

Quote
But I find it incredibly bizarre that an Orthodox Christian would be so 'supportive' of an ultimate expression of 'western' catholicism.

I find it bizarre that a RC would be so unsupportive of same "ultimate expressions." Smiley

Quote
I think it proves something that I've believed for some time, scratch an Orthodox convert and you'll find a western christian lurking underneath.  Sure he/she likes to play 'eastern.'  Icons are 'cool' and we all like to pretend we're unique.  But when it comes down to it, he/she's just as western as a Roman Catholic.

As the famous Sedevecantist Mel Gibson once put it in an interview he gave to Barbara Walters (years before The Passion was in production), he felt that the RC institution had let people down, that it had "broken a promise" that it had implicitly made with Roman Catholics.

I think for many westerners getting in touch with the "ancient church", the old RCC would have probably been their first option.  Unfortunately, save for various unapproved (in fact, much maligned) "schisms", that Catholicism is all but dead...and you can thank your own heirarchs for this, Popes included.

I know it's considered good form for "conservative" RC's to take shots at western converts to Orthodoxy...to claim that such conversions are nothing more than aesthetics, or the result of a fascination with all things oriental, etc.  The truth of the matter is something more basic - aside from the workings of grace, the bread and butter reality is that these people would have no other place to go.  Why on earth would anyone looking for something remotely resembling the ancient way, go into a Lutheranized "RC" parish?  To hear Sr.Sinbad go on about "Goddess spirituality" or hear Fr.Feelgood's homily on social justice and tolerance, his hand out for a heirarchy of homo-protectors (your collections in increasingly large part going towards paying legal settlements)?

Quote
Which of course raises an interesting question, can Orthodoxy survive in the west?  I'm not optimistic.

While (apart from a miracle) I do not see Orthodoxy being something "big" in the west any time soon, my real "concern" is for the institutional RCC as we currently know it - whether or not it will have a future beyond the next generation.  THAT, all things considered, is seeming increasingly less likely.

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 05, 2004, 06:34:06 PM »

Jennifer,

Quote
BTW, Nacho you are essentially a protestant.  You have not jettisoned your protestant background.  You still don't understand what it means to be a catholic.  It's not something that can be learned from a website or from reading a book.  It's something that comes about through living a catholic life in a catholic community.

Well if experience makes one an authority, I suppose that makes me something of one.

My "experience" of living a "catholic life" in a "catholic community" was one of growth - growth from simple unease, to a horrifying conflict of conscience.  No matter how "bad" the Orthodox parish I've been in, I've never seen anything resembling the mockery of God and Christianity that I'd experienced in several RC parishes...nor the level of ambivilence to such outrages (which you'll inevitably find in the RC heirarchy should you throw up a fuss about such sacrelige.)

You must be wondering why I'm bothering to reply to your posts to Nacho - simply put, I'm replying because I find them nauseating and incredibly "pollyanna" given the reality of the RCC.  Nacho the "protestant Antiochian" is worlds closer to the Roman Catholicism your immediate ancestors lived (before the Vatican II debaucle) than what you see in 99 % of the parishes which constitute the so called "Catholic Church."

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 05, 2004, 06:37:54 PM »

Jennifer,

Quote
And people like Nacho definitely substantiate my fears about western converts to Orthodoxy.  He's obviously a frustrated Roman Catholic.  I guess Orthodoxy was more 'exotic' or he maybe he got turned off by a whacko RC priest, but it's obvious that he thinks like a western christian.

Really?  Since you're such an authority, perhaps you can tell us all precisely how an eastern Christian thinks?  Give us that crucial differntiation, and point out just where it is (based upon your incredible first hand experience of such things, of course) we western converts are falling short?

Of course, the distinctions you're making are imbecillic - there is ultimatly no "western" or "eastern" distinction to be had that is any more important than the one would make between a "Greek" or an "Arab" or a "Russian", etc.  While our respective cultures cannot help but dispose us to certain manners of expression, what ultimatly matters is the truth.  It is this, which unites all Orthodox - it is this which also once united the western Latin Orthodox believers to their brethren abroad.  It is now what unites occidental converts to Orthodoxy in the modern day.

Seraphim
« Last Edit: May 05, 2004, 06:38:52 PM by Seraphim Reeves » Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 05, 2004, 07:02:16 PM »

Jennifer,

Quote
But as a western christian with a western patrimony why should you be forced to embrace a 'foreign' patrimony?  If western christianity wasn't in such trouble there would no need for western christians to embrace eastern christianity.

Who said anything about a 'foreign' patrimony?  St.Ireneos, St.Ambrose, St.Vincent of Lerins, St.John Cassian, St.Gregory the Great...they're all still mine.  If anything, they are more so, since I now hold the same faith as they - and not a system of beliefs containing leaven they would have been totally unfamiliar with (papal infallibility, indulgences, etc.)

I think it is fair to say that the break down of Roman Catholicism over the last fourty years has been the worldly, human means for a lot of contemporary conversions to Orthodoxy - I would also say the communist revolutions and other old world waves of migration to the west also contributed (on a human, material level) to this phenomenon.  I would argue, however, that ultimatly these rather human considerations, became instruments of grace - they have re-introduced to the western man that which was once his.  It may not have been the faith of my grandfather, but it certainly was the faith of my ancestors a little further down the line (at least of the Spaniards and Celts in my ancestory.)

Quote
I understand how western christians can feel 'drawn' to eastern spirituality.  But western christians are also 'drawn' to hinduism and all other kinds of 'exotic' things.

I've yet to meet anyone this superficial who has gone over from some western confession to Orthodoxy.  That's not to say that it doesn't exist - but it certainly is something outside of my own experience, and that of people I've had the privilege of coming to know.

Quote
 I think that many Orthodox converts will struggle throughout their lives with the 'patrimony' issue and may never feel at home being 'eastern' which is understandable given that they're not 'eastern.'

I'd feel better if you'd start simply speaking for yourself, or at the very least, speak about those personal issues of others which you are actually familiar with.

I think you're making too much of the "eastern"/"western" thing.  Ultimatly, we're all human beings, with the same basic problems, and the same basic questions facing us.

Quote
This fundamental 'problem' is what makes me suspect that the convert phenomenon won't last.  How can 'confused' people pass eastern patrimony onto their children?

You might want to ask second and third generation western "convert" families this.

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #94 on: May 05, 2004, 07:05:22 PM »

Schultz,

Here you are a man speaking for my own heart - I am very much a "social conservative" and equally a "fiscal liberal."  Figures I have no one to vote for, here in wild and whacky Canada (though I suppose the situation would be little different if I lived in the U.S.)

Seraphim
Logged

Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 05, 2004, 07:09:05 PM »

Seraphim

I think much like you politically. I think we are basically reverse libertarians. In political science class this position was defined as "populist."

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #96 on: May 05, 2004, 07:15:56 PM »

Jennifer,

Quote
They opposed abortion because of eugenics.  In Nazi Germany, "good" German women couldn't get abortions but people of 'inferior' stock were forcibly sterilized (if not killed).  

The Communists didn't like abortion because they wanted to have a high birth rate.  In Romania no birth control or abortion coupled with an immoral communist state led to many many children being deposited in state run orphanages where they were exposed to aids.

While for our own moral/spiritual hygeine it does matter why we do things - the truth is an objectively good deed, is an objectively good deed.  Quite frankly, a child saved from death via abortion is hardly going to care whether it was because of the edict of a saintly king, or the pragmatism of a commie boss.

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 05, 2004, 07:19:52 PM »

Anastasios,

Quote
I think much like you politically. I think we are basically reverse libertarians. In political science class this position was defined as "populist."

Well I've heard conflicting definitions of just what a "populist" is, so I'm not sure.

In times past, the greatness of a king was determined in large part by how deep he was willing to dip into the royal treasury to aid the least of his brethren, while standing up for the rights of the Church.  Transfer that way of thinking to a parliamentary democracy, and you pretty much have my idea of what "good government" would consist of (at least here in Canada.)  Suffice it to say, I'm still waiting.

Seraphim
Logged

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,945


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #98 on: May 05, 2004, 07:42:11 PM »

True, but I think we can all agree that there is a fundamental difference between catholic culture and protestant culture.  I disagree with Zollars in his contention that there is a fundamental difference between southern and northern culture.  


How can I know what that fundamental difference is?  Regarding my original questions on "catholicism", you wrote:

Quote
It's not something that can be defined precisely.  But we know it when we see it and we know what isn't it.

How do I know that there really is a fundamental difference between "catholic culture" and "protestant culture" if I don't know what "catholic culture" is to you?  Speaking personally, I can see a few trends here and there, but nothing substantive with which I would be able to define "catholic culture".  "Knowing it when you see it" is not good enough.  People think they know a lot of things when they see it, but they aren't always right.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #99 on: May 05, 2004, 09:09:57 PM »

Linus tries to put me in the "liberal" box and Seraphim tries to put me in the "conservative Catholic" box.  It's the same kind of labeling and equally silly.

Mor, "knowing it when you see it" is good enough.  We know catholicism more in what it isn't than in what it is.  In all its variants (and using the term "culture" is probably misleading), catholicism differs from protestantism in terms of recognition of authority.  

"Authority" is walking a tight rope so it's hard to identify but it's easier to identify the lack of authority.  

But of course it's more than authority to people.  The conservative catholics are 'obedient' to the current leadership in the Church but not strictly to the history of the Church.  
Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #100 on: May 05, 2004, 10:38:25 PM »

Jennifer, you could do us all a favor & not vote for Kerry who will be bent on stacking the court with pro abortion secularist judicial nominees. Anyways, as I have posted from reputable Catholic websites, to be a "faithful" Catholic you are not permitted to vote for any candidate that is pro abortion. Since I know you going to come up with some lame excuse on why I'm wrong or those sites have it wrong, here's another great source straight from the Bishops themselves.

It's called "Living the gospel of Life: A challenge to American Catholics."

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/gospel.htm

Jennifer, the Bishops of your own church in this statement want you to support a "gospel of life." Voting for Kerry & the democrat machine is quite contrary to this. The Vatican also wants you to hate what God hates, & God hates the blood shed of the innocent.



 
Quote
Linus tries to put me in the "liberal" box and Seraphim tries to put me in the "conservative Catholic" box.  It's the same kind of labeling and equally silly.

What's even more silly are the labels you are slapping on people & disregard the "content" of thier arguements to suite you own agenda of skirting your "moral" duty to honor your faith when it comes to the issue at hand. The whole your just a cunfused convert who is really, "catholic, or "western catholic", or "protestant", or a "confused Roman Catholic" doesn't really wash here & people see right through it.

Your "freedom of conscience" you have also brought up before also don't wash here. If anything, this makes you sound very "western", or "protestant" because the only Catholics that use that arguement are ones that are in direct conflict with the Pope & the magesterium. So, it looks like you are the "protestant" here, not me. Wink  I also find it humurous because I agree with ALL the teachings of Holy Orthodoxy as being true.  You, on the other hand are obviously conflicted with your church's teachings.

You also didn't address the questions I posted from EWTN on a Catholic's voting responsibility. I'm interested in what you have to say about the last question:

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

---It says here that voting for a pro abortion candidate is to become a accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. You are also in mortal sin if you do. By th way, I have been consistant in my views in NEVER voting for pro abortion candidates. Any thoughts on this Jen?Huh?
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #101 on: May 05, 2004, 11:08:33 PM »

Jennifer...perhaps you can tell us all precisely how an eastern Christian thinks?...there is ultimatly no "western" or "eastern" distinction to be had...what ultimatly matters is the truth.

Thank you, Seraphim!!  This is one thing I am sick of hearing -- that the convert boom within Orthodoxy in general (I'm in the OCA, and have heard some at the Cathedral -- cradle and convert! -- grumble about this) is this grave threat to Orthodoxy because we, as western thinkers, just don't, as Jennifer has said, get "it", whatever "it" is.  This "it," however, which apparantly comes from rejecting all things labeled Western (which ranges from support for the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate to asking analytical questions about the Faith) is the key to becoming "Truly Orthodox."  What no one seems to be able to tell me is when or how I would achieve this hesychistic (sp?), apophatic "Nirvanna."

Guess I'm doomed to a lifetime of western thinking with an eastern faux finish.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #102 on: May 05, 2004, 11:16:59 PM »

Jennifer, the Bishops of your own church in this statement want you to support a "gospel of life"...The Vatican also wants you to hate what God hates, & God hates the blood shed of the innocent. "

Nacho -- is God a one-issue candidate??  Does God's hatred for abortion overshadow, say, the unprovoked invasion of a country, many of whose innocent[/i] citizens will die due to the shortsightedness of a man you say will foster a "gospel of life"?!?

Does His hatred of abortion overshadow this same man's abuse of the death penalty??

Why is this issue, though it may be obvious which side the Church should be on, the one that "trumps" everything else?
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #103 on: May 05, 2004, 11:23:21 PM »

Pedro,

I'd say yes, because of the gravity of abortion, it outweighs every other consideration. 1.4 million deaths in the US alone each year is a heck of a lot more than have died in Iraq or from the death penalty.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #104 on: May 05, 2004, 11:26:13 PM »

Jennifer, you could do us all a favor & not vote for Kerry who will be bent on stacking the court with pro abortion secularist judicial nominees. Anyways, as I have posted from reputable Catholic websites, to be a "faithful" Catholic you are not permitted to vote for any candidate that is pro abortion. Since I know you going to come up with some lame excuse on why I'm wrong or those sites have it wrong, here's another great source straight from the Bishops themselves.

I've discussed this with my confessor.  

Quote
It's called "Living the gospel of Life: A challenge to American Catholics."

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/gospel.htm

Jennifer, the Bishops of your own church in this statement want you to support a "gospel of life." Voting for Kerry & the democrat machine is quite contrary to this. The Vatican also wants you to hate what God hates, & God hates the blood shed of the innocent.



 What's even more silly are the labels you are slapping on people & disregard the "content" of thier arguements to suite you own agenda of skirting your "moral" duty to honor your faith when it comes to the issue at hand. The whole your just a cunfused convert who is really, "catholic, or "western catholic", or "protestant", or a "confused Roman Catholic" doesn't really wash here & people see right through it.



Your "freedom of conscience" you have also brought up before also don't wash here. If anything, this makes you sound very "western", or "protestant" because the only Catholics that use that arguement are ones that are in direct conflict with the Pope & the magesterium. So, it looks like you are the "protestant" here, not me. Wink  I also find it humurous because I agree with ALL the teachings of Holy Orthodoxy as being true.  You, on the other hand are obviously conflicted with your church's teachings.

Of course I sound "western" because I am "western."  I've never advanced a "freedom of conscience" argument.  As a Catholic, I don't believe in a "freedom of conscience" in the typical understanding of the phrase.  I believe that as practicing Catholic I have a moral obligation to advance 'morality' but that does not mean that I'm required to be a "single issue" voter.  There are other issues that are just as important as abortion because they are also life issue.  Unfortunately we don't have any candidate who is 100% in compliance with the Church's teachings so we are left with a 'lesser of 2 evils' decision and I've discussed this with my confessor who supports my choice.  

Discussing these things with your confessor is what it means to be a catholic.  Like I've said before, we don't turn on the tv for spiritual guidance.  We don't read the Bible and get 'insight' outside of the Church.  We struggle to figure out the truth and turn to the legitimate authority of the Church as manifested in our confessor.  Those voter guides you've mentioned are helpful but are the product of a 'protestantization' of the Catholic Church.    

Quote
You also didn't address the questions I posted from EWTN on a Catholic's voting responsibility. I'm interested in what you have to say about the last question:

14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.

---It says here that voting for a pro abortion candidate is to become a accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. You are also in mortal sin if you do. By th way, I have been consistant in my views in NEVER voting for pro abortion candidates. Any thoughts on this Jen?Huh?

I trust my confessor over EWTN.  EWTN is not the Catholic Church.  BTW, my confessor is hardly a 'liberal' which I'm sure you're ready to accuse him of being.  He's very traditional except he thinks the Mass should be in the vernacular.
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #105 on: May 05, 2004, 11:35:59 PM »

Thank you, Seraphim!!  This is one thing I am sick of hearing -- that the convert boom within Orthodoxy in general (I'm in the OCA, and have heard some at the Cathedral -- cradle and convert! -- grumble about this) is this grave threat to Orthodoxy because we, as western thinkers, just don't, as Jennifer has said, get "it", whatever "it" is.  This "it," however, which apparantly comes from rejecting all things labeled Western (which ranges from support for the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate to asking analytical questions about the Faith) is the key to becoming "Truly Orthodox."  What no one seems to be able to tell me is when or how I would achieve this hesychistic (sp?), apophatic "Nirvanna."

Guess I'm doomed to a lifetime of western thinking with an eastern faux finish.

Why do you say "doomed" to a lifetime of western thinking?  That's hardly qualifies as "doom."  You're from the west.  You're the product of a culture that is just as venerable and just as catholic as the 'eastern' culture.  The idea that you are "doomed" by being who you are is tinged with ethnocentricism.  

It's true that the west has squandered her cultural heritage.  The Roman Catholic Church is the 'repository' and guard of western culture and unfortunately the official RC has been asleep at the wheel.  

My question to you is why do you need to reject your native culture in order to be orthodox?  I'd disagree with those who say the support for Western Orthodoxy is 'western.'  I'd say Orthodoxy should support western Orthodoxy.  Western Orthodoxy IMHO is a much better 'fit' for western converts than Eastern Orthodoxy.  I think that western Christians can be truly Orthodox and still be western.  

But if they're not western Orthodoxy then there's a falseness, a striving to be something that they're not.  Unfortunately given the state of western Christianity, some have no choice but to take that path in order to be catholic.  

IMHO the ideal would be for there to be a legitimate western catholic alternative.  
Logged
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #106 on: May 05, 2004, 11:46:47 PM »

Nacho -- is God a one-issue candidate??  Does God's hatred for abortion overshadow, say, the unprovoked invasion of a country, many of whose innocent[/i] citizens will die due to the shortsightedness of a man you say will foster a "gospel of life"?!?

Does His hatred of abortion overshadow this same man's abuse of the death penalty??

Why is this issue, though it may be obvious which side the Church should be on, the one that "trumps" everything else?

We have a real delimma.  We're faced with two anti-life candidates.  Neither is acceptable from a moral standpoint.  

Choosing not to vote at all is probably the 'pure' moral choice.  However, that means the withdrawal from the political process alltogether and we're called to be part of society.  

I'd also ask how we know his "hatred of abortion" equates to an attempt to get rid of abortion?  I suggest that he's done nothing to stop abortion so a vote for him is not a vote against abortion.  

I think some 'purists' want catholics to withdraw from society because it's too 'tainted' but how can we 'transform' society if we're not a part of it?  Good things can come from our being part of the process.  The council of Catholic Bishops, for example, has been key in getting some very good legislation passed.  Take the family leave act, for example.  Is the FLMA act 'pro-life?'  Or support for organized labor.  

Being pro-life is more than being anti-abortion.  And if we remove ourselves from the process because it's too 'impure' and will 'taint' us then we can't assert that fact.  
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 05, 2004, 11:58:23 PM »

I'd say yes, because of the gravity of abortion, it outweighs every other consideration. 1.4 million deaths in the US alone each year is a heck of a lot more than have died in Iraq or from the death penalty.

So the idea, to your way of thinking, is to go with the lesser of two "evil" candidates to repeal the "greater evil?"

I see your point, but the reality of the situation seems to be this: the "planets are aligned," if you will, to bring about an immediate change in our policy of international relations and pre-emptive war.  A vote for Bush, as Jennifer has said, would definitely hinder this, while not necessarily guaranteeing (sp?) a repeal of abortion.

I would say we need to play our cards in the most advantageous way possible overall -- not put all our chips on one number.

That having been said, I can't justify voting for Kerry.  Please don't think I don't see abortion is irrelevant or secondary; it's why I can't vote for him, either.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #108 on: May 06, 2004, 12:02:06 AM »

Pedro,

I was not and am not opposed to the war in Iraq anyway, so the question for me is moot.  But generally, I would vote the lesser of two evils.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 06, 2004, 12:05:07 AM »

The idea that you are "doomed" by being who you are is tinged with ethnocentricism.  

This was sarcasm; sorry.  I don't feel doomed at all.  I see no problem with being a western thinker in Orthodoxy.  It's others I've gotten this "vibe" from.

Quote
It's true that the west has squandered her cultural heritage.

Examples?

Quote
My question to you is why do you need to reject your native culture in order to be orthodox?

You don't.  Neither do I.  And neither does anyone at St. Peter's (WR Parish) here in Ft. Worth or at my ER home, St. Barbara's.  I agree with you that the WR would seem to be a better fit for many people...the big hurdle would be truly embracing the doctrinal differences, since so much would still seem the same in terms of rite.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #110 on: May 06, 2004, 12:47:10 AM »

Quote
I've discussed this with my confessor.
Let's hope he gave you the right direction in line with church teaching.


Quote
Discussing these things with your confessor is what it means to be a catholic.  Like I've said before, we don't turn on the tv for spiritual guidance.  We don't read the Bible and get 'insight' outside of the Church.  We struggle to figure out the truth and turn to the legitimate authority of the Church as manifested in our confessor.  Those voter guides you've mentioned are helpful but are the product of a 'protestantization' of the Catholic Church.    

I'm sorry, but that is one of many things that makes you  Catholic. I also hope your spiritual advisor has enough wisdom in him to tell you that abortion is "instrically" evil & that supporting such politicians that promote it is risking seperation from God. I would never vote for any politician that supports the continued genocide of the innocent for fear of being in grave sin.  By the way, the Catholic Voters Guidlines was put togethor by the staff apologists for Catholic Answers who happen to also be Priest. Your claim that they are a "protestantization" is just another lame attempt to skirt your duties as a Catholic. It also doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Anything that disagrees with Jen must be a "protestantization." It's also laughable that calling something that comes from a reputable well known website such as Catholic.com a "protestantization." Could you please move beyond the labels & please explain why it is a "protestantization."Huh??

For you benefit, I'll post the 5 main points from the Catholic Voters Guidlines & tell me which are a protestantization??

You can't vote for any candidate that violates any of these 5  evils:

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"

Kerry violates 4 out of 5 points.
Bush doesn't violate any of these. You keep telling us you aren't a one issue voter. Well, here's 4 good reasons to vote against Kerry & 5 good reasons to vote for Bush.

So Jen, please explain how these points are not in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church???


Quote
My question to you is why do you need to reject your native culture in order to be orthodox?  I'd disagree with those who say the support for Western Orthodoxy is 'western.'  I'd say Orthodoxy should support western Orthodoxy.  Western Orthodoxy IMHO is a much better 'fit' for western converts than Eastern Orthodoxy.  I think that western Christians can be truly Orthodox and still be western.

This sounds very "protestant." So your saying we can't have both?? Why can't people just simply add to their faith?? I don't think I need to reject the good things of "western" culture to be a good Orthodox christian.  

Quote
I was not and am not opposed to the war in Iraq anyway, so the question for me is moot.  But generally, I would vote the lesser of two evils.

I think along these same lines. I mean come on, what's the UN good for if Iraq was going to continue to break their resolutions. After 17 broken resolutions in a span of 12 years I think we had the justification to go in. It's not like Bush was acting with a gross misuse of his power like Clinton did with going into Serbia without a UN resolution to support the war. Bush gave Sadam 1 full year & numerous warnings on our intentions & he blew it. Sorry, but the blame Bush crowd is wanning with "facts" on this one.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #111 on: May 06, 2004, 06:40:57 AM »

Let's hope he gave you the right direction in line with church teaching.I'm sorry, but that is one of many things that makes you  Catholic. I also hope your spiritual advisor has enough wisdom in him to tell you that abortion is "instrically" evil & that supporting such politicians that promote it is risking seperation from God. I would never vote for any politician that supports the continued genocide of the innocent for fear of being in grave sin.  By the way, the Catholic Voters Guidlines was put togethor by the staff apologists for Catholic Answers who happen to also be Priest. Your claim that they are a "protestantization" is just another lame attempt to skirt your duties as a Catholic. It also doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Anything that disagrees with Jen must be a "protestantization." It's also laughable that calling something that comes from a reputable well known website such as Catholic.com a "protestantization." Could you please move beyond the labels & please explain why it is a "protestantization."Huh??

The confessional relationship is different than writing things and dispersing them.  

Quote
For you benefit, I'll post the 5 main points from the Catholic Voters Guidlines & tell me which are a protestantization??

You can't vote for any candidate that violates any of these 5  evils:

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"

Kerry violates 4 out of 5 points.
Bush doesn't violate any of these. You keep telling us you aren't a one issue voter. Well, here's 4 good reasons to vote against Kerry & 5 good reasons to vote for Bush.

So Jen, please explain how these points are not in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church??? This sounds very "protestant." So your saying we can't have both?? Why can't people just simply add to their faith?? I don't think I need to reject the good things of "western" culture to be a good Orthodox christian.  I think along these same lines. I mean come on, what's the UN good for if Iraq was going to continue to break their resolutions. After 17 broken resolutions in a span of 12 years I think we had the justification to go in. It's not like Bush was acting with a gross misuse of his power like Clinton did with going into Serbia without a UN resolution to support the war. Bush gave Sadam 1 full year & numerous warnings on our intentions & he blew it. Sorry, but the blame Bush crowd is wanning with "facts" on this one.

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #112 on: May 06, 2004, 07:20:47 AM »


For you benefit, I'll post the 5 main points from the Catholic Voters Guidlines & tell me which are a protestantization??

You can't vote for any candidate that violates any of these 5  evils:

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"

Well, for your benefit I'll post a link to the web page of the USCCB saying how they can't actually post such a "guide".

This is a stupid rationale for voting anyway. If you cannot vote without taking repsonsibility for every sinful attitude of the candidate, then you can't vote without sinning.
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 06, 2004, 08:32:48 AM »

It's not like Bush was acting with a gross misuse of his power like Clinton did with going into Serbia without a UN resolution to support the war. Bush gave Sadam 1 full year & numerous warnings on our intentions & he blew it. Sorry, but the blame Bush crowd is wanning with "facts" on this one.

Bush's real ultimatum - disarm, or we will invade - came in late Feb, 2003, along with a deadline to meet the ultimatum...less than a month.  Can't very well disarm completely in a month.

And I don't think Clinton was justified going over to Serbia w/out a UN resolution, either.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #114 on: May 06, 2004, 09:21:19 AM »

This morning Governor McGreevy of New Jersey stated that because of his pro-choice stance he will not receive Holy Communion publicly.  My question is: will he be allowed to receive privately?   At least he has the good sense to admit it.

JoeS  Cool
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #115 on: May 06, 2004, 09:24:00 AM »

At least he has the good sense to admit it.

And the integrity.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #116 on: May 06, 2004, 10:00:16 AM »

"Bush's real ultimatum - disarm, or we will invade - came in late Feb, 2003, along with a deadline to meet the ultimatum...less than a month.  Can't very well disarm completely in a month."

The reality is that they had decided to invade well before the inspections even began.  The only reason they went to the UN to begin with was because Blair told Bush that the UK could not join the USA in the war unless we had gone to the UN first.  Therefore the whole UN thing and the ultimatum relating to inspections was a canard, at best window dressing for a decision that the US administration had already made.  In fact, the adminsitration pressed for a wording of the UN resolution that would give them cover to invade Iraq no matter what the Iraqis disclosed and what the weapons inspectors discovered.  This is also one reason why the US didn't let the inspections play out fully before invading ... because they were going to invade anyway and the military advised that the latest they could invade under the plan they had developed was March.  And even March was "pushing it" because of ths sandstorm season (and we can remember how that actually ended up being a factor in the invasion because they waited until March).  But in any case the reality is that the UN process and the inspections were a sideshow ... the administration had already planned to invade Iraq long before it decided to go to the UN, and had also basically decided that it would do what it wanted in Iraq regardless of the UN process, even before that process played itself out.  So the war in Iraq had basically nothing to do with the inspections at all.

I can highly recommend for people to read Woodward's book if they want to understand how we came to this war, in reality.

Brendan
Logged

B
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,962


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #117 on: May 06, 2004, 10:24:40 AM »

"Abortion was a big issue in the recent PA primary where Spector (the supposed liberal) won.  If 90% of republicans are pro-life as you claim, then how could Spector win his party's nomination?"

The vote was extremely close 51% to 49%. I don't claim to know how many Republican ,or Democrats for that matter, are pro-life.  Specter won the nomination because unfortunately many people who are pro-life do not take  a stand and vote soley based on this issue as they should.  Instead they look at the fact that Specter is an influential senior senator that is on many important committees and feel this is more improtant than his stance on abortion.  This is why President Bush and Senator Santorum endorsed him and he won the nomination.  

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #118 on: May 06, 2004, 10:45:06 AM »

Quote
Jennifer:
Linus tries to put me in the "liberal" box and Seraphim tries to put me in the "conservative Catholic" box.  It's the same kind of labeling and equally silly.

Honestly, I don't think about you that much, Jennifer.

I read your posts, however.

They build your "box" if there is one.

When I walk by a house that someone has painted yellow, I look at it and think, "Yellow house."

There is a similar sort of process involved in identifying what sort of person posts the things you do.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #119 on: May 06, 2004, 10:49:07 AM »

Jennifer, Jennifer...

Quote
Why do you say "doomed" to a lifetime of western thinking?  That's hardly qualifies as "doom."  You're from the west.  You're the product of a culture that is just as venerable and just as catholic as the 'eastern' culture.  The idea that you are "doomed" by being who you are is tinged with ethnocentricism.

...

My question to you is why do you need to reject your native culture in order to be orthodox?  I'd disagree with those who say the support for Western Orthodoxy is 'western.'  I'd say Orthodoxy should support western Orthodoxy.  Western Orthodoxy IMHO is a much better 'fit' for western converts than Eastern Orthodoxy.  I think that western Christians can be truly Orthodox and still be western.

I'm still waiting on just what this profound difference is, between the "western" vs. the "eastern" mind.  I'm not saying there are not cultural differences between a Frenchman and a Serb...but then again, there are differences between a Serb and a Greek!  I'm awaiting enlightenment, since you keep throwing this up, but have yet to offer the slightest reason why we should accept that this profound difference exists, and that it has any bearing upon the apostolate of the Orthodox Church in western lands.

Let us crawl into a time machine, and go to say, Gaul, sometime in the 7th century.  What would I find?

Why, I'd find Priests, clueless that the Patriarch of Rome was infallible.  I'd also find men not at all convinced that the philosophers of the "classical" world are for all purposes the equals to the Apostles.  If I walked into one of their Churches, I'd be less likely to find opulent staturary, and more likely to see "two-dimensional", indeed rather "iconographic" portrayals adorning their Temple.  Why, I might even be surprised to find a "rood screen", which looked errily like a less ornate version of the "iconostasis" found in East-Roman (aka "Byzantine") practice.  I'd also find a fast cycle which in terms of rigor and season, was practically the same used in the East Roman Empire (and still practiced in Holy Orthodoxy to this day).  Even more secondary/tertiary liturgical matters would be similar (such as the clergy growing beards in imitation of Christ and the Prophets.)

This is ultimatly not an "East-West" issue.  While it is true that current "Byzantine" liturgical usage is not identical to what many western Christians knew before the schism, it is actually quite similar, particularly if you're talking about the Gallican liturgies which were diffused throughout much of western Europe.  In many respects, it's far more similar even to ancient Latin usages in Rome than the Tridentine Missal is (keep in mind that in Rome, liturgies were attended standing, the bread used in the liturgy was leavened, communion given under both species, etc).  Certainly the similarity is greater between the two, and say, what now passes for "Mass" in Latin parishes.

What you are perhaps calling "western", are in many respects the very things which began to transform western Christendom into something "the East" could no longer recognize.  The Islamically distilled, Latin filtered Aristotelianism which took hold of the medieval west...perversions of praxis, or fasting.  In everything, even the smallest things, what you have is Rome changing it's spots and moving away from the other local Churches.  If this is what you mean by "being western", than I suppose someone converting to Orthodoxy does have to abandon these things - in much the same way someone converting to Orthodoxy in the Middle East must "abandon things from his past" if one wants to make "Islam" synonymous with "being an Arab."  If that be so, then it is not a bad thing at all, but necessary.  We are all being called out of this world, in so far as it's made war against the truth.

Seraphim
Logged

Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #120 on: May 06, 2004, 10:50:48 AM »

Quote
Keble: This is a stupid rationale for voting anyway. If you cannot vote without taking repsonsibility for every sinful attitude of the candidate, then you can't vote without sinning.

The things Nacho posted are very real moral, social, and political issues.

The wrong positions on them are not merely "sinful attitudes."

No one is talking about taking responsibility for every possible sinful attitude a candidate may have.

We are talking about refusing to vote for those who advocate positions on these important issues with which we cannot agree and which, in fact, we believe are evil.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 10:54:29 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #121 on: May 06, 2004, 11:20:27 AM »

For me (and I know, I will get flogged for this), at the moment the war in Iraq is a more important issue for me than abortion.  <<everyone gasps in horror, and whispers "Unclean! Unclean">>  Why?  Rather simple actually.  
Abortions, wether legally or illegally will be preformed, both alone by the mother & with assistance.  If they got illegal, well, people are gonna do them anyway, just as they've done for more than 2000 years (from herbal miscarriage inducers to coathangers, take your pick).  Though I consider abortion a great sin, it is done of the sinner's free will.  
War on the other hand, we have no will in at all.  For example, despite my being against the war, my tax dollars aren't going to issues important to me, such as education, environment, etc.  No, they are going to finance a war I protested against.  The money I send the government out of every paycheck I get is being used for bombs & bullets that are killing innocent & guilty alike.  It's sending my own former classmates, friends, peers, & neighbors to a country far away from their families where they might die.  It's being spent so that, at the moment, we're probably one of the least favorite nationalities in the world.  It's being spent so the government can cover up & lie straight to our faces about a war they claimed completely justified.  
Once again, I am against abortion, & that is why I'm not voting at all... I can not in good consience vote for either Kerry or Bush.
Ok... that's about it...  
Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #122 on: May 06, 2004, 11:22:57 AM »

In everything, even the smallest things, what you have is Rome changing it's spots and moving away from the other local Churches.  If this is what you mean by "being western", than I suppose someone converting to Orthodoxy does have to abandon these things - in much the same way someone converting to Orthodoxy in the Middle East must "abandon things from his past" if one wants to make "Islam" synonymous with "being an Arab."  If that be so, then it is not a bad thing at all, but necessary.  We are all being called out of this world, in so far as it's made war against the truth.

I agree, Seraphim.  Any relinquishing of one's past must be done because it is WRONG, not merely because it is DIFFERENT.

Excellent post.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #123 on: May 06, 2004, 11:26:06 AM »

We are talking about refusing to vote for those who advocate positions on these important issues with which we cannot agree and which, in fact, we believe are evil.

And if we believe the war on Iraq to be morally reprehensible, what then?

Quote
Though I consider abortion a great sin, it is done of the sinner's free will.  War on the other hand, we have no will in at all.

Good call, ania.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #124 on: May 06, 2004, 01:08:54 PM »

The things Nacho posted are very real moral, social, and political issues.

And so are war, corruption, and so forth. In fact, more so. You are making distinctions that simply do not stand up to any sort of criticism.

The president of the USA is very narrowly proscribed in his ability to act on your litmus test issues. Three years of Bush have made no appreciable dent in any of them. But war: well, that certainly is his. Tax policy: ditto. Corruption: it would fall to him as well.

My bold prediction: Kerry's election would have no effect whatsover on the abortion landscape. He couldn't have an effect on homosexual "marriage" because the states regulate that.  On the other issues, the real issues, he could make a great difference. Those are the issues I see a point in voting by, because after all, the point to having elections is to have one's will counted in what happens. If you're willing to live with all the other fallout of voting only according to abortion and such, then it's on your head. You don't get to pick one issue of sin and dismiss all the others. And at the moment I feel like interpreting not voting as meaning, "I don't care how it comes out."
Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #125 on: May 06, 2004, 01:17:18 PM »

"And at the moment I feel like interpreting not voting as meaning, "I don't care how it comes out.""

That is pretty much where I am at, so that is a fair interpretation.  I do not support Kerry on numerous issues, even though I may think he has a better idea about Iraq.  I cannot reward the Bush admin for the current debacle in Iraq, so I can't vote for him either.  So, as between these two, I really don't care which one wins, because no matter what happens we are looking at a poor chief executive from 2005-2008.

Brendan
Logged

B
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #126 on: May 06, 2004, 01:34:39 PM »

Quote
So, as between these two, I really don't care which one wins, because no matter what happens we are looking at a poor chief executive from 2005-2008.

Reminds me of my younger, more impressionable days when as a budding armchair anarchist, one of my favorite lines was, "Whoever you vote for, government wins!".  :-P

I seriously don't know who I'm voting for yet.  Chances are it won't be Bush or Kerry.  I can't in good conscience not vote at all.  

Maybe I'll write in Vladyka Roberto. Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #127 on: May 06, 2004, 01:35:50 PM »

It's being spent so the government can cover up & lie straight to our faces about a war they claimed completely justified.  

Ania, are you an evil doer? I think you need to be brought to justice. Better barricade that foxhole, cause we're going to smoke you out.  Smiley
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,768


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #128 on: May 06, 2004, 01:59:08 PM »

Well put, ania, except I still say outlaw abortion because even though it's always been done as you say, it's a kind of murder, and even though other kinds of murders always have been committed, there are still laws against them. So it should be with medically unnecessary abortions - again.

Well put, too, Keble and Jennifer.

Of course Mr Schwarzenegger functionally is an excommunicate if he's proabortion, just like Messrs Davis or Kerry.

John Kerry isn't running for Roman Catholic Layman of the Year. He isn't campaigning to be canonized some day. He isn't a potential family member by marriage. He isn't even about to be my neighbour. So I'm not going to act like he is or vote accordingly.

No, he just wants to be president.

If he makes noises about stopping the war, he'll get my default vote pretty much for the reasons Keble gave.

There are candidates and parties who don't suck - two examples are Mr Peroutka of the Constitution Party and a favourite of mine, Aaron Russo campaigning for the Libertarian Party nomination - but of course if one wants to really be in the political process and try to do something - something worthwhile like stop the war - then one must consider double effect and vote for the lesser evil of the two mainstream candidates.

A vote for the lesser evil, a symbolic conscience vote for a third party and not voting are all options I respect.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 02:00:11 PM by Serge » Logged

David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #129 on: May 06, 2004, 03:54:28 PM »

Good points, everyone.  I plan on voting for whichever third party candidate with the largest following.  Our two parties are far more alike than different, and I'd rather try to help some other group get the 5% for matching campaign funds than more fuel for the fires of empire.  Which will probably mean either Green or Libertarian.  I don't really agree with those groups on most issues, but neither do I with Democrats or Republicans.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #130 on: May 06, 2004, 04:47:04 PM »

Quote
Good points, everyone.  I plan on voting for whichever third party candidate with the largest following.  Our two parties are far more alike than different, and I'd rather try to help some other group get the 5% for matching campaign funds than more fuel for the fires of empire.  Which will probably mean either Green or Libertarian.  I don't really agree with those groups on most issues, but neither do I with Democrats or Republicans.  

I like really don 't there will ever be an up & coming third party for a very long time. Ross Perot came somewhat close the first time around, but I didn't last for long. I think Buchanan could have had a chance back in 96' if he would have darted the party when his campaign was hijacked by the uninspiring Dole & the other "Checker Pants Republicans" during the primaries. He could have taken a large part of the party with him & could have garnered alot of other independent voters, along with the dixiecrats also.

In all honesty, if people want change it's going to have to be done in one of the two major party's. It's something that has to be started at the grassroots level & trickles on up to the main leadership. What Christians need to do is take a look at what party platform most resembles thier views. I would say that the democrats are already disqualified from the get go because they are wrong on the issues that matter most to christians. Now, since the republican party has a platform that represents life we are more than half way there. Other issues such as fiscal policy could be changed by just having a presence in the party if we have enough people calling for change.

I also don't think voting for libertarians (I call them losertarians because they never win) will do much of anything. If people believe in libertarian values, they can bring that into one of the two major party's & loby for legislation in line more with those beleifs. There is something called the Republican Liberty Caucaus that has this goal in mind.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 06, 2004, 04:58:35 PM »

I plan on voting for whichever third party candidate with the largest following....I don't really agree with those groups on most issues, but neither do I with Democrats or Republicans.  

I feel the same way...so what're folks like us to do?  It's more of a vote against the current two parties than for anyone in particular, which is sad.

Sort of an "I care about the nation, not these two shmucks" idea, huh?
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #132 on: May 06, 2004, 05:02:13 PM »

I also don't think voting for libertarians (I call them losertarians because they never win) will do much of anything. If people believe in libertarian values, they can bring that into one of the two major party's & loby for legislation in line more with those beleifs. There is something called the Republican Liberty Caucaus that has this goal in mind.  

Ever heard of the Free State Project?  I'm pretty sure that that'll get something done.

Check it out: www.freestateproject.org.

And I'm torn between voting for the Constitution Party or the Libertarians.  I have yet to check Peroutka's platform and I'm still waiting for the Libertarian's to decide which candidate they're going to run.  It'll probably end up being the Constitution Party, if only because they're explicitly Christian, albeit primarily Protestant.  Oh well.  Can't win 'em all.

----EDIT----
Quote
Pedro: Sort of an "I care about the nation, not these two shmucks" idea, huh?

I hear you on that one, Pedro.  That's one of the reasons I like the Constitution Party: they're explicitly committed to upholding the Constitution, especially Amendments IX and X.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 05:05:49 PM by ExOrienteLux » Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #133 on: May 06, 2004, 05:10:49 PM »

For me (and I know, I will get flogged for this), at the moment the war in Iraq is a more important issue for me than abortion.  <<everyone gasps in horror, and whispers "Unclean! Unclean">>  Why?  Rather simple actually.  
Abortions, wether legally or illegally will be preformed, both alone by the mother & with assistance.  If they got illegal, well, people are gonna do them anyway, just as they've done for more than 2000 years (from herbal miscarriage inducers to coathangers, take your pick).  Though I consider abortion a great sin, it is done of the sinner's free will.  
War on the other hand, we have no will in at all.  For example, despite my being against the war, my tax dollars aren't going to issues important to me, such as education, environment, etc.  No, they are going to finance a war I protested against.  The money I send the government out of every paycheck I get is being used for bombs & bullets that are killing innocent & guilty alike.  It's sending my own former classmates, friends, peers, & neighbors to a country far away from their families where they might die.  It's being spent so that, at the moment, we're probably one of the least favorite nationalities in the world.  It's being spent so the government can cover up & lie straight to our faces about a war they claimed completely justified.  
Once again, I am against abortion, & that is why I'm not voting at all... I can not in good consience vote for either Kerry or Bush.
Ok... that's about it...  


Ania, I don't know you but I'm certain that you are committing a very serious sin.  Some people would think twice before spiritual guidance to someone they don't know but not me.  I'm sure that I'm right and that you're wrong.   Wink

I think you're exactly right about abortions happening anyway regardless of whether they are illegal.  I don't think that means we should give up and not work towards making it illegal but IMHO it mitigates treating abortion as a single issue.  Abortion is a complex social problem.  

Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #134 on: May 06, 2004, 05:17:30 PM »

I am sick of being a modernist and will vote as in the old days -- whomever supplies me with the most whiskey! Bring back Andrew Jackson!
Logged
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #135 on: May 06, 2004, 05:53:08 PM »



I also don't think voting for libertarians (I call them losertarians because they never win) will do much of anything.

I disagree with this.  I think that many people who currently vote Republican or Democrat have libertarian sensibilities, they just aren't as familiar with the party. The idea of I can do whatever I want as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others.  Democrats like it as it upholds abortion(I know not all libertarians are pro-choice), the ACLU, and is in favor of decriminization of drugs.  Republicans like it as it gives more power to corporations and more control over their wealth.  I really think it will grow in the next 20-30 years.  That said, I personally am very much opposed to much of libertarian platform positions and would consider myself on the opposite side; a social conservative and a financial liberal.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #136 on: May 06, 2004, 06:54:31 PM »

Quote
I disagree with this.  I think that many people who currently vote Republican or Democrat have libertarian sensibilities, they just aren't as familiar with the party. The idea of I can do whatever I want as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others.  Democrats like it as it upholds abortion(I know not all libertarians are pro-choice), the ACLU, and is in favor of decriminization of drugs.  Republicans like it as it gives more power to corporations and more control over their wealth.  I really think it will grow in the next 20-30 years.  That said, I personally am very much opposed to much of libertarian platform positions and would consider myself on the opposite side; a social conservative and a financial liberal.  

I pretty much agree with everything your saying. Even though I'm a republican, there's alot of things I don't like about the republican party. My main point in the previous post is that people in 3rd party's will never see any "real" change to our system because they have no power.There vote is merely symbolic. They will have much more "power" to change things if they actually were in one of the two party systems & worked from the grassroots level to slowly change things for the better.  

I wish we had something like Falwell's "Moral Majority", but something that is much more inclusive with many Roman Catholic  & Orthodox voices coming togethor to better influence our culture & politicians for the better.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #137 on: May 06, 2004, 07:03:16 PM »

Also talking in regard to what works and what doesn't...A sad thing is that many people only vote in presidential elections, where their vote has the least power.  Often times, local and state elections have much lower turnouts than national elections per capita.  I agree with you that any real change must be based in a grassroots effort, and for that we must become involved in the politics of our local communities.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #138 on: May 06, 2004, 08:18:43 PM »

I am sick of being a modernist and will vote as in the old days -- whomever supplies me with the most whiskey! Bring back Andrew Jackson!

Amen, Tom!!! Give me alcohol and drag me to the voting booth!  Tongue

Josh  Grin
Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #139 on: May 07, 2004, 06:31:04 AM »

I think Nacho's point resonates in an article in The Washington Post yesterday by David Broder.  Broder pointed out that over the last 10-15 years both parties have become increasingly radicalized.  Where 20 years ago you actually had conservative democrats in the south and progressive republicans elsewhere, increasingly now you have republican conservatives in those seats in the south, and liberal democrats in those formerly republican seats elsewhere.  Each party is becoming increasingly beholden to a more polarized, and polarizing, element rather than a centrist element.  His point is that this trend is leading to the increasingly shrill, partisan, polarized situation in Washington and elsewhere in our national political debate.

One one level this analysis seems facile, even obvious.  In thinking about it over the last day or so, however, I've found it increasingly interesting for me personally.  I have never been a registered member of either  party, because I have always felt that people and issues were more important to me in casting a vote than a particular political party (one of the reasons I do not like the European system very much).  Having said that, since 1988 (the first presidential election I could vote in), I have voted for the GOP candidate because, on balance, I preferred that candidate to the other major candidate.  I didn't care for Dukakis in 88 or Clinton in 92, and voted for Bush Sr. both times. Similarly, I voted for Dole in 96, and GWB in 2000.  However, looking back on things, I think in general that I liked Bush Sr. and Dole because they were not really *that* knee-jerk conservative ... they were pragmatic republicans, more centrist oriented. I actully liked them.  I voted for GWB more or less because of Clinton fatigue, and a distaste for Al Gore, whom I perceived to be more of a democratic radical than Clinton was.  I now believe that voting for GWB may have been a mistake, the man frightens me now.  The aministration is really much too conservative for my taste, and perhaps this reflects the trends that David Broder describes in his article.  In any case, I won't be voting for him again, and I won't vote for Kerry simply because he is *not* Bush (that was too much of a motivation for my vote in 2000, and that was a mistake, imo).  So perhaps I will find a third party candidate who reflects policies closer to what I can support, or perhaps I sit this one out.  I wish there were more political moderates available, however.  I think that most of the country is politically moderate, and that this radical hijacking of the major political parties has made many people tune out from politics altogether.

Brendan
Logged

B
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #140 on: May 07, 2004, 08:05:26 AM »

I enjoyed that last post of yours, Brendan. I follow your reasoning, and it makes a lot of sense.

I will vote for Bush simply to stop Kerry, whom I see as a dire menace, not because I think Bush is the ideal president.

Not the best of reasons, I know, but there you have it.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #141 on: May 07, 2004, 11:45:38 AM »

I've decided, I'm voting 3rd party this year (just dont know who yet)
Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #142 on: May 07, 2004, 12:06:47 PM »

Yo tambi+¬n -- anybody got a list of 3rd partiers?
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #143 on: May 07, 2004, 12:25:38 PM »

Yo tambi+¬n -- anybody got a list of 3rd partiers?

So far as I can see, this looks like such a list.
http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #144 on: May 07, 2004, 02:10:23 PM »

Ad Assails D.C. Cardinal for Stance on Communion

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 7, 2004; Page A03

A Roman Catholic antiabortion group launched an advertising campaign against Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington yesterday, attacking him for saying he is not comfortable denying Communion to Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and other Catholic members of Congress who support abortion rights.

The Virginia-based American Life League said the advertisements are the beginning of a $500,000 print ad campaign targeting bishops who are reluctant to punish Catholic politicians for taking policy positions that defy the church. The first ad shows Jesus in agony on the cross and asks: "Cardinal McCarrick: Are you comfortable now?"

Under pressure from such groups and from the Vatican, a small but growing number of U.S. bishops have said they would deny the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ, to elected officials such as Democratic presidential candidate Kerry and the governor of New Jersey.

But the increasingly aggressive, personal criticism of bishops and politicians is running into opposition from Catholics across the political spectrum. Some conservatives fear the tactics may backfire and raise sympathy for Kerry. Some liberals say the church is opening itself to charges of partisanship and could revive the charge that haunted John F. Kennedy, that Catholic politicians take orders from Rome.

Many in both camps question where those who begin denying Communion to elected officials will draw the line.

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, said her organization believes that all priests and lay Eucharistic ministers who hand out Communion are obligated -- with or without instructions from their bishops -- to refuse Communion to any federal, state or local official who is known to disagree with church teaching on abortion, contraception, stem cell research, euthanasia or in vitro fertilization.

Karl Maurer, vice president of Catholic Citizens of Illinois, a conservative grass-roots group, said he would add sodomy and gay marriage to that list. Some liberal grass-roots groups have said they believe the church's teachings against war and the death penalty are worthy of equal treatment.

"Once you open this door, what's going to come rolling through it?" asked Deal W. Hudson, editor of the magazine Crisis and a key Catholic ally of the Bush administration. "Pretty soon, no one would be taking Communion."

Hudson said he believes the denial of Communion should begin, and end, with Kerry. Even better, he said, would be if priests would read letters from the pulpit denouncing the senator from Massachusetts "whenever and wherever he campaigns as a Catholic."

But the debate within the church has already moved beyond Kerry. On Wednesday, New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey, a Democrat, said he would voluntarily refrain from taking Communion. Three of New Jersey's bishops have said in recent days that politicians who support abortion rights should not take Communion, and two of them mentioned McGreevey by name.

Last year, Bishop Robert J. Carlson of Sioux Falls, S.D., reportedly warned Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle not to call himself a Catholic because of his stand in favor of abortion. Sacramento Bishop William K. Weigand made a similar remonstrance to Gray Davis, the former Democratic governor of California. And Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, of St. Louis and formerly of Wisconsin, went the furthest in January, instructing all churches in his former diocese to deny the Eucharist to three local politicians, including Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), because of their voting records on abortion.

The American Life League's ad campaign targets McCarrick partly because he heads a task force of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that is charged with developing guidelines on when to sanction Catholics who hold public office.

The cardinal's spokeswoman, Susan Gibbs, said he had not seen the full-page advertisement that began running yesterday in the Washington Times, the Catholic weekly the Wanderer and the conservative journal Human Events because he was in Italy following meetings with Pope John Paul II last week. But Gibbs responded to the campaign's rhetorical question about McCarrick's comfort by saying that he "is very comfortably in communion with the church on this issue."

"In our teaching, the primary responsibility is on the individual whether to receive Communion after serious reflection on whether they are in the proper state," she said. "The cardinal has been clear that he would be very reluctant to use the Eucharist as a political sanction."

David O'Brien, a professor of Roman Catholic studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., said McCarrick appears to be trying to find a middle road between punishing politicians and remaining silent. He said all bishops must "protect the integrity of the church's teaching" by speaking out against the "grave scandal" that results from high-profile Catholics flouting church doctrine.

But, he said, "if they push this too hard, it could easily backfire on them. People are going to say, 'Where is their moral leadership on a whole lot of issues? How many bishops have resigned because of their mishandling of sexual abuse? Why didn't they speak on the war in Iraq? What effort did they make to bring to the attention of their own people the positions they've taken on war, capital punishment and poverty?"

In short, O'Brien said, "when they come down personally on [particular politicians], people are going to say they have political motives -- and maybe some of them do."

Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,482


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #145 on: May 07, 2004, 02:22:07 PM »

Oh my:

LEROY PLETTEN of Michigan
Prohibition Party
Vice Presidential Nominee  

Leroy Pletten -- a historian and anti-alcohol advocate -- first joined the Prohibition Party in 1998. Since then, he's become State Chair in Michigan and the National Secretary of the party. Pletten, 58, was originally from Minnesota. He each his B.A. degree in history from the University of Minnesota in 1967 and later served as a civilian employee of the Army. He lost a race for local school board in 2003 as the party's nominee (6%) -- but notes in party literature that he's "been elected twice to the board of directors of his condominium owner's association."
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #146 on: May 07, 2004, 02:46:10 PM »

heeheee, this one looks like a good one...  
http://www.politics1.com/pfp04.htm
Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #147 on: May 07, 2004, 10:35:29 PM »

Re: third parties...

Go Pat Go!
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #148 on: May 08, 2004, 10:19:59 PM »

Locked due to moratorium on political discussion.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.423 seconds with 176 queries.