-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Voting for Kerry is now considered a sin.
- Thread starter Pah
- Start date
Just4Jesus
New Member
Get real. Voting for Kerry is not a sin. Killing a baby is a sin, but voting for a Presidential candidate that supports abortion is not. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to focus their thoughts on more important matters. Bush is responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, recently. Is it a sin to vote for Bush because of this?
I'll remember you in my prayers.
I'll remember you in my prayers.
cvipertooth
Member
I think this entire thing is ridiculous. where in the bible does it say that supporting someone who gives other people a choice a sin? It all comes down to someone's opinion over a certain matter. What gives the catholic church the right to condemn someone to hell for exercizing their constitutional rights? should they, then, be condemened to hell as well if I see fit?
Trinity
Member
The only one who can give us anything is God, and He gives us the freedom to choice whatever we like. However with that freedom comes responsibility. The Catholic Church does not condemn anyone to anything, they merely teach the message the Jesus left us, they take His teaching and bring them up to the current day, so we can choose to follow Him or ignore Him. :canadian:cvipertooth said:
auntreenee
New Member
The Catholic Church has no right to interfere with the American electoral process, any more than Pat Robertson does. Separation of church and state goes both ways. It should be enforced.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
I wouldn't go so far as to say they were interferring with electoral process. They are free to give their opinion, which thet did, although it does seem a bit under-handed to tell someone that if the vote for a particular candidate, that they are sinning, IMO. That's a very political thing to do.
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.
Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.
I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
How could this be? I see three contributing factors:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support. What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.
anything to say now?
Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.
I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
How could this be? I see three contributing factors:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support. What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.
anything to say now?
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
HelpMe -
Obviously, you are skewing the facts to protect your liberal viewpoint. Everyone knows that the reason for the increase in abortions under the Bush administration is that Bill Clinton abused the poor Lewinski virgin four years earlier. It is because of the shame that Bill Clinton brought to the office that the women in those three states are committing this moral attrocity. This country is in a moral tailspin because Bill Clinton did something that no other President has ever done (and certainly never will do again). Can't you see this? :sarcastic
TVOR
PS - that's Sarcasm, with a capital "S"
Obviously, you are skewing the facts to protect your liberal viewpoint. Everyone knows that the reason for the increase in abortions under the Bush administration is that Bill Clinton abused the poor Lewinski virgin four years earlier. It is because of the shame that Bill Clinton brought to the office that the women in those three states are committing this moral attrocity. This country is in a moral tailspin because Bill Clinton did something that no other President has ever done (and certainly never will do again). Can't you see this? :sarcastic
TVOR
PS - that's Sarcasm, with a capital "S"
The People
Member
A vote for Kerry is a Vote for Kommunism!!!
http://communistsforkerry.com/BannedLinks.php
So in other verds u all should have voted Kerry to save ze earth for future generationz!
http://communistsforkerry.com/BannedLinks.php
So in other verds u all should have voted Kerry to save ze earth for future generationz!
ZombieJesus
New Member
Amen to that, brother The People, And we shall all live gloriously and peacefully under the umbrella of communisim
The People
Member
Well Komrad, Kommunism is the greatest form of government, ever!Jensa said:
Everyon is equal, there is no unemployment, everyone has a home, and there is no klass system.
Like wut u hear? Join my cause and watch for my other posts!
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
.....Until you get taken over due to lack of leadership, or, should you decide to designate one person as the sole leader, they gobble up as much power as they can handle and leave you starving.
We have memories so that we can learn from our mistakes, fellas. Communism is a nice idea, but it just doesn't work. Happy persecution.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Er, *ahem!*
I believe the topic is "Voting for Kerry is now Konsidered a sin."
I believe the topic is "Voting for Kerry is now Konsidered a sin."