Munch,
I suspect you saw a prime example of Dogmaganda.
If the church’s big -wigs are correct and it is a sin for Catholics to vote for Kerry, then it follows that it is also a sin to vote for GWB, since the Pope himself said that GWB’s Iraq invasion was an unjust and unnecessary war. I guess Catholics are supposed to vote for Ralph Nader.
Umm…Nader is pro choice.
Hmmmm. I guess there isn’t any way that the religious, and not just Roman Catholics, can vote without violating at least one of the tenets. That’s the goal of all shamans I guess. Make the system so complex that it is impossible to live without sinning so there is always a need for the shaman.
And this is different from normal religious practice… how?
Since this thread is soley about the opinions of “some” Catholic bishops…and hasn’t addressed the teachings of other religions, I assume you can back up that claim with some evidence?
IOW…I’ll be waiting here for proof that all religious people “and not just Roman Catholics” can’t vote without “violating at least one of the tenets”.
I’ll make it easy…I’ll start with two: Reform Judaism and the ELCA…please provide evidence that members of those faiths can’t vote “without violating at least one of the tenets”.
(Uhh…unless that was just just a cheap shot against all people of faith?)
Oh I suppose I could find plenty of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Orel Roberts cites about the subject but you know, I just don’t give that much of a shit.
If you choose to be offended, go ahead.
No…just fighting ignorance.
Since your reply to a request about Reform Judaism and the ELCA brought mentions of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Orel (sic) Roberts…none of whom are members of those said faiths… I guess the fighting continues.
Nice backpedal…you claim that NO member of ANY religion"can vote without violating at least one of the tenets." When called to back up such a ridiculous assertion…you name preachers that don’t even BELONG to the examples I questioned you about.
You had a chance to actually back up your assertion.
You punted.
Lovely.
:rolleyes:
My scoff, as you would probably call it, addressed the point you made in response to another poster saying that Nader is an alternate choice but you pointed out that Nader is pro-choice leaving a no choice position for voters.
There are enough differences in the doctrines of various religions, all of which are true by their own definition, to make voting for anybody by anybody pretty chancy.
Your complaint about my not answering your specific question about two specific cases is your attempt to direct an answer down specific directions. Why should I fall for it? However, Leviticus makes so many demands that it is impossible not to violate one a day. Maybe Reform Jews ignore most of Leviticus, choosing which to ignore by a method unknown to me. As to ELCA I never heard of it before and hope never to again.
Y’know, some people are so confident of their religion that the pray for scoffers in hopes they will see the light. Others are confident that the scoffer is going to burn in the lake of fire for eternity. You are surrounded by scoffers. Get used to it.
I’m through with the subject. Let other posters get back to the subject of the OP from which I admit I strayed. * Mea culpa,* OK?
I have no idea what this means relative to either the OP or my comments about Naders position.
Your claim was that members of ALL religions would face the same voting scenarios as outlined in this thread. Namely, that every candidate would present a GRAVE SIN to vote for, based on some teaching. It’s a ridiculous assertion…that you neglected to support. Asking for evidence seems like a legitimate request for an absurd statement( I thought I was being helpful in narrowing it down to two…if you DON’T want it narrowed down…fine with me. I’ll wait for supporting evidence for all of the hundred or so belief systems in the U.S. Knock yourself out, dude).
Hmmm. So yu’re saying that (1) Jews are violating some of their teachings every day, but (2) you don’t know about Reform Judaism…and what they believe?
:rolleyes:
Oh. So the blanket statement you made about religions and voting applies even to the religions you know nothing about? Huh.
That’s a nice little sermon you gave there bucko. Of course it has nothing to do with your initial claim about religions and voting, or my response. But hey…if it gives you a warm feeling inside to type it…Have fun!
Uh huh. :rolleyes:
David Simmons:
We Orthodox Jews disagree with this statement. “Difficult,” yes, “impossible,” no.
And, just to add one more whack at this particular moribund equine, the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), of which I am a practicing member, does not define voting for or against any of the current candidates for President as a sin.
The bishops of the ELCA don’t have that authority. Most of the ELCA leadership is squishy-soft liberal by American standards, so if they were going to try to influence voters, it would probably be in the pro-choice direction. But if they explicitly made a stab at it, they would be laughed at or ignored. As I tend to do anyway when they come out with another Social Policy statement.
Or perhaps the political dissenters would split off and form another organization, as they have done in the past.
Many or most Protestant churches in America are not nearly as strictly hierarchical as the RCC. Doctrine in the ELCA in particular is not handed down by the bishopric, and Lutherans owe no duty of obedience to their bishops. Fortunately, at least for me, who is a right-wing extreme reactionary by ELCA political standards. 
Regards,
Shodan
Thanks for the data point. I knew that about the ELCA (and for that matter, most if not all, protestant religions) before throwing out the challenge, but if someone is dumb enough to generalize that much…they’re begging to be called on it.
cm:
This then raises the question, do you expect others to?
No. As has been mentioned on this board in previous discussions, the rules found in Leviticus (and Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the 613 mitzvot of the Torah) are part of the covenant between Jews and God. Others are held only to the seven Noachide laws:
The six broad categories of laws that God forbids all of humanity:
-
Shefichat Damim: Murder is forbidden: The life of a human being,
formed in God’s image, is sacred. - Gezel: Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do as we please.
-
Gilui Arayot: Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden.
Human beings are not sexual objects, nor is pleasure the
ultimate goal of life. -
Ever Min HaChay: Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden.
This teaches us to be sensitive to cruelty to animals. (This
was commanded to Noah for the first time along with the
permission of eating meat. Genesis 9:1-17. The negative laws
were imposed at the Garden of Eden.) -
Avodah Zarah: Idolatry is forbidden: Man is commanded to believe
in the One God alone and worship only God. -
Birchat HaShem: Cursing the name of God is forbidden. Besides
honoring and respecting God, we learn from this precept that
our speech must be sanctified, as that is the distinctive
sign which separated man from the animals.
There is also derived one positive category of laws:
-
Dinim: Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a
just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact
any other useful laws or customs.
While it is possible that a person may violate one or more of these laws (number 5 will probably be a problem for atheists), it is also possible for many (not all) people to keep all of these with little effort.