• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope to US Speaker Pelosi: Reject abortion support

Hatuey said:
Ummmm a duty is something I am required to do. By which law am I required to protect life? What contract did I sign that says I must protect life? I love how none of you can answer who says it is my duty to protect life because well I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...

if I could show you one of those sources would you accept the protection of life as your duty?
 
ludahai said:
If you are Catholic and claim to support the tenets of the faith, you should do your utmost to live by those tenets in both your professional and private life.
Click to expand...

Oh please, ludahai. Do you believe everything Catholicism tells you? If so, wow--you clearly don't have a mind of your own.

I am so glad to be rid of that ridiculous religion. No offense to Catholics.
 
Defensor said:
You don't have to? :roll:

I guess this debate is done since "you don't have to" back up your own claims.


Whether you believe it to be true or not is inconsequential to me.
Click to expand...

Whether you believe it or not, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land right now. Accept it.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't have to. Abortion is covered under the constitutional right to privacy. Are you illiterate or something?

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where it says it my duty to protect life.
Click to expand...




Hautey is one of those posters who can find a right to an abortion in the constitution, but can't find the right for one to keep and bear arms.....



:2wave:
 
Hatuey said:
Ummmm a duty is something I am required to do. By which law am I required to protect life? What contract did I sign that says I must protect life? I love how none of you can answer who says it is my duty to protect life because well I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...




By some of his actions, Hautey has shown he has no interest in "protecting life".



That is all I can say up here.
 
aps said:
Oh please, ludahai. Do you believe everything Catholicism tells you? If so, wow--you clearly don't have a mind of your own.

I am so glad to be rid of that ridiculous religion. No offense to Catholics.
Click to expand...



Yes the religion of Obama is so much more fufilling. ;)
 
Indy said:
I'm partly with you except for one thing. What do you say to the non catholic voters who are worried you will do as the pope tells you regardless of the will of your constituents?
Click to expand...

If I am correct I assumed that she informed the voters that she was a catholic before they even elected her to office. So if she was a actual catholic and stood up against abortion then the voters would have no one to blame but themselves because they voted for catholic.

Should we then refuse to vote for Catholics as the only alternative to being dictated to by a non-elected politician (which is what the pope has become)?
Click to expand...

Would you vote for a far right wing conservative? I wouldn't vote for a liberal,anarchist, homosexual(unless he was a adamantly against gay marriage and he was a conservative) nor would I vote for a devil worshiper. Why should you vote for someone whose views you disagree with?


I believe Kennedy had it right in that he was a Catholic in his personal life but an elected official in his professional life.
Click to expand...

Then he wasn't really a catholic, you do not throw your religion under the bus just to get votes and that also applies to other religions as well. He was just another politician scumbag who threw his religion under the bus for cheap votes.

The two do not mix, nor should they.
Click to expand...

Ho only said that **** to justify not really being a catholic.
If you are actually religious, a member of a particular religion then you follow that religion's views and beliefs and it should guide your decision making regardless if it personal or political. If not then you have no business calling yourself what ever religion you claim to be.


Before you accuse me of being pro-catholic. No I am not pro-catholic, I think Catholic are pagans not Christians. Anyone who preys/venerates to someone other than God is not a christian. Thats why I refer to catholics as pagans or when I talk about about their beliefs I say Catholicism, not Christianity .
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
......it is the duty of catholic politicians to protect life? No. It is the duty of politicians to serve the people who voted for them.
Click to expand...
Who says?

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke.

It doesn't really matter anyway, what you are suggesting is he serve the "people" as some abstract mass at best or more probably his party. Hardly great positions.

Anyway Hateuy clearly has a strange agenda towards the church and will seemingly take whatever opportunity he can to rant against it. I see no reason to take him seriously.
 
Last edited:
Basically all this is is invoking Rousseau's potentially totalitarian ideal that gov't should be about the "general will", this being concieved of the people's will taken outside of the normal associations of society even to the extent of destroying these. One is not meant to see oneself as a Catholic, New York American but an abstract general American acting abstractly for the "general will", all associations and loyalties outside the people as an abtract whole are considered distractions at best or more probably as evil entities that need to be removed.

Rousseau infamously considered this will could often carried out by an impartial, "Enlightened", single legislator and one could be forgiven for mistaking this for the modern liberal ideal of "Enlightened" judicial activism, which basically amounts to judicial dictatorship, as a method to create law and social policy.

Robert Nisbet was correct though when he pointed out no doctrine is quite so revolutionary nor so totalitarian as this of Rousseau's and it is interesting to see it animates a lot of modern liberalism, or should we say Jacobinism, still.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Politicians are elected on the premise that they'll stand for the beliefs of their constituents.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that you would vote for a right wing politician?

There is reason why there is not a" I could care less who wins" option. It is because we pick politicians whose views closely match ours. Thats why you vote for liberal politicians and I vote for conservative politicians



Not those of a religion.
Click to expand...


IF you are religious then that religion you prescribe to is part of your beliefs. Its no different than a politician who is for gay marriage or a politician who is against abortion or a politician who is against illegal immigration for our outsourcing. You don't throw those views under the bus just because you got elected.


Nanci Pelosi, Sarah Palin, Obama etc were elected by the people who wanted their interests served. Not the Catholic Church, The baptist church, or TUCC. When the Catholic Church has a vote in our elections then maybe I'll care about politicians serving the interests of a church do.
Click to expand...


Again if you actually claim to be part of a religion you do not throw that religion under the bus just because you got elected to office.

I don't know about you but if I vote for a politician who claims to be of a particular political ideology and a certian religion then I expect that politician to uphold the beliefs of that ideology and religious beliefs.



If politicians claim to be a of a particular faith and they are not practicing or abiding by that faith then they should be called on it by their fellow religious members and leaders.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Hautey is one of those posters who can find a right to an abortion in the constitution, but can't find the right for one to keep and bear arms.....



:2wave:
Click to expand...

The funny thing is the right to keep and bear arms is actually stated in the constitution.
 
Roman Catholic is the largest religious group in California. Maybe that is why she was elected.

* Catholic cities are always the most interesting. Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco. Santa Fe is probably Catholic.
 
jamesrage said:
So you are saying that you would vote for a right wing politician?
Click to expand...

Not if I don't believe he'll sand for my beliefs.

There is reason why there is not a" I could care less who wins" option. It is because we pick politicians whose views closely match ours. Thats why you vote for liberal politicians and I vote for conservative politicians
Click to expand...

And since the Catholic Church has no vote in our elections then it is not the duty of any politician Catholic or otherwise to follow what the church says or preaches.

IF you are religious then that religion you prescribe to is part of your beliefs. Its no different than a politician who is for gay marriage or a politician who is against abortion or a politician who is against illegal immigration for our outsourcing. You don't throw those views under the bus just because you got elected.
Click to expand...

And if these politicians were elected on the premise that they were going to further the agendas of their constituents and not those an organization then you'd be completely right. But as it stands it is not the duty of any politician to further the agenda of the Catholic church.

Again if you actually claim to be part of a religion you do not throw that religion under the bus just because you got elected to office.

I don't know about you but if I vote for a politician who claims to be of a particular political ideology and a certian religion then I expect that politician to uphold the beliefs of that ideology and religious beliefs.

If politicians claim to be a of a particular faith and they are not practicing or abiding by that faith then they should be called on it by their fellow religious members and leaders.
Click to expand...

Jebus H. Jimenez did you really need to repeat yourself three times? Do you not understand that it is not Nanci Pelosi's duty or for that matter that of any politician Catholic or otherwise to push the agenda of their church but that of their constituents irregardless of the faith/beliefs of these constituents?
 
americanwoman said:
Oh really, did he start a war on the Jewish establishment and slaughter them in protest? Or did he take them on in a peaceful, pacifist like manner?
Click to expand...

Jesus was a gangster.
 
Elected officials shouldn't have to follow the requests of any organizations, and I would argue that they shouldn't at all. I don't want some organization dictating what a politician I elected thinks. Be it social, religious, or political. They only need to follow the voice of those that voted them into office and even then it's not a requirement.

Would those that believe Pelosi should follow the beliefs of the Catholic church because she is a member also criticize her for not following the beliefs of say the ACLU, Greenpeace, etc. if she claims to be a member?
 
This is typical of zealots. Pluralism and tolerance... until I disagree.

Listen carefully: its not about whether you think YOU are right--thats a given--its whether other's views are reasonably probable too.
 
americanwoman said:
Oh really, did he start a war on the Jewish establishment and slaughter them in protest? Or did he take them on in a peaceful, pacifist like manner?
Click to expand...
As I recall He violently turned over the tables of the money changers, then destroyed the Temple in three days. *shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom