This sounds like a well-thought-out guide for religious Catholics to figure out who they should vote for. I predict 1% actually will give a rat’s butt.
God bless.

Joey, partly well thought out. And I hope your prediction is spot on.

I never told my children that they better listen to me and their sunday school teacher, or else they would lose their place in heaven when they died. Guess we weren’t as controlling as the Pope.

What a great new word for the vocabulary, “intrinsic evils”.
And the control continues. Vote for an “intrinsic evil” and your butt is in hell. Wow! What love! Hello? this is the United States and folks can vote anyway they want. Guess not,if your Catholic and you really want to hit heaven when you die.
Thinking Catholics will disregard this threat if they find a candidate they like, even if (heaven forbid) the candidate might actually be for one of the “intrinsic evils”. That candidate might have other plans for this country that a person agrees with and earns their vote.

If all they have to play is the fear card, then I think their hand is bust. I cannot believe that they have lowered themselves to this attempt at medeival manipulation. If they want to be taken seriously then they need to stop behaving like wan’na be bullies and deal with issues and the concerncs of people. I have admired many Roman Catholics over the years, and none of them have ever tried to make people afraid. This is simply [re-adolescent theology that will not fool even a sixth grader. Instead, they have taken one more step toward making themselves look foolish. I hope someone from one of the many offices of the Roman Church will make a statement that shows not everyone has bent over to the wishes of a few desperate despots.

“Thinking Catholics will disregard this threat if they find a candidate they like”
I know many thinking Catholics who don’t disregard to the hierarchy like you so often suggest they’ll do. I guess your defintion of a “thinking Catholic” must be something along the lines of “a Catholic who thinks like I do.”
“That candidate might have other plans for this country that a person agrees with and earns their vote.”
If you’d actually read the article rather than just jumping to bigoted conclusions, it pretty clearly states that salvation may be affected for those who vote for a candidate “solely because he or she supports ‘intrinsic evils’” while encouraging Catholics not to be single-issue voters. It looks to me like it’s saying that if you vote for a pro-choice candidate because that candidate is pro-choice, then you’re betraying your faith, NOT that you can’t vot for any candidate who happens to support an evil but has other redeeming factors. After all, who could the Catholics really vote for, if pretty much every candidate in pretty much every election cycle tends to support one or another idea that is contrary to Catholic social teaching?
It’s saying, “Don’t support politics agains the culture of life,” and from a Catholic point of view, there’s absolutely nothing that should be shocking about that. For those of you who are so uncharitable as to be unwilling to look at the world from a Catholic perspective for a moment, well, since when is the Church trying to impress you?

“If they want to be taken seriously then they need to stop behaving like wan’na be bullies and deal with issues and the concerncs of people.”
Newsflash: the Church is not a democracy and was not instituted to deal with the “concerns of the people.” The Church’s job is to shape the concerns of the people.
Believe it or not, the whole world is not obligated to submit to your tyrannical liberal standards.

“The Church’s job is to shape the concerns of the people.”
So it should be taken to task when it misshapes them, or tries to. Historically, there’s been a lot of variation in Catholic teaching on abortion with periods when an earlier abortion was not a sserious sin, so for the hierarchy to, relatively suddenly, decide all abortion is sin number one seems whimsical. And to put it ahead of real problems like hunger and poverty and especially global warming is to harm the real world everyone lives in.
So expect blowback.

It seems to me that all they have done here is worked the system and found a way to tell people who to vote for without naming names.

I’m not pro abortion where one person is killed, but more than that I am not pro war where thousands are killed. Ironically the church is focusing on one rather than thousands.

Its strange how little you hear from the Catholic Church about Jesus Christ. Jesus indicated that, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God”. He himself expressed the separation of church and state. Of course, if you mention this to a Catholic bishop, they would have some way of twisting his words to make it appear different.
I think in the past 2 thousand years the Catholic Church has made enough of a mess by intererring in the affairs of state and should start teaching about Jesus. Catholics need to start learning to think for themselves. This is something the church does not want you to do.
I left the Catholic church exactly because of the scare tactics they always try to use on people. I meditate daily and find Christ to be closer to me, and am no longer angry in my heart. I pray for all my enemies, including the Catholic Church which is a bigoted, interferring organization that cares more abut controling its members than helping them.

“Jesus indicated that, ‘Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God’. He himself expressed the separation of church and state. Of course, if you mention this to a Catholic bishop, they would have some way of twisting his words to make it appear different.”
Is it really that clear that Jesus taught anything like separation of church and state? Don’t you think you might be reading the text a little anachronisticaly there? Don’t you think that cheap rhetorical tricks like accusing Catholics (or anyone else who disagrees with you) of “twisting” the words get in the way of honest debate.
There are quite a lot of biblical scholars (most that I’ve come across, as a Bible and theology student) whose historical readings of Jesus have nothing to do with separation of church and state. Read NT Wright on the issue, for instance. Would any good Jew, iike Jesus, have held up image of Caesar on a coin that claimed Caesar was divine and nonchalantly tell other Jews to give to Caesar was Caesar was claiming for himself? No, that’s absurd. Jesus was doing something far more subversive: Caesar wanted worship, and God wanted worship, and the only way to give to each his due was to worship God and be killed by Caesar, which is exactly what Jesus did.

Andre L. “I meditate daily and find Christ to be closer to me, and am no longer angry in my heart”.
Your beautiful statement was completely overlooked by the poster after you. Academia sometimes along with their studies in theology become so cetain about what they can explain they miss the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Some people can study all their lives and still not find what you have.

NateW:
Did read the article. Why else would I comment on it?
And, BTW, if a thinking Catholic thought like I do, they’d not be Catholic, would they? They’d be Pagan. Thinking Catholics take what is said by an obvious dictatorship and getting worse under Benny, with a grain of salt. Have you ever thought about why some Catholic families only have one or 2 children or none? It’s called artificial birth control,(not Catholic roulette) and why many don’t go through the years of process to get an “annulment” (permission from Benny) for divorce, but get a legal one? Those are “thinking Catholics”. They aren’t going to hell because they take control of their lives. Just a couple of examples of “thinking Catholics”, Nate. They still go to church, and find it their cup of tea, but they aren’t “robots” to Rome.
Question: Show me how I am bigoted.

NateW
Some people are comforatble only living within hall, strong walls. I am happy if they feel secure and safe there. In fact, the literal meaning of Paradise is walled orchard. So if that is where you are most happy, that is splendid. I prefer living in an open environment, thinking, responding, and acting in ways I believe are most appropriate. Also, if the Church – however that is understood – is NOT designed to meet the needs of the people – then it exists only for its own sake. I have little use for such organizations. I guess that is why I am not and could not be A Catholic.
BTW – I think “tyrannical liberal” is a marvelous and amusing oxymoron. Living an oxymoronic life is a special challenge – sort of like promoting myself as the worlds tallest midget or the worlds shortest giant. Thanks for the appelation!

Why is it this article generates so much interest, but the article about clergy asking for a more civil for of campaign advertising generates only 7 responses. Maybe civil discourse is not as interesting or controversial. But I would hope we might generate more support for civility than we fabricate arguments against norrow perspectives.
So it is, and so it goes.

“Some people are comforatble only living within hall, strong walls. I am happy if they feel secure and safe there. In fact, the literal meaning of Paradise is walled orchard. So if that is where you are most happy, that is splendid. I prefer living in an open environment, thinking, responding, and acting in ways I believe are most appropriate.”
Why must you cast those who are different from you in such patronizing terms? Why can’t you accept the fact that there are plenty of people out there who believe in traditional Catholicism not because they want security but simply because they believe it? Why do you monopolize the “open environment” for yourself and deny it from those who just happen to work from a different set of assumptions as you?
“I think “tyrannical liberal” is a marvelous and amusing oxymoron.”
It’s not an oxymoron in any way. Believe it or not, most conservatives really don’t find the thought of the triumph of liberalism to be liberating, especially when the very definitions of “tyranny” and “liberation” are generally different between liberals and conservatives.

Pagansister,
If you read the article, you need to brush up on your comprehension skills, because one of the big news points here is that Catholics are NOT to become one-issue voters and are NOT unfaithful in any way simply because they vote for a pro-life candidate when they have compelling reasons to do so.
How are you bigoted? Because you you keep harping on a definition of a “thinking Catholic” as basically anyone who follows a kind of Catholicism that YOU find accceptable. Please get this, as I stress it for the thousandth time: I know many, many, many thoughtful, rational, reflective Catholics who through thought, reason, and reflection have come to believe in a traditional view of the hierarchy. Just because a person thinks radically differently from you, that doesn’t mean they’re not thinking people, and just because they believe in the hierarchy, that doesn’t mean they’re not just as thoughtful as the Catholics who don’t.
It’s really not that hard of a concept to grasp.

“Your beautiful statement was completely overlooked by the poster after you. Academia sometimes along with their studies in theology become so cetain about what they can explain they miss the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Some people can study all their lives and still not find what you have.”
Perhaps I “overlooked” it because it had absolutely nothing to do with the question of Jesus’ views on church-state relations, maybe?

We’re going around in circles, Nate. I too know many,many,many many, Catholics who are happy to be dictated to. If that floats their boat, I certainly have no problem that either. It makes them happy. They are my friends, as are those of other religions. My defination of a “thinking” Catholic vs a “robot” Catholic is that one is liberal and questions Benny (or whoever is the current Big Guy) and either follows or doesn’t follow all the rules that come down. The other Catholic is the one who believes everything that comes down from Benny (or other Big Guy)and doesn’t question. Some need that security. These are my definiations, no one elses, and both kinds of Catholics are rational, intelligent,and sometimes reflective, people. I expect all religions have questioners, and doubters, as well as those who question nothing told to them. Is that clear enough for you?
……you need to brush up on your comprehension skills.” I will if you will.

I get what your definitions are, Pagansister. The point that you are not getting is that you’re constructing a FALSE dichotomy between the “thinkers” who don’t believe in the traditional role of the hierarchy, and the ones who believe the hierarchy because they “need that security.” Some people believe in the traditional role of the hierarchy simply because they’ve tested it against reason and experience and found it reasonable; many I know have absolutely no need for “security” and would quite frankly be offended that you’d suggest they do.

Nate, I thought someone had mentioned you were a theology student. Andre was sharing a personal thought about Christ. I wanted to let him know I knew as a Christian how he feels. The fact is that the issue of the views of Jesus on state and church relations, being discussed, pales next to sincere devotion to Christ in my mind. Not in yours evidently. What I said about academia is my belief about a lot of people I know, and if you belong to that group, and the “shoe fits put it on.”

NateW.
Religion is a form of security, and some folks will admit it and some won’t. I’m not offending anyone.
Religion tells some folks what happens after death. It gives some folks the answer for the age old question “why am I here?” It explains how the earth (and the galaxies) were formed and a story of how humans got here (the religious version)etc. Religion serves a purpose. To me that is a form of security. It supplies an explanation.
“Some people believe in the traditional role of the hierarchy simply because they’ve tested it against reason and experience and found it reasonable.” That works for them. But to me that is still a form of security.

Henrietta:
“Academia sometimes along with their studies in theology become so certain about what they explain they miss the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Some people study all their lives and still not find what you have.”
Very accurate statement, Henrietta.

The critical issue here is not that the RCC hierarchy opposes abortion. That is a given, and all the internet posting in the world won’t change it. The important theological issue is the bishop’s claim that a voter’s choices in the voting booth “may affect the individual’s salvation.” Guess I’m just too much of a Protestant, but that sounds an awful lot like works righteousness. What ever happened to “By grace are you saved, through faith?”

Thank you Pagansister, now lets go have a cup of coffee, and a biscotti from Santa Barbara, and we’ll really talk!

Henrietta
I’d really like that!
Have you joined the community site? and filled out a profile? Part of that allows for “friends” and thru B’net we could send emails to each other. Personally, I haven’t figured out how to ask someone to be a “friend” on my site. Not to savy on some of this stuff.

Pagansister,
If you’re going to have such a general definition of security that includes even simple things like “offering an explanation,” then isn’t everything that anyone believes a matter of finding security?
Your definition is too general to be meaningful. I, for one, don’t follow any religion out of any felt need for security. I follow a religion because I got curious about things, I reflected on the world, and I found explanations that seem reasonable. If that’s “security,” then security seems to have become a meaningless, redundant word.

Henrietta,
The question of church-state relations simply is a part of sincere devotion to Christ. If we’re devoted to Christ, we act in the world in the manner Christ wants us to, and so figuring out what that means for politics is essential to Christian devotion.
Andre was making clear statements about what he thought devotion to Christ means. I was disagreeing with him. Just because someone says that he’s devoted to Christ doesn’t mean I should never disagree with him on what that devotion means, and just because I voice such disagreement does not mean that I’m not motivated by a similarly strong devotion.

Sounds like “devotion to Christ” is the trump suit here. I’d take morality over that in a minute.
Oh, news flash: Assuming “Christ” ever existed he’s all done expressing his wants; past tense is appropriate, as in “we act in the world in the manner Christ wanted us to”.

Nate I understand what you are talking about. I’ve sat in many discussions on same. Church-State relations are the BIG trend of the 2000′s. We all relate to our lives in different ways, even if we are of the same basic religion, in this case, Christians. For myself and my family we balance our beliefs with the morals, of which we’ve learned by Christs teachings, and in the way nnmns means, also. I can’t seperate myself from what I grew up seeing being lived in my home and society. All religions have morals, all people like atheists have morals. God made us all. If they have to have proof of God, and would rather believe they just appeared magically or scientifically in a poof!, who cares? We’re all here and what will be will be. AS an aside, security is found in anything that makes you happy, whether you’re aware of it or not.

Political choices could affect salvation?
So instead of hearing an open discourse and always praising our ‘free market of ideas’… the church uses credulous, religious black mail to strong arm catholics to be one issue voters.
Ah heck… the mayan calendar says its all gonna end in 2012 anyhoo so i say dont even vote at all, whats the point?

nnmns:
“Assuming “Christ” ever existed he’s all done expressing his wants; past tense is appropriate, as in we act in the world as Christ wanted us to.”
A huge “AMEN” to that!
Nate:
As a seminary student you must be taking or have taken a psycology course. It’s been a long time since college for me and that course.
What I am saying is that folks use different beliefs or physical things to make them feel safe, happy, also know as secure. Children have favorite blankets, or suck their thumbs, some folks would feel secure if there were armed soldiers around, some if they could sit in a church all day(or become priests and nuns, ministers, rabbis) or that not being possible, hang on to their religious belifs since, IMO, that offers (as I said above) a feeling of security, with what they believe are answers to unanswerable questions and feeling that a divine being is watching over them. That is certainly a form of security …a feeling of being protected. ( as hopefully a parent is for a child). They don’t like having no answers and feel safe with the ones a holy book offers.
Whether you beieve it or not, I think your religious beliefs (and that you are a theology student) do offer you a form of security, even if unconsciously. You said you found explanations that seemed reasonable, when you got curious about things and ” reflected on the world.” (that’s deep). What explanations did you find?
I disagree that “security” is a meaningless, redundant word. What word would you offer?

Pagansister,
So everything that everyone believes about anything is just an attempt to find a sense of security? There’s no such thing as simple curiosity?

Nate -
I’d like to welcome you to the BNet newsblogs. I haven’t posted much for the last couple of weeks, and I think you arrived in my absence.
I notice that you have drawn a lot of criticism to yourself, at least on this thread. I’m wondering if that’s not due to your very staunch traditional Roman Catholicism – a very noble approach to Christianity for which I have a great deal of respect, but which I do not share with you – but because of the extremely aggressive manner in which you express it.
Now, I believe in aggressive Christianity, and have gotten rather aggressive once or twice myself (haven’t I, cknuck?), but I think attention to evangelical and pastoral issues need to determine when one uses such an approach, or uses a more gentle one.
In any event, it is clear to me that you have convinced no one of the rightness of the Roman Way, and have, if anything, strengthened others’ impression that Catholicism (or even Christianity – at which point it becomes my business, as well) in not the Way for them, not the Way to God. May I suggest that you be more circumspect in your use of method?

DeaconScott,
Thanks for the welcome and for the heartfelt advice. I’m actually not Roman Catholic, never have been, and probably never will be. I’m actually an evangelical convert to Orthodoxy, and generally a very strong critic of the Roman church myself.
The aggressiveness of my tone is probably due to mounting frustration with people who are quick to bash or belittle viewpoints they don’t agree with, whatever those viewpoints happen to be. As a graduate student in religion, my peers and I are taught to read all texts charitably and present them in the strongest possible light before advancing any criticism, and it can be very frustrating to have to go back out into the popular culture where people are not trained to show such charity and will instead look for any excuse to criticise what they don’t like. Just look at some of the gross misinterpretation of the article in some of the comments above: there are people accusing the bishops of endorsing a candidate or party, or denying people the freedom to think through their choice of candidate, or turning them into one-issue voters, or whatever. Misrepresentations of Catholicism seem to be quite fashionable among most of the regulars here, and bitterness toward that stems not from a desire to convert anyone to Catholicism but more frome my own lack of ability to control my reaction to people who treat others, in this case traditionalist Catholics, unfarily and uncharitably.

NateW:
“So everything that everyone believes about anything is just an attempt to find security?” Yes, IMO when it comes to religion.
“There’s no such thing as simple curiosity?” Of course there is, and that may be what gets folks into trying a religion, if they weren’t raised in a particular one. (again to try and answer life’s little questions). Also hope that religious curiosity leads people to realize that there is no religion that is superior to another.
Curiosity leads to investigation in life. Religion is just one part of life.

Nate -
Thank you for your kind response, and I am pleased to see that my comment was taken in the spirit in which it was given.
I must say that I was surprised to learn that you were Orthodox, not Roman. I would never have guessed that from the positions you took and the positions with which you took exception.
And I sympathize with your “mounting frustration with people who are quick to bash or belittle viewpoints….” I am an Episcopalian, and, as you may have heard, there’s been a bit of controversy in my church in recent years. The one thing which, to me, characterizes most strongly the tenor of the debate (if one may use that noble word to describe an alley knife-fight) is that ‘bashing and belittling,’ at least in the blogosphere.
Horrible crimes against charity, gruesome sins of pride and malice are the norm – especially, I am sorry to tell you, on the so-called “conservative” side of the issues. Virtueonline is routinely as horrid, in its realm, as “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is in its, not dissimilar, realm.
Would that all were, like you and your fellow-students, “taught to read all texts charitably and present them in the strongest possible light before advancing any criticism.” May I suggest that you might do the same with the texts you find on these newsblogs? Were you to do so, you might find that your readers might be less inclined to “look for any excuse to criticise what they don’t like” in what you write.
As to the content of one of those criticisms: “there are people accusing the bishops of endorsing a candidate or party, or denying people the freedom to think through their choice of candidate, or turning them into one-issue voters, or whatever.”
Functionally, I am afraid that these criticisms are not far off the mark. The Roman church as a politically-active entity in the United States in recent years, has come so close to all of these things that the hair’s-breadth which separates that church from those criticisms is simply lost on all but the most attentive observer.
I think that it is not so much “(m)isrepresentations of Catholicism” which are “fashionable among most of the regulars here.” I think that the churches – Rome here, others elsewhere – misrepresent themselves and in so doing, worst of all, misrepresent Christ.
I am confident that traditionalists would be mistreated much less if they mistreated less; others, who have no obligation to be so, would be more fair and charitable, if the churches and their advocates, who are so obligated by our Lord’s command, were more fair and charitable to begin with.

Nate,
There is a difference between aggressive and assertive defenses or appologies for faith stances. Aggression will often be met with the same. Perhaps the vitriol that lubricates some of your comments simply feels toxic rather than instructive. I would hope that as you become more acquainted with charitable reading you will learn and practice the art of assertive defense. The positons are less noxious and more likely to be received graciously. The energy and dynamism of students is wonderful in the right setting. But this is not the setting for that. I seem to cause you to read the worst and expect the least from my comments. For that, I appologize. However, don’t expect that my own caustic remarks are directed personally. I tend to chastise institutions more than individuals – EXCEPT when those individuals set themselves up as incontrovertible spokespeople. The they step into what some might call a “target rich environment”.
Just as I must minister to people whose conservatism causes me to bite my cheek or otherwise express myself without creating a pastoral crisis, I hope and expect you will have to do the same with us tyrannical liberals. Perhaps that is the difference between the pastoral training of a seminary and the theological training in a Divinity school. They are not intended to be adverserial, but sometimes the means of expression simply are not compatible.

Jesrfyl,
You might be on to something when you mention a difference between pastoral training in seminary and theological training in a university divinity school. They definitely provide a different atmospher, it seems. In the university setting, we’re taught quite well how to interpret texts charitably, but diplomatic speech is not so much on the list of skills to be taught–passionate and often caustic argumentation wins the day, in my experience.
Suffice it to say that just as you claim to attack institutions but not individuals, I tend to attack ideas rather than individuals, and my academic training has taught me to separate the two. I realize that many people in daily-life settings don’t separate them, but I’m often not conscious of that when I post. Suffice it to say that when I express frustration with what you post, I don’t mean to convey any animosity toward you as a person. I mean only to express, “That’s an utterly ridiculous idea!” with the hope that it will prompt a strong reply that makes your position seem stronger and more defensible.

That pro-abortion website that was posted suggesting varied Catholic teaching concerning abortion is not historically objective and omits certain facts relevant to the issue. Also practice and belief are two different things. Abortion at any stage is a gave sin but historically the penances have been less severe for early-term abortions. This is b/c the science of the day made it unclear whether or not a human person was in the womb. Aristotle’s science said after 40 days of pregnancy a human boy may come about in the womb but that before that it was not yet human. The Church still taught that any type of abortion or contraception was wrong so even if confusion resulted among private theologians and public penances as to whether before 40 days a human life was present it would still have been wrong b/c contraception was condemned and that would have just been another form of contraception. But notice the Church never taught that before 40 days no life was present. Only private theologians.

Read the article . It says (emphasis added):
“such choices “MAY affect the individual’s salvation.””
and
“The church considers it a “formal cooperation in evil” to vote for a candidate SOLELY because he or she supports “intrinsic evils” such as abortion, or racism.”
It is any church’s job to educate on moral teachings. As for Jesus’s teaching on rendering to Caesar, He did say follow the laws (paying taxes, following laws in general), but recall He did speak His mind, and He did also die (for our salvation) at the hands of the government for His words and actions.

I do have to say that this nation is in a critical place in its history in regard to our spirituality. I have seen America’s moral and spiritual values decline and as a Christian am constantly under attack for my beliefs, at times jokes are directed to me. A sad commentary for a nation that once other nations looked up to. We now bost of having the largest percentage of STD’s. I do believe that this nation will come under God’s judgement unless we turn back to Him.

barb:
“A sad commentary for a nation that once other nations looked up to.”
The lack of respect by other nations is not, IMO, due to a lack of spirituality. It is due to the incompetence of “W”. He has managed to get most of the world to really dislike us. His being “born again” hasn’t helped him in any way in the failed attempt to “lead” this country.
“I do believe that this nation will come under God’s judgement unless we turn back to Him.” And that’s going to do what?

….As a Christain I’m constantly under attack for my beliefs, at times jokes are directed to me.
Barb, See Netscape tonight. One of their headlines is: Sex scandal rocks Megachurch in GA. This minister has been a leader and at the same time sinning. My point is Spirtuality is not without some really low points, and is not a guarantee for a trip to heaven. So don’t sell our country short because of a lack of spirituality, it’s people not using the brains that God gave them. Oh, don’t let teasing interfere with your Christian beliefs.

“This minister has been a leader and at the same time sinning. My point is Spirtuality is not without some really low points, and is not a guarantee for a trip to heaven.”
They are two different things. Everyone sins. The sin is not spirituality, it takes us away from holiness. Unfortunately, ministers, being human, do sin. When they do so in a big or scandalous way, it is time for them to step down. It’s also a time for others to pray for them. No one is beyond salvation through Christ, who came to redeem sinners.
The question we Christians have to ask is, as St. Augustine said, do we really love God? Or, do we love our sins more?

Reading what I quoted again, I see I misinterpreted. The point is well taken, just being spiritual is not a ticket, unless you live it. Paul said to work through salvation through fear and trembling.

The real concern here is that one group beleives – and structures its entire theology, traditions, and practice around it – that our future is mediated by priests, of whatever role and title. Anothr group believes that our fate and future is God’s alone to decide and no ritual or practice can effect God’s decision. A third group beleives that what happens happens and the future is a mystery to be revealed, not to be foreshortened or predetermined – we cannot read the last page of our book of life before we get to it. I tend to sit – maybe even squat – between the second and third groups. If what they think makes them happy and helps them get through life, I don;t think any argument or discourse will change it. But I certainly hope they do not expect the rest of us will bend simply because of their beliefs.
I would rather live joyfully than survive dreading death.

I was born and raised a Catholic. I understand the church’s opinion on abortion but I also understand the need. I remember the days when women died from trying to abort themselves with coat hangers other destructive means when they were desperate. With that many women died from infection and bleeding to death. I have realized not everyone has the faith I have and they have the right to get an abortion if needed. I don’t think a candidate should be picked on this one topic. Our country needs someone who will keep us safe from terrorist and who will keep us independent of the government. I have not chosen a candidate yet but I am looking at all issues. I know I will not vote for Hillary for she wants us dependent on government and if she can not take the heat from other candidates she won’t keep us safe.