We are not so shallow as to elect people on the basis of their looks. We should consider their promises but the real measure of the man or woman who deserves our vote is character. The cynicism of the current political climate is largely due to the fact that the people elected do not hold true to the character they claim. Perhaps it is easier to forgive someone who is so obviously self-absorbed as a Donald Trump (whose sins and faults were well known before folks voted for him) than it is those who claim the higher character of virtue and then find it so easy to go against faith and conscience in such an obvious way. This is hardly a partisan problem but it is fairly obvious that the list is more Democratic than Republican. That said, if we are values voters, it should be time for values to count -- no matter what the party!
Who are those Roman Catholic Senators:
- Cantwell (WA);
- Collins (ME);
- Durbin (IL);
- Gilibrand (NY);
- Heitkamp (ND);
- Kaine (VA);
- Leahy (VT);
- Markey (MA);
- Cortez Masto (NV);
- McCaskill (MO);
- Menendez (NJ);
- Murkowski (AK);
- Murray (WA); and
- Reed (RI).
“Perhaps it is easier to forgive someone who is so obviously self-absorbed as a Donald Trump (whose sins and faults were well known before folks voted for him)…”
ReplyDeleteIs Donald Trump more obviously self-absorbed than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton? It’s easy to wack this crass industrialist like a piñata because he is not up to code, not up to our standard of Christian ethics and morality. But did you vote for a personality or a platform? During the presidential campaign, which of the two candidates pledged to preserve, protect, and defend not only the Constitution but religious liberties in particular? Which of the two candidates not only used their “Christianity” as a prop but was loudly pro-Christian? No, it wasn’t a sin to sit out the 2016 election but from a strategic point of view, it could have been a civil disaster; Reagan’s 1,000 years of darkness. There were several LCMS Lutheran pastors in the media, maybe many, who said they could not vote for Donald Trump. They were sending mixed signals. Do we engage the Left-hand kingdom or not? Do we only get involved when a born again Christian runs for office? Do we see an election as an opportunity to mitigate damage where and when that is possible? To me it was a clear cut choice. While Trump, some would argue, is a narcissistic cad and bounder, he loves his family and our nation. And who knows, the experience and weight of the Presidency may even bring him closer to the God he seems fond to quote in Two Corinthians. Incidentally, the last POTUS to wear his Christianity on his sleeve, Jimmy Carter, was the least effective and will be remembered for his malaise speech and wearing a cardigan sweater in the Oval Office. I’d like to get that one back. Trump is at least pragmatic and shows every sign that he can quickly learn from his mistakes, which is a YUGE asset.
Isn’t Bartering the RC way? You commit this sin so you do that penance. Pay money for an annulment and the marriage never happened. The Vatican says and so it is. What can possibly be expected from these Senators but a confusing, contradicting, misguided, misleading stand on abortion?
ReplyDelete"This is hardly a partisan problem but it is fairly obvious that the list is more Democratic than Republican."
ReplyDeleteActually only 2 of the 14 papists were lowlife RINOcrats. The rest of the Republican senators voted for the bill banning abortion ban after 20 weeks. Three other senators (Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly and Bob Casey) also voted for the bill, breaking with their fellow Demonicrats.
Furthermore it should be noted that of the 14 papists who voted against the abortion ban bill, eight (57%) were female. Also voting against the abortion ban bill were eleven other Demonicrats versions of Irma Grese, "the Hyena of Auschwitz."
Instead of your NeverTrumpista rant, which one hopes doesn't spill out in your sermons, you should have noted that it was President Trump who supported the bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks.
ReplyDeleteHere's an explanation of what the 51-46 Senate vote was actually about:
ReplyDelete"The 46 senators who voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, were actually voting against ending debate on the bill. Had 60 senators voted to end debate on the bill, the Senate could have actually voted on the bill itself. But Senate rules make it impossible to vote on a bill unless 60 senators agree that the vote should take place. Therefore pro-life groups typically score votes such as the procedural one today as votes in favor of or against late-term abortion.
"With 51 votes, the Senate could have changed the rules like they did for approving the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The use of this “nuclear option” would have allowed the Senate to then pass the Pain-Capable bill.
“Unless Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate leadership ‘nuke’ the democratic filibuster, the bill is almost certain to die,” the American Family Association (AFA) wrote in an action alert. “Why? Because most Republicans favor the filibuster rule that requires 60 votes to advance legislation for consideration and to end debate on legislation.”
Excerpted from the LifeNews article, "U.S. Senate rejects banning late-term abortions of babies who feel pain."
BTW, during the Senate debate, Demonicrat Elizabeth Warren said, "Abortion is safer than getting your tonsils out." In the U.S. at least 25 million women and girls are not alive today because they were slaughtered in the womb because of demonically evil people like Elizabeth Warren. One should pray that this lying, murdering traitor is not returned to the Senate by the voters of Sodomchusetts.
ReplyDeleteWhat never trump rant are you talking about? I did not read any. It is pretty obvious that trump is self-absorbed, so are most politicians of more recent years, but as Pastor peter said, we all knew that. What is most shocking are those who supposedly are values people but leave their values at the door when they vote. like the people on the list. As for pastor Peters sermons, I am not sure he has ever spoken about a candidate or elected official from the pulpit ever, good or bad (at least in the 20 years I have headr him preach).
ReplyDeleteThe PM article, "Follow up on "Catholic" conscience. . ." deals with the failure of the Senate to pass the abortion ban bill, especially the hypocritical papists (specifically listed) who voted against it. The article even includes a YouTube video of a genocidal murderer describing how he commits murder by abortion.
ReplyDeleteOther than a cheap shot rant of the person who prevent a lying murdering traitor from getting into the White House, there was no reason to include any mention of President Trump, who supported the abortion ban bill and who is not a papist.
I thought it was a back handed compliment since trump is who he is while the dems cited in the post are trying to hide their duplicity. I didnot take it as a cut against trumnp but against those who say they are better than him but are not.
ReplyDeleteA "backhanded compliment" is actually an insult, and in this case a cheap shot.
ReplyDeleteAgain, there was no need mention President Trump relevant to the context of the article, unless it was to note that Trump supported the abortion bill and that Trump is not a Romanist. Neither point was stated.
In discussing the Senate papists who voted against the abortion ban bill, it would be interesting to find out if they are still being allowed to receive Mass at their Roman Church. This then could be compared to whether long-time pro-abortionist Sen. Paul Simon (1928-2003) received communion at his LCMS church.
ReplyDeleteI know this is a pipe dream but the Roman church could exercise the office of the keys and excommunicate every last one of these workers of iniquity but church discipline is apparently not in style at the moment. Imagine what that would do and the message it would send. No Mass for you! But that would take obedience to the words of Christ which requires the Holy Spirit. Today, the Church is more likely to accommodate than excommunicate, even in egregious cases like this one where high powered politicians are only concerned about getting re-elected by a miscreant constituency and church officials want no part of a high profile scandal. The one place where unborn children should certainly find a protector has been removed. Sorry kids, but you’re on your own; the church has turned a blind eye.
ReplyDelete