we are, naturally, all different people. we share a certain many things -- more than we would like to assume or admit, usually -- but we have many differences in values and beliefs. this is driven by many factors, biological and social. but the key here is that the differences indeed exist.

now, many of these differences that people to people may be wrong. for instance, believing that the world is 6,000 years old is surely different, but it isn't just another way of looking at things. the entire field of falsifiable, empirically supported science testifies that this world is not 6,000 years old. there even seem to be objectives we could agree in outside of that field: rape doesn't seem conducive to the happiness of the victim, and happiness that does not harm others is generally thought of as a good thing in our society. but some differences are equally right: in fact, objective truths have been registered on few (relativists would argue zero) issues.

this is why, for one example, why we have so many undecided voters. many would be astonished, on either side, to see that you could not lean at least partially way (i was until recently). but once you come to realize how many different sorts of beliefs there are out there in the political spectrum, it's easy to see how one could tightly compare personal dislikes and philosophical stances on the betterment of our country.

while we all struggle with this, there are many voters who, at least in proclamation, are single-issue voters. abortion, the death penalty, the latest war -- they rank certain causes higher than others, like, say, health care, social security and immigration (i leave out the economy because, while obama has a lead in this category, it seems to be neither president has been entirely clear on the topic, and many still feel uncomfortable with both policies. this seems such a murky issue, more complex than others, like being for or against the war, the death penalty or abortion. and while i think mr. obama is a better candidate for the job, and for this specific task, i do not feel entirely comfortable with him here, nor do i think any administation can come in and truly improve the situation by itself. perhaps, though, his administrations mindset, and following actions, could help. we shall see.)

it should be mentioned here than being pro-choice, against the death penalty, and against waging preemptive war would classify you, usually, as a democrat. so, perhaps people fit into pegs. but some, if not most, value certain causes over others.

as the latest election approaches, i found myself recently running down the checklist of issues. it's hard to quantify how many single issue voters are out there (i've at least had trouble on google, and would love to see stats here), but it seems to me there has to be a decent chunk of this nation that has one single issue on the mind when entering the voting booths.

is this bad for society? is this something you practice? when considering such vastly important issues such as the economy, the war, or even the supreme court, should one take superior presence? or, does your candidate agree with you on most of the issues, and are his stances on the others bearable?

I am completely, totally against this. It is vitally important that we eliminate single issue voting. So I implore all of you not to vote for anyone who doesn't share our opinion on this subject.

I think I would still vote for Obama, in spite of his support for corn ethanol.

You're not a very good one issue voter.

Does the US still slap tariffs on imported sugar?

Probably.

RM really let you down by ignoring this post, Bart.

I got some out of it.

according to a quick google search,



didn't search for sugar alone, but that's a pretty revealing number. brazilian sugar ethanol starts at a $1.05 disadvantage. But, on the other hand,


And, according to the same article, it is not very efficient when compared to petrolium and may even be less efficient than corn ethanol

link: http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/06/news/economy/sugarcane_ethanol/index.htm

but enough of this offtopic discussion;
i think a single issue vote can be rationalized if one feels that a single issue overrules all others in terms of importance or changes in other issues will not be as broad or sweeping as those regarding the issue they focus on. one can easily ignore foreign policy if they believe both candidates are interventionist, and would simply intervene in different places, and can easily ignore economic policy if they believe both candidates policies are broadly the same and will move the country in the same direction. so it is definitely possible to ignore some issues if one believes that on the whole there will be little difference no matter who wins with regards to these issues.

Having to think about more than one issue is hard for a lot of people.

just found this. extremely applicable here.

http://www.cathdal.org/default.asp?cont ... &newsid=42

Joint Statement from Bishop Kevin Farrell and Bishop Kevin Vann


later in the letter, the bishops offer conditions under which a catholic could vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights:


their conclusion:

I do not care if people vote on single-issues.

What if the single issue is that one candidate is evil and the other is not?

This is an important, and often-overlooked question.

i agree with everything mccain, and especially palin, stand for, except i just really, really hate unborn fetuses, so i'm voting for obama

So, is capital punishment an "intrinsic evil"? Jesus wasn't too fond of it.

I think that it might be time to start looking at the tax-exempt status of certain religious groups under the new regime...

According to some literature I read in my wife's hometown Catholic Church, it mentioned "non negotiable" issues and capital punishment was not one of them.
I think the reason they weigh more heavily on the topic of abortion is that many, MANY, more abortions take place every year than executions of people on death row. If you're looking at it from a "what issue kills less people" stance, capital punishment is the lesser of two evils.
Of course this assumes that abortion is "murder", a fetus is a life, voting for a pro life candidate will have an impact, and overturning Roe v. Wade will result in less abortions.

Excessive capital punishment is condemned by the Catholic Church. Not ALL capital punishment. It is not considered "killing," but a form of "self-defense."

To understand the “mind of the Church” on this matter, we must begin with the principle that the Church’s Magisterium, as the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, has never taught that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. Moreover, the Church has always recognized that the state has the authority, in certain circumstances, to impose the death penalty on one who has committed a “capital offense.” This point immediately distinguishes capital punishment from acts such as abortion and euthanasia, which are intrinsically evil and thus ought never to be chosen (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, nos. 62, 65), and certainly can never be legitimized by the state (ibid, no. 73).

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=29

The Church opposes capital punishment, but it does not condemn it. Unlike abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia, which are condemned by the Church.

But that would be infriging on their rights!!!!one