Warning: I’m going to talk politics. (I know. I’m a bit flabbergasted myself, but it’s hard not to think about November’s election with the Republican National Convention — or what’s left of it — happening just blocks from where I now sit.) So if you can’t stand another second of political angst, close the page now.

I came across the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics on a friend’s blog. It calls these issues the five NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES, because they are intrinsically evil:

  • abortion
  • euthanasia
  • homosexual “marriage”
  • embryonic stem cell research
  • human cloning

(I’d like to know why they did not include the death penalty, by the way. Another blog I came across lists eight non-negotiables, but still not the death penalty.)

The guide urges us to vote based on which candidate falls on the morally correct side of those five issues alone, because they supersede all other issues. I do believe that those items are intrinsically evil, but I don’t think they are the ONLY issues on which a politician’s stance could be considered evil.

According to the five non-negotiable method of selecting a presidential candidate, McCain comes out on top on abortion (Palin helps tip the scale in his favor), euthanasia, homosexual “marriage” and human cloning. Embryonic stem cell research appears to be basically a tie, though McCain hedges it a bit.

So it’s a clear choice, right? If a candidate, such as Obama, is willing to negotiate on the importance of human life, his moral judgment on lesser issues can’t be trusted even if he currently agrees with us. BUT … if I feel a candidate is morally wrong in other venues, why should I trust their moral judgment on these five selected policies, even if they currently agree with me?

If a candidate is willing to throw away, as it were, the poor by way of their economic policy, or throw away our at-risk youth by way of their education policy, or throw away the planet God created by way of their environmental policy, why should I believe when they say they’re not willing to throw away the unborn, the infirm, the old?

Who is willing to protect not only a poor mother’s unborn baby but the mother herself?
Who is willing to continue to protect that baby if:

  • it’s born to an illegal immigrant?
  • it gets into a failing school system?
  • it is confronted by gang members down the street with easily access to weapons?
  • if it’s denied fair working conditions by a company that won’t allow unionization?
  • it’s breathing the noxious chemicals that some administrations would allow to continue spewing into our air?
  • it can’t afford to go to the doctor and therefore dies of a curable disease? (sounds a bit like euthanasia, eh?)

I read a lot of Catholic blogs and a lot of environmental blogs. I’m sure you know what they say. The Catholic bloggers out there think Obama is the anti-Christ and Biden is a fake Catholic. The environmentalists think Palin is out to kill all the animals and soil the earth and McCain a fake environmentalist. I have lots of Republican friends, and a few Democrats. I have a lots of Democratic coworkers, and a few Republican. But despite all I’ve heard them say and all I’ve read, I remain an undecided voter. So if you think you can sway me, comment away!

Advertisements