Just as I suspected: Judge Alexander Williams is an African-American.African-Americans, as a group, are not too keen on the expansion of "gay rights."
Thanks, Bill Clinton, for ONE decent judicial appointment.
Posted on 05/17/2005 9:33:46 AM PDT by RWR8189
Elected body. I am thinking of running for election to the board next time around. Too bad that Kevlar vests are so uncomfortable to wear in warm weather.... 8~)
Elected body. I am thinking of running for election to the board next time around. Too bad that Kevlar vests are so uncomfortable to wear in warm weather.... 8~)
So is eating shellfish or wearing clothing of more than one kind of fiber just as sinful as homosexuality? What's the proper response to someone who tries to discredit the church's position on homosexuality by pointing out the church's inconsistency in enforcing the other such sins listed in Deuteronomy?
Correction: I meant Leviticus in my post #23, not Deuteronomy.
It has to be kept in context. Forget the "morality" aspect for just one second.
In the time of the Old Testament, the dietary laws made sense in order to keep the populace from developing food-borne illness.
Modern science has provided usually reliable methods of dealing with food safety, however science is not 100% foolproof, so orthodox people still follow those laws.
However, modern science still cannot adequately deal with the health and social ills wrought by homosexuality, therefore, and without moral judgements entering into the equation, homosexuality should still be discouraged by the dominant Religions.
As a "moral" matter, I think eating a lobster doesn't rank very high on the sin-o-meter when compared to packin' the fudge.
That seems logical enough - unless Gomorrah was the site of the first Red Lobster franchise... ;-)
The houses of congress, and the office of the President for that matter, rarely look beyond the next election cycle. The judiciary should act as a leavening factor to keep the right, or the left, from straying too far in either direction.
This is nothing but liberals trying to use the public schools to impose their religious beliefs on homosexuality, pure and simple. They are the intolerant ones!
Geez more often then not the comments one sees are about liberals LACK of "religious beliefs". People trying to push a gay agenda scare me...BUT...people trying to push a fundamentalist Christian agenda scare to an equal degree.
Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament. The laws were designed to teach self discipline, sacrifice and service to God. There was no way for every law to be followed to the letter, which is why there was an annual day of atonement. Homosexuality was condemned in the Old Testament. Many orthodox Jews in our country still follow the laws of the Old Testament.
The New Testament begins with the birth of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. With His birth, death and ascension Christianity was born. All those that believeth In Him, shall not perish, but haver everlasting life. There is no longer a need to follow the laws of the Old Testament for salvation. The New Testament also condemns homosexuality.
There is no conflict or inconsistency in the Bible or in God's law if it is divided properly. You need to know to whom some verses or chapters were referring to, Christians or Jews. You need to know when the reference was being made, before or after Christ's death on the cross. You need to know who were posing the questions, Pharisee's or perhaps the disciples.
Hope this helps.
You get used to it! It's like taking a heavy artillery barrage!
This judge had to rule this way because if he had supported this, conservative school districts could have created a similar program except from a Judeo-Christian perspective. A judge smart enough to realize that this stuff works both ways.
Just as I suspected: Judge Alexander Williams is an African-American.African-Americans, as a group, are not too keen on the expansion of "gay rights."
Thanks, Bill Clinton, for ONE decent judicial appointment.
excellent response.
When you say 'right' or 'left', this is just shorthand we use. We generally know approximately what we are referring to. In reality, these are purely subjective as you can see if you considered the idea of passing an amendment stating exactly this; that judges should not come from the 'right' or 'left'. It would be just a little silly. Who decides what 'right' or 'left' or 'middle' means? The system we have is already designed to avoid extremist judges.
1. A judge is appointed by the president.
2. The judge must also be approved by the Senate.
3. The president is elected by the states, indirectly by the populace of that state.
4. The senators from each state are elected by the populace of that state.
5. Also, the two-party system (not part of the Constition, of course) does not lend itself to extremist office holders.
In any case, it would be very difficult for anyone considered to have 'extreme' views to gain enough power to get like-minded judges in the court. Not impossible, but very difficult. The current situation is just politics. The minority doesn't like what the majority is doing. So what else is new?
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal mantra that traditional religious believers are trying to "impose" their beliefs on others. It is precisely what you liberals want to do, not traditional religious believers. They for the most part simply want to have the same freedoms that others have in this country and not have the government impose liberal religious believes through civil same sex "marriage", promotion of the morality of homosexual activity in the public school, exclusion from public office and the judiciary because of traditional Christian beliefs, etc., etc. The Constitution provides for no establishment and free exercise. It does not give you liberals free rein to impose your left wing moral beliefs on sexuality on others!
Thank you. It was difficult to give a "nutshell" response.
First would be that the church has no right to "enforce" anything beyond it's voluntary congregation, unlike say, a school board?
As it has been for some time.
My point was that the situation, as it stands now, is the same situation that has been in place for some time.
When one party becomes the majority in the Senate AND has the office of the Presidency, that party tries to pack the courts, through appointments, with judges that have the same ideologies that the majority party does at the time.
Federal judges, being appointed for life, barring unseen eventualities, keep the pendulam from swinging too far in either direction.
IMO, this is what the founding fathers wanted. A leavening effect.
You show your true intolerant colors Unam Sanctum. I vote conservative more often than anything else. Your labeling of me as a liberal clearly shows your intolerance. I was trying to point out that there is pressure from BOTH SIDES. I give you the latest Kansas battle on creationist theory vs evolution theory. I agree that BOTH should be covered in class. But having said that I also believe that if it were put to a nationwide vote as to witch is the more likely, sorry, eveolution might well be the winner. I grew up back east and clearly remember blue laws that prevented certain stores from being open or selling certain things on Sundays. I am glad that those half-assed laws were done away with. And considering who was making the laws when they were enacted they were clearly passed because the great leaders of the time thought the public should be in church praying, not shopping. Given the power to do so, fanatical christians would be as likely to push their views and beliefs as much as secularists. I tried to make my point. Sorry if you don't get it.
This sentiment is repeated all the time. I think it is a load of crud. If someone objects to specific issues, like evolution in school or abortion, debate those issues on the merits. To act as if Christians in this nation have any real desire or ability to overthrow the First Amendment's twin guarantees of no establishment and free exercise and establish an Iranian-like theocracy is simply lunatic left-wing land. It is not only untrue, it foments hatred of traditional religious believers which is rampant on the left and destroys our generally tolerant society. Tolerance goes both ways, you know. Secularists could show a little themselves these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.