Posted on 07/03/2014 2:49:02 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
As has been mentioned a lot lately due to the Hobby Lobby decision, the Supreme Court is made up of six Roman Catholics and three Jews. I have been meaning to post about this for awhile and it seems like an appropriate time to.
For me, as an evangelical, I've found it increasingly troubling that all five conservative-voting justices are Roman Catholic. My belief on it is that the trend to select Roman Catholics as the "conservative" pick seems to come from the sense that they are, overall, less likely to strictly follow God's Word than would be an evangelical and to be more receptive to the opinions of man. The trend in politics in recent years is for evangelicals and more conservative Roman Catholics (and mainline Protestants and Jews) to band together, which is appropriate, but the trend seems to have gone too far in that evangelicals are being influenced to overlook and forget about the true and significant differences between evangelical belief and that of Roman Catholicism. Something has gone wrong when five Roman Catholics represent conservative Christians on the Supreme Court.
I missed this one. Please provide the following information:
1) You have previously been asked by another to provide the names of qualified Evangelicals whom GOP presidents might appoint to SCOTUS. We are still waiting to the best of my recollection. Identify them so that all conservatives might support them.
2) Explain in detail how the SCOTUS appointments, ratification and service on SCOTUS of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, all practicing Catholics, has"moved the SC to the left on moral issues.
3) Define "Christianity" as you use that term in your last sentence.
You know what's really odd?
THEY'RE ALL LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES.
Seriously.
Every last stinkin' one of 'em.
Not an engineer, accountant, or auto mechanic among 'em.
NOT EVEN ONE!!!!
It's a conspiracy, I tell you!
FWIW, there is no requirement that they be law school graduates.
I lived for the first 40+ years of my life in a highly Catholic area (almost 80%) and like places with few evangelicals (which were around 5%, most of the rest being mainline Protestants) and it was a completely secular post-Christian place. Who is responsible for that?
Free will.
The solid judges' thinking reflect a sound Catholic understanding of the natural law, most likely received in a Catholic high school or university.
“So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” 1 Corinthians 3:7
Also see what the Bible says about that no flesh shall glory in the presence of the Lord.
“Owe no man anything but to love one another.”
Everything comes from the Lord: salvation, the church and His Word.
Since Miers was nominated not long after I first read the Bible, which gave me almost like a new relationship with the Lord, I would like to look back at what happened with her nomination. But much of what the party “leaders” do is only to manipulate the base, like the 2012 Presidential nominee selection process. It was engineered to make Romney the nominee, and at least some if not all of those candidates who also ran and split the “anyone but Romney” vote were part of the charade.
Again, how to decide when life begins and what marriage is, and a host of other things that need to be decided upon? Do you believe devout Christians have the best answers to such questions? And how do devout atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc? If you would always choose a truly devout Christian over anyone else, then by your defintion, which isn’t what the Constitution even means, you’re imposing a religious test.
From the responses here, many people have to come to understand what the actual “no religious test” clause means, or they have to apply what they know. It’s concerning to read such responses because apparently those giving them won’t be able to answer atheists on similar topics.
This is NOT any sort of violation of “no religious test.” I hope that evangelicals will start to contact Republicans and let them know that while some conservative Catholics are acceptable, differences remain & matter, and there should be some evangelicals on the SC. Now, if there was something “unconstitutional” going on, it could actually be taken to court, not only criticized on a web site! Where is there any violation about this thread or what it suggests that you can take to court?
I haven’t researched any nominees, although in the future I may. And do you think such a question deals truthfully with this situation? Why do you feel that it does justice to this question to expect me to have candidate names and I have to research them and defend their qualifications (no doubt with a lot more than information on their career backgrounds), or else it should be assumed that there aren’t at least three qualified evangelicals in all America? I did happen to read a couple articles that talked of the lack of evangelicals on the Court, and none even hinted that the reason is a lack of qualified ones. I’m sure if there was any truth to that, it would be mentioned somewhere.
Name even one thing about God that is both good and true promulgated by a protestant.
Yeah I couldn't either that is why I returned to the Catholic Church
You’ve indulged the presumption that my reasons differ from the Huffington Post’s? Can you point to anything in common beyond us both writing on the topic?
Second, as I wrote to someone else, it would NOT be creating an unconstitutional “religious test” for evangelicals to express concern to the GOP about their omission from the SC and to bring up that conservative Catholics are not interchangeable to evangelicals. The Constitution is LAW, not suggestions on how to think or act. What grievance do you see that Catholics could take to court here? I would say this keeps being mentioned from ignorance, somehow, but I doubt there would be confusion if this matter didn’t involve the Catholic Church.
The suggestion was not that there aren’t plenty of Evangelicals highly qualified to sit on the court. But who are they? Who knows who they are? Maybe their lack of profile, rather than lack of qualifications, explains why none are on the court.
It is not I who is complaining about there being no Evangelicals on the court; if I were complaining to the point where I wrote out a vanity about it, I’d at least have an idea of who I’d like to see, rather than complaining about the Catholics and Jews who ARE on the court.
I have posted that a SCOTUS of nine reliable Evangelicals would be fine by me as a Catholic and, like other posters, I have asked you (so far, in vain) to identify some potential Evangelical justices. I have also conceded that an Evangelical might well ask why, given Evangelical support of GOP candidates, there are only Catholics among the SCOTUS's theoretical majority.
I have posted that I cannot imagine a justiciable issue that would be determined differently by Evangelical judges than it would be by actually Catholic judges. SCOTUS is NOT going to cite Scripture as a source of secular law, if that is what you are getting at. If an Evangelical SCOTUS justice ever grounds a decision in Scripture, there probably won't be another Evangelical appointed to the Court. Likewise as to Catholic justices.
You started this thread knowing that it would stir up a hornet's nest as it has but I have tried to give you the benefit of every doubt and trying to advocate that Catholics put themselves in your moccasins rather than just react.
Since you are a member of FR, I assume that you are not in agreement with the liberalism of HuffPo.
Common beliefs you and I share? I'll make some assumptions here. I assume you agree with me on the following:
1. Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior and yours.
2. There are three Persons in One God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This is the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
3. God the Father created the heavens and the Earth and all within them.
4. Jesus Christ is His Only begotten Son and was born of the virgin Mary.
5. Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate and was crucified, died and was buried.
6. On the third day thereafter, He arose again from the dead.
7. Jesus Christ ascended into heaven about 40 days later and promised to send Another, the Paraclete or Holy Ghost.
8. On Pentecost, the apostles and disciples were gathered in the upper room at the Temple when the Holy Ghost descended upon them, appearing as Doves and Tongues of Fire and conferred upon those present gifts of the Holy Spirit evidenced by apostles preaching in the apostles' native languages to strangers on the Temple plaza who heard the preaching, each in his/her native language.
9. Jesus Christ sits at the right Hand of the Father from whence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
10. There is a heaven and there is a hell.
That's ten things we (Catholics and Evangelicals) presumably agree on. Probably ten more than we agree with secular humanists. People more knowledgeable than I can feel free to extend the list. SCOTUS will not be called upon to determine or even apply any of these.
Your second question: There is a civil case pending in Louisiana in which a priest (one Father Bayhi) and the Diocese of Baton Rouge and an alleged lay parishioner are being sued. The lawsuit claims that the lay parishioner sexually assaulted a child of unreported (at least here) age, that a 12 year old girl made a sacramental confession to Father Bayhi and included claims that OTHER child(ren) not in her presence were molested by the lay parishioner (who died about five months before the suit was filed). The lawyers for the plaintiff(s) claim that Fr. Bayhi had an obligation to "report" to secular authorities what he heard (if he did hear any such thing) from the 12 year old in her confession. She apparently does not claim to be a victim. Nor would it matter if she were under Canon Law.
The inviolable nature of the seal of the confessional goes back to the beginning of the Church and is extended to all other religions by our First Amendment (that was not written by Catholics but is much appreciated) as well even as to pastoral counseling and conversations between clergy and lay people related thereto. I would hope but am not certain that members of non-Catholic religions sitting as judges would be able to understand the so-called "priest/penitent privilege" against being required to testify. The Louisiana Supreme Court apparently disagrees because it overturned a conventional appellate court decision preserving the privilege and ordered that the priest testify. Fr. Bayhi cannot testify at all. If he does testify, he is excommunicated and can only be restored by direct papal action which is quite unlikely to occur.
As the Plains Indian warriors used to say before battle: Today is a good day to die! This issue is a worthy hill to die on not just for Fr. Bayhi but for every Catholic and hopefully every actual Christian in Louisiana and in the USA. Also, as Patton said, the purpose of this exercise is NOT to die for your (principles or country) but to make the other poor dumb bastard (secular humanists and those who make a false god of courts) die for his. See Little Big Horn, Battle of.
I have already conceded that there are certainly differences separating Catholics and Evangelicals but NONE that should separate us on moral matters before SCOTUS.
I fail to understand much of your complaint other than what I have covered above. I have asked you for explanations but I don't think I am getting them. This is a major reason why I have long since tired of arguing with Christians who are not Catholic on matters of religious doctrines. It is tiresome and never seems to effect any genuine rapprochement.
“How about evangelicals speaking out on the differences between their beliefs and those of Catholicism, and expressing to the GOP that while we’ll work with Catholics, these differences still matter, and it is not acceptable, for example, to represent Christianity on the SC entirely or even mostly with Catholics.”
What makes you think the Presidents who nominate Catholics to the SC all the time don’t already know what Evangelicals think of Catholic practices? I mean what’s your theory on why they don’t care what Evangelicals think who are concerned about the religious differences of Catholics enough to not want them on the supreme court no matter how conservative they seem?
FReegards
Funny how that goes, since the states with the high Catholic populations are the ones who have empowered and still empower liberal Democrats and their policies, including that most of the first, I’d say if IRC, dozen or so to legalize same-sex marriage are highly Catholic.
When I was much younger in the Lord, I looked into Catholicism, and even though found there were things that directly contradicted the Bible, I still watched and listened to EWTN beginning from 2006. But one thing after the other led me, by this point, to start to see it as possibly a cult, or sharing many features of cults.
Without breaking down the wall between evangelicals and Catholics in politics, so that evangelicals have unthinkingly accepted that conservative Catholics should be just as easily accepted as evangelicals, there would have been no Romney campaign. And Romney won’t be the end of it. The party leaders (even “rulers”) would mostly like to see the GOP become fiscally conservative and morally moderate and secular humanist, and Christianity be something kept to oneself.
And we aren’t talking about past SC justices, but the present. But since you seem to suggest that Catholics were turned to because Protestants were unreliable, see above. And there also hasn’t been an evangelical in decades. And, like how Roberts and Kennedy have come out with the liberals on key rulings, the people in power seek to pick those who cooperate with their agendas. Souter was no accident. The Protestant deceivers came about in a specific era when the country was doing an about-face on God and morals, and if the GOP had picked Cont’d
(Cont’d) Catholic justices to the Court and made them the turncoats, what would have been the reaction of evangelicals in the GOP to such Catholics? The GOP leadership needs a few “reliable” justices, and then it needs some potential turncoat swing justices, and the base is only at the point now after decades of Scalia and Thomas, who really paved the way, of accepting Catholic turncoats. But it wouldn’t be politically feasible for the GOP to have the reliable judges be evangelicals while the “swing” justices would be Catholic.
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.