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.
There’s no such thing as religion not coming into things and one “putting aside” their religion. That’s a liberal-created myth while they’ve impose secular humanism and atheism because “they pay taxes.” Christians pay taxes, too, such as for schools, but all faith has to be removed from public life. There will either be Christian views and values embraced and imposed, or some other competing belief.
What isn’t clear to you?
Is this comment within the bounds of the rules here?
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. There are still foundational differences in our beliefs and how we see things, and they often make a difference in judging things.
Your post I’ll have to return to when I have more time than I do tonight.
If politics and religion should have nothing to do with each other for Christians, then why is every GOP congressperson a Christian? Sorry, but as I told someone else, I’m not arguing that every SC justice put on the SC should be an evangelical and none should be Catholic. But as it stands now, they ALL ARE Catholic and none is evangelical. To me it seems they’re being avoided to shut out fundamentalists and those who fully believe in God’s Word and do so over modern “science.” The GOP wants and depends on the votes of those with these beliefs but doesn’t want them in any real power.
It also makes the speaker the loser in the debate under Godwin's Law.
Tell me why evangelical Protestants, who make up such a large share of the GOP and vote for it overwhelmingly, can’t have so much as one GOP picked SC justice? Why are Catholics much preferred instead? If evangelicals speak up, maybe it will then become 4-1 or 3-2 rather than 5-0. Why does it bother you that an evangelical Christian questions why Christians are entirely represented by Catholics on the SC and would like to change that? I’ve never said that all GOP-picked justices have to be evangelical and none can be Catholic. But such a shutout is what evangelicals have. Why doesn’t that concern you?
If memory serves, Thomas was an Episcopalian (?) when nominated, after his mentor Danforth. He has since returned to the Catholic faith of his upbringing, as I understand.
**But as it stands now, they ALL ARE Catholic and none is evangelical. **
You are mistaken.
Scalia -—Reagan — Catholic
Kennedy-—Reagan — Catholic
Thomas -—GHW Bush — Catholic
Ginsburg—Clinton — Jewish
Breyer——Clinton — Jewish
Roberts-—GW Bush — Catholic
Alito-——GW Bush — Catholic
Sotomayor-Obama — Catholic (really CINO)
Kagan-——Obama — Jewish
I’m not talking here of the whole Supreme Court, only the justices selected by Republicans. They are all Catholic.
Just what could possibly be the point of your agreement with the Huffington Post that there are too many Catholics on the SCOTUS? I am a Catholic who would gladly defer to Reformed (and serious) Christians to replace Sotomayor (in ten seconds flat) and probably Anthony (Sandra Day) O'Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts (given the infamous vote that saved Obozocare. Evangelicals are obviously the most under-represented religion on SCOTUS.
The most over-represented religion (whether by faith or ancestral identification) would be Jews and a lot of Jews here can probably speak for themselves on the subject better than I can speak for them but might well be willing to trade in Kagan and one of the other two. That's up to them.
If we can elect a POTUS worth electing (and I don't care a whit whether Catholic or not since another Ronaldus Maximus would do fine) and he or she can nominate the successors, he or she should feel free to appoint as many Reformed Christians as they please. Being chosen for SCOTUS is serious business not analogous to electing a prom queen and claiming bragging rights for one's ethnic or religious group.
Of very great importance is to avoid unnecessary doctrinal squabbling, particularly among actual conservatives to the detriment of movement and country. Neither Catholic Justices nor any others are going to be asked to rule on such Catholic doctines as the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception, her assumption into heaven, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist, etc., etc., etc. No Reformed Christian on SCOTUS will be asked to render decisions on Scripture, sola or otherwise, Luther's Theses, Jean Cauvin's beiefs and writings or any other such matters.
I believe that Catholics and Evangelicals alike on a POLITICAL website can manage to practice their respective faiths (which agree on about 95%) without rubbing one anothers' noses in the 5% that is the difference.
You would not favor David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Herod Blackmun, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren and the like any more than I would favor Sonia Sotomayor, William Brennan, any Hyannisport related Kennedy, the late Fr. Robert Drinan, or John Kerry. The reason is not their respective claims of religious affiliation (mostly bogus) but rather their insufferable secular beliefs. The day that worthwhile members of your religious persuasion/commitment or whatever are nominated and confirmed will cause this Catholic joy not trepidation and, especially, if the appointee(s) is/are very young, very healthy and has/have a stiff backbone.
You get the last word since I try to avoid these conflicts.
If Christians had to check their faith at the door, they couldn’t participate in our government. No one does that, though, even though secular humanists claim to be “neutral.”
Point taken it was a personal comment. I will refrain from the personal aspect.
However the ideas expressed in this vanity are that there is “something wrong” when its catholics and jews but no protestants on the court and their beliefs will somehow cause them not follow the constitution or the laws correctly as a result. The underlying implication being that something must be done to prevent these groups from having so much power.
Those groups represent two of the three groups (blacks/jews/catholics) targeted by an ideology that was very hateful in dixie. To single them out again is not a good idea in my opinion.
This thread is hate mongering. But that point seems lost on some.
Why would there be? Your suspicions have no foundation.
You don’t know what the Supreme Court IS.
God’s Word has nothing to do with the duties of a judge.
A judge’s job is to apply the laws passed by the legislature(s), including the Constitution ratified by the state legislatures.
If you want God’s Word to have some salutary effect on law, then 1) educate the electorate, 2) campaign for good legislators at the state and national level.
Of course Sotomayor is a pro-abortion. Last time I checked she was appointed by the most pro-abortion president in US history.
“Candidate and nominee selection considers just such things as one’s religion”
And you know this how? What vetting committees have you sat on? Please share your experiences with us.
But I have to admit, I sorely miss the last 3 Protestants on the Court. Too bad we can’t bring bring back Stevens, Souter and O’Connor. Ah, but for another Blackmun!
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.