Posted on 07/03/2014 2:49:02 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
There are nine people who wield a great amount of power by sitting on the SC, and it is beyond any debate that their personal views, with the most important being their belief on God, that determines their decisions.
Then explain the scenario of five liberal Catholics on the SC. Who would appoint them?
The church is the body and bride of Christ, and it’s those who are the Lord’s. More on that when I have more time.
So, then, how do you tell when life begins, or how do you define what marriage is? The strongly held personal beliefs of the justices are what they base their decisions on, and are what drives how they interpret the Constitution. Any look at news coverage of SC nominees being picked shows their religion being prominently mentioned and discussed.
Well, I thank you for the response, but it’s not a very good argument to make that somehow my concerns over the GOP-nominated Catholics aren’t credible because the Huffington Post opposes the conservative Catholics on the Court. That happens a lot in politics, and means nothing because my reasons and theirsfor writing are completely different.
And again, as I’ve written to other, there is no such thing as religion and politics being mutually exclusive. The SC justices ultimately interpret the Constitution and decide issues on their personal beliefs. Of course, that’s why they are intensely scrutinized (including on their religion) before beingnominated and then during confirmation. If religion and politics is separate, how do you decide when life begins, or what marriage is, etc.?
When it is evangelical Christians who are largely the strength of the GOP, but the GOP-nominated judges are all Catholic, you don’t at least wonder if there might be something behind it?
So how do you decide when life begins, or how do you define what marriage is?
LOL!
I’m observing the situation, including how often the religion of a nominee is mnetioned. Since the personal beliefs of nine people ultimately decide what’s officially right and wrong (legally and even morally) for the country now and in the future, and also influence the whole world, their religion is very important and is of course an important consideration. I’ll also ask you this question: how do you decide when life begins and what a marriage should be? On two huge issues, Obamacare and the Defense of Marriage Act, conservative Catholics went with Kagan, Sotomayor, etc., last year.
OK, so let’s say Kennedy, Ginsburg and Thomas announce their retirements next week.
You’re President of the United States. You control the Senate, and know your nominee will be confirmed with little fuss. Who would you nominate? Which evangelicals? Any why? What in their background(s) do you think qualifies them to sit on the highest court of the land, and make decisions affecting 300,000,000 for decades to come? Any why are they better for the position than a Catholic or Jew?
It’s a conspiracy!
:-D
First, Sonia Sotomayor is no more a legitimate Roman Catholic for these purposes than John Paul Stevens or Herod Blackmun should be accused of being Protestant believers much less Evangelicals. That leaves us with arguably five Catholics on SCOTUS at the moment. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas seem fully Catholic. Chief Justice Roberts certainly blew it on Obozocare but generally seems fully Catholic. Anthony Kennedy is a bit more questionable and his jurisprudence on abortion since Webster seems more motivated by characteristics other than his Catholicism.
Second, I assume that no one needs to be convinced that abortion is quite taboo to anyone CLAIMING Catholicism (Sebelius, Pelosi, Kerry, anything named Kennedy related to the Hyannisport Kennedys, Rosa DeLauro, Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, etc., etc. do not qualify). We Catholics regard material assistance to or complicity with abortion is a mortal sin and therefore the grounds for automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication. Is Evangelical Christianity any stronger on this matter of abortion? If so, please explain. Ditto: "Gay" "Marriage."
Third, I can well understand the desire to make the near future differ from the near past as to the professed religion of nominees and therefore judges. OTOH, as noted by Dr. Sivana, there is a specific constitutional provision prohibiting religious tests for any public office under the constitution. Yes, I understand that it is honored more in the breach than in the performance. I would assure you that, as a Catholic, I would privately go out of my way to find qualified and brilliant jurists who are Evangelical as potential nominees to balance your concerns. I don't think Harriet Myers was what you had in mind.
Fourth, although Catholics and Evangelicals certainly disagree on some matters, few of them are likely to be decided by the SCOTUS or other courts because they are purely theological. We agree on the overwhelming majority of Scripture and differ on few matters that are justiciable issues.
Fifth, when life begins can be determined scientifically as the point of conception since that is the point when a new person with his/her own unique DNA exists. I will side with my faith over claims of science but science on that one seems clear and completely in agreement with faith and probably with your faith as well. Abortion tends to be defended by some folks of whatever persuasion who want to be soft and mushy and gushy toward the mom's perceived "need" to dispose of the baby. That is a matter of their lack of faith not their respective faiths.
Sixth, you have noted the high level of support given by Evangelicals to the GOP. If the liberals (not you) attack the Catholic faith of four justices, arguably a fifth and even Sotomayor who has long-since apostasized, Catholic rightward movement can be expected. We don't demand that Catholics fill vacancies but we won't sit still for organized attacks on the Catholicism of nominees either especially by the heathens who attack Christianity generally and our nation while they are at it. Again, not you.
Seventh, the justices ought to be applying the words of the constitution against challenged statutes or regulations or actions rather than indulging their own personal religious beliefs. We have a much more serious problem with committed leftist non-believers who imagine that they have a license to work an agenda that is not constitutional.
Eighth, we may differ from time to time on issues like immigration. I had been strongly favorable to it and my faith played a role in that. More recently I have concluded that those who are alarmed and oppose the current immigration abuses have the better argument for the foreseeable future. We have already seen more immigrants enter legally or illegally than we can socially digest. We need a rest as a nation on this. The Catholic bishops should back out of this issue. A high percentage of Catholics here also disagree with many bishop's statements favoring disarmament, welfare state expansion and such issues.
We need a firm alliance in our society between Catholics and Evangelicals and others of similar beliefs to restore our civilization rather than an ongoing squabble over religious differences. Otherwise we are mud wrestling for the entertainment of our mutual enemies.
May God bless you and yours!
Nope. I have not a smidgen of curiosity.
WHAT HE SAID!
"May God bless you and yours!"
Same blessing back atcha!
Than you should also understand that here are no formal conservative evangelical churches. With the "decentralized authority" that you all so proudly tout when it is convenient it should be no surprise.
Catholicism has a stated position consistent with Conservatism. Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans all support gay marriage. Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians have women pastors. The list of inconsistencies with the Bible and Conservatism goes on and on...
Individual members may be Conservative to one degree or another, but none of the churches have an enforceable manifesto against abortion, Gay marriage, Euthanasia, etc....< P>You all want the church of "Que sera sera" now live with the consequences.
Meant to ping both of you to #96
“We Catholics regard material assistance to or complicity with abortion is a mortal sin and therefore the grounds for automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.”
How is such an excommunication lifted?
“God’s Word has nothing to do with the duties of a judge.”
On what other basis is a judge supposed to discern right from wrong?
“more and more troubled over Catholic beliefs and practice as I learn more about them”
If the things you are learning were true, you would become less and less troubled.
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.