Candidates and Religion

[12th Doctor]

For me, religion only matters so far to the point of does the candidate have a religios/spiritual code that he follows.  I have to admit, I would be very uncomfortible with an athiest as president.  As long as the candidate has a religious/moral view that is somewhat compatible with my views, whether the candidate be Catholic (which I am), Protestant, Jewish or even Muslim, then I am perfectly comfortible.  If, however, the candidate is an athiest or agnostic or has no spiritual/moral compass from which to go, I would be less comfortible because I have no way of knowing where they are coming from on that particular avenue.  Just my thoughts.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"11.  Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, that is man the better?" (Ecc 6:11)

I guess that's the reason I don't like NIV too much, it changes the meaning too much.  Many things in the Bible have different meaning and different ways at looking at it, the NIV changes most of that.

Yes, I knew that Ecc 6:11 read differently, that is why I quoted it.  And yes, I would agree that the KJV is much more of a literal translation than the NIV.

[jravnsbo]

religion is an issue and ties in with a lot of issues of faith and morality.

A few quick examples-- prayer in school; abortion; displaying 10 commandments, etc etc

Shouldnt the election be on the issues rather then religion

[jravnsbo]

Amen!  well said.  No where is ther seperation of church and state int eh Const.  It was first referenced in an obscure letter by Jefferson and latched onto by the courts.

Again are you sure you are dem?  that is a very GOP position.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I firmly agree with the statements regarding the spread of secularism/humanism. They are trying to suppress the Religious doctrine of others and also, Could you tell me where in the Constitution does it say "Separation of Church and State?"  I argue that it doesn't even exist. What the Founding Fathers were inferring was that we were not going to be like England where there is a State Anlican Church, headed by the Monarch. That's what it meant, "no state sanctioned religion." It also did not mean that people didn't have to follow a Religion, or Anti-Religious. The Founding Fathers should have expressed themselves more clearly. However, the language of the day and lifestyles change. But GOD'S WORD shall never perish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jravnsbo]

Religion is an issue!

How about how the dems have gone after AG (R-AL) Mark Pryor for being a devout Catholic in his confirmation for the 11th Circuit.

Plus religion is an issue also in the question of gay marriage for another example.

Ladies and Gentlemen...Yes Religion matters. But the Issues matter even more so. The Candidates should focus on the Issues rather then bad mouthing other candidates on their religion views
!

[Wakie]

The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To "respect" something is to hold it in a high or special regard.  Therefore, I read the first amendment as saying that Congress shall make no law which either holds down religion or places it on pedastool.

Also, jravnsbo, did you mean William Pryor?  I've not heard of a Mark Pryor from Alabama.  None the less, the groups standing against his nomination include the American Association of People with Disabilities, The Interfaith Alliance, and Log Cabin Republicans.  Bill Pryor has talked about wanting to weaken the wall between church and state which Jefferson talked about in those letters you mentioned.  Pryor believes that the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and even Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional.  I'm Catholic.  I don't feel that it is Pryor's religion which is preventing his nomination.

[Gustaf]

For me, religion only matters so far to the point of does the candidate have a religios/spiritual code that he follows.  I have to admit, I would be very uncomfortible with an athiest as president.  As long as the candidate has a religious/moral view that is somewhat compatible with my views, whether the candidate be Catholic (which I am), Protestant, Jewish or even Muslim, then I am perfectly comfortible.  If, however, the candidate is an athiest or agnostic or has no spiritual/moral compass from which to go, I would be less comfortible because I have no way of knowing where they are coming from on that particular avenue.  Just my thoughts.

A person can have a moral code without being religious.

[jravnsbo]

yes William Pryor, my bad, thanks for correction.

Well the Violence Against Women's Act was declared unconstitutional and many parts of the Americans with disabilities act also have been found to be unconstitutional by the US SCT, so can't fault him on that.  The main criticism is that Pryor as a Catholic ( and like you , so am I) is that since Catholic teachings say and he has said in some of his speeches that abortion is an abomination , along the lines the Church has they have attacked him for it.  Even though he said he would follow the law even if he disagreed with it, as he did do in the 10 commandments case with CJ Moore.

The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To "respect" something is to hold it in a high or special regard.  Therefore, I read the first amendment as saying that Congress shall make no law which either holds down religion or places it on pedastool.

Also, jravnsbo, did you mean William Pryor?  I've not heard of a Mark Pryor from Alabama.  None the less, the groups standing against his nomination include the American Association of People with Disabilities, The Interfaith Alliance, and Log Cabin Republicans.  Bill Pryor has talked about wanting to weaken the wall between church and state which Jefferson talked about in those letters you mentioned.  Pryor believes that the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and even Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional.  I'm Catholic.  I don't feel that it is Pryor's religion which is preventing his nomination.

[migrendel]

To jravnsbo:
How soon you fail to see the record of the past. William Pryor was not opposed because he was Catholic, he was opposed because of his views on abortion, on disability rights, on civil rights, and separation of church and state. The first and last of what I mentioned, the first in particular, form what was the Republican basis for that accusation. I would like to point out that many Catholic judges who were pro-choice, or less outspoken about the intensity of their pro-life views, were confirmed in the past without much controversy. However, Bill Pryor let everyone know how much contempt he held in his heart and mind for Roe v. Wade. Rightfully, he was filibustered. Also, it comes down to the divide within the Catholic and other Christian communities over whether you can be faithful to your church and support legalized abortion. I was raised in the Catholic church. While I am not a member of it currently, partially because of its stand on abortion, I do know what is in the souls of the congregations. Let me tell you a story. My Great-Great Grandfather, in the year 1888, or whereabouts, converted my family from Congregationalism to Catholicism. While this shocked and appalled much of his community, he felt it was the right thing to do, because the new social doctrine of the Catholic church was the voice of moral authority in the world. My Great-Grandmother campaigned for women suffrage and birth control, both of them in diametric opposition to church teachings, but still practiced devoutedly. Now to my lifetime. I used to live in Boston (don't worry, I don't have that annoying accent that fails to pronounce the Rs), on Beacon Hill. The only other Catholic family that I knew of in my neighborhood were the Kennedys. Yes, those Kennedys. All of my other neighbors were Protestant. Despite their differences, they were the nicest people you'd ever want to know. Now, getting back to Catholics and abortion. In my church, many people professed a strong faith in it, but still supported abortion rights. Both of my parents supported legalized pregnancy termination. My mother, who goes to mass more than once a week, told me that she may not choose it for herself, but she feels it should be a legal right, covered by the government for poor women, and she could never judge someone who has it done because she could never fully comprehend their situation. I suppose this is a poor way of proving a point, telling a story, but it may be the best way I know how.

[jravnsbo]

well he will be confirmed next session and then we can watch the Democrats squack!

[migrendel]

Your party is definitely going to gain seats. But I think we can hold you to fewer seats than you need.

[jravnsbo]

But not if Frist pushes the Nuke button and then all of them will be confirmed.

Then a confirmation will again be a MAJORITY vote and every nominee will get an up or down vote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But not if Frist pushes the Nuke button and then all of them will be confirmed.

Then a confirmation will again be a MAJORITY vote and every nominee will get an up or down vote.

You what?

[jravnsbo]

the NUKE Button is a procedure being contemplated by the GOP to allow all nominees executive and judicial to get a fair up or down vote to fulfill its obligation to advise and conset.  Right now NO OPINION is being rendered ona  number of judges by the filibuster.

See each time the new senate takes its seats it must pass its rules by a simple majority vote.  Thent eh GOP could vote to move the nominations from the legislative to executive calendars and take away the filibusters fromt he nominations.  Much the same as Budget bills can not be filibustered now.

If they do that 51 votes ( or a majority- as it has always been before Democrat filibusters) would be the number of votes needed to CONFIRM OR DENY a nominee, but at least theyw ould geta  vote.  Now no vote is taken and the seat goes unfilled and some seats are int he "judicial emergency " status, meaning they NEED a judge because of the amount of casework.

[migrendel]

This majority jiggery-pokery shows how much simple facts are overlooked in the unending quest to fail to see the forest for the trees. When a nominee is filibustered, their nomination is not rejected. It is very much alive. The only thing that is needed is 60 votes to take the vote to decide whether they will wear black robes. If they were requiring 60 votes to become a judge per se, I would see grounds for objection. In the mean time, however, I wish to leave the Senate rules to the Senate.

[jravnsbo]

exactly!  when the nomination is filibustered it is alive, but how can you say the Senate has offered its advise and consent, when it doesn't give an opinion as it is constitutional required to do?

[migrendel]

Let me remind you that your Republicans killed many Clinton nominees by simply refusing to allow a vote, and no one accused them of trying to violate the Constitution. But to get back to your question, no one can make the presumption that the Democrats won't drop the filibuster, or some Senators will change their votes to break it. Advice and consent is still possible, just not probable.

[Wakie]

I think the complaint about Pryor isn't that he is Catholic, that is incidental.  The complaint is about his stance on several issues.

*Under Pryor's leadership, Alabama was the only state to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (United States v. Morrison).  Pryor also argued that the Supreme Court should cut back on the protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Clean Water Act.

*Pryor has urged Congress to consider getting rid of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which protects the right to vote for African-Americans.  While testifying before a Congressional Committee, Pryor urged the Committee to "consider seriously...the repeal or amendment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which [he labeled an] affront to federalism and an expansive burden that has far outlived its usefulness."

*In 2002, Pryor filed an anti-gay brief in Lawrence v. Texas on behalf of Alabama urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas' law banning same-sex sodomy.  Pryor argued that a "constitutional right that protects `the choice of one's partner' and `whether and how to connect sexually' must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia."  Sorry, but I don't follow his logic there.

*Pryor has also defended a state judge's sponsorship of Christian prayers before jury assemblies.

Pryor's positions border on the level of extreme and that is what the hold-up is on him.  If I had to accept one of the big 3 nominees though I would take him.  Pickering leaves a special bad taste in my mouth and I don't know how anyone, in good conscience, could approve Owens.

[jravnsbo]

Ok lets ASSUME for a minute that they are never givena  vote, is that advise and consent?

Also EVERY nominee of Clintons that made it to the floor got a vote.  One was rejected and that is fine that is the process.  Just like now, if you want to vote NO, vote no, you are offering your opinion just like with anything else.

Let me remind you that your Republicans killed many Clinton nominees by simply refusing to allow a vote, and no one accused them of trying to violate the Constitution. But to get back to your question, no one can make the presumption that the Democrats won't drop the filibuster, or some Senators will change their votes to break it. Advice and consent is still possible, just not probable.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Amen!  well said.  No where is ther seperation of church and state int eh Const.  It was first referenced in an obscure letter by Jefferson and latched onto by the courts.

Again are you sure you are dem?  that is a very GOP position.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I firmly agree with the statements regarding the spread of secularism/humanism. They are trying to suppress the Religious doctrine of others and also, Could you tell me where in the Constitution does it say "Separation of Church and State?"  I argue that it doesn't even exist. What the Founding Fathers were inferring was that we were not going to be like England where there is a State Anlican Church, headed by the Monarch. That's what it meant, "no state sanctioned religion." It also did not mean that people didn't have to follow a Religion, or Anti-Religious. The Founding Fathers should have expressed themselves more clearly. However, the language of the day and lifestyles change. But GOD'S WORD shall never perish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I am a DEM. Remember though, a Conservative Democrat, swinging only slightly left on the spectrum toward the center. There is no mention of separation of Church and State. The Constitution has been misinterpreted from the beginning, or at least since the deaths of the Founding Fathers, when they could no longer be called upon to inerpret what they really meant on this or that.

[jravnsbo]

Of the filibustered nominees, ESTRADA being rejected was OUTRAGEOUS!  Don't forget him.  Argued 15 cases before US SCT and won about 10 of them, but he was out of touch?  But as Ted Kennedy's memo said, "Shhh he's a Hispanic"  MAn how could we have that!

Pickering is troubling because the civil rights groups in MS support him and so do  number of MS democrats.  He is just opposed by the washington special interest groups.  He had a reputation of letting a lot of first offenders have a break on their sentence if they showed progress and steps towards rehabilitation and isn't that what society wants if they are not in for life, but because this ONE case where he was lenient and the guy was charged with burning a cross he is branded a racist, even though in the 60's at the height of the civil rights battles he stood with the black leaders against the white bigots.  This was not a popular stand for a white official in those days but he did it, because it was the right thing to do.

Owens, followed the law on parental notificationa s teh texas statute reads and that has her black listed.  She is the member of the SCT of Texas and to say she is unqulaified is also a head shaker.

Justice Brown in California has written more MAjority opinions than any other justice on the Calif SCT, but she is said to be out of touch.  Odd.

Hey I think I'll start a new forum on judges, so we can let others discuss the topic of "candidates and religion"

I think the complaint about Pryor isn't that he is Catholic, that is incidental.  The complaint is about his stance on several issues.

*Under Pryor's leadership, Alabama was the only state to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (United States v. Morrison).  Pryor also argued that the Supreme Court should cut back on the protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Clean Water Act.

*Pryor has urged Congress to consider getting rid of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which protects the right to vote for African-Americans.  While testifying before a Congressional Committee, Pryor urged the Committee to "consider seriously...the repeal or amendment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which [he labeled an] affront to federalism and an expansive burden that has far outlived its usefulness."

*In 2002, Pryor filed an anti-gay brief in Lawrence v. Texas on behalf of Alabama urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas' law banning same-sex sodomy.  Pryor argued that a "constitutional right that protects `the choice of one's partner' and `whether and how to connect sexually' must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia."  Sorry, but I don't follow his logic there.

*Pryor has also defended a state judge's sponsorship of Christian prayers before jury assemblies.

Pryor's positions border on the level of extreme and that is what the hold-up is on him.  If I had to accept one of the big 3 nominees though I would take him.  Pickering leaves a special bad taste in my mouth and I don't know how anyone, in good conscience, could approve Owens.

[12th Doctor]

religion is an issue and ties in with a lot of issues of faith and morality.

A few quick examples-- prayer in school; abortion; displaying 10 commandments, etc etc

Shouldnt the election be on the issues rather then religion

Agreed.

[© tweed]

religion is an issue and ties in with a lot of issues of faith and morality.

A few quick examples-- prayer in school; abortion; displaying 10 commandments, etc etc

Shouldnt the election be on the issues rather then religion

Agreed.

Who do you agree with, Salty?

[12th Doctor]

Amen!  well said.  No where is ther seperation of church and state int eh Const.  It was first referenced in an obscure letter by Jefferson and latched onto by the courts.

Again are you sure you are dem?  that is a very GOP position.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I firmly agree with the statements regarding the spread of secularism/humanism. They are trying to suppress the Religious doctrine of others and also, Could you tell me where in the Constitution does it say "Separation of Church and State?"  I argue that it doesn't even exist. What the Founding Fathers were inferring was that we were not going to be like England where there is a State Anlican Church, headed by the Monarch. That's what it meant, "no state sanctioned religion." It also did not mean that people didn't have to follow a Religion, or Anti-Religious. The Founding Fathers should have expressed themselves more clearly. However, the language of the day and lifestyles change. But GOD'S WORD shall never perish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I am a DEM. Remember though, a Conservative Democrat, swinging only slightly left on the spectrum toward the center. There is no mention of separation of Church and State. The Constitution has been misinterpreted from the beginning, or at least since the deaths of the Founding Fathers, when they could no longer be called upon to inerpret what they really meant on this or that.

Right on brother (Christopher Micheal)!  I knew that I liked you from the begining, your one of the good ones.

[12th Doctor]

religion is an issue and ties in with a lot of issues of faith and morality.

A few quick examples-- prayer in school; abortion; displaying 10 commandments, etc etc

Shouldnt the election be on the issues rather then religion

Agreed.

Who do you agree with, Salty?

Sorry.  Jravnsbo, of course.  And it's Soulty.  Please, don't call me Salty, I hate it when people do that.  No harm done, just saying is all.