Candidates and Religion

[migrendel]

This is a broader question than that presented. It is the question of what divides us as a people. When a person becomes a member of a religion, they make an innately personal decision to commit themselves to that faith's precepts. It is a morally profound decision, and an individual's autonomy in that matter must be respected. We are all called upon to pick our nation's leaders. To keep people free to make decisions about personal creed, we must elect individuals who respect personal morality. For example, we can decide issues like school prayer and abortion by this method. In the matter of school prayer, our law is designed this way. Any child who wishes to pray can in our schools. We support the individual liberty of conscience in this way. But in a free society, having the teacher, the figure of authority, coercively lead the little and impressionable children in prayer must be swiftly rejected. On the issue of abortion, no woman who thinks it heinous or sinful is required to end the pregnancy she lovingly carries. Yet when a woman is forced to the raw edges of human existence, the law is in no position to decide that she may not decide the shape of everything to come by ending a vastly unwanted pregnancy. This shows equal respect unto those who are pro-life as those who are pro-choice by truly making them free to choose. I have seen candidates discuss things like that, and say that they oppose such things because they are wrong. In whose eyes? Surely their's and their church's, but not in the eyes of everyone. Many people are horrified by the idea of homosexuality gaining acceptance. They say it flies in the face of the Bible and its traditions, but one must always ask: Do I force you to take a male lover? Do I say that you must tell your children that this is right? I do not, and if I did, I would be arrogant and heavy-handed. But I wish the same courtesy. I wish to be able to make choices that are contrary to your ways of thinking, and without your interference. This thinking seems relatively simple, and quite practical, so why shouldn't it be applied to our leaders? It would seem to be logical to elect candidates who, despite their personal misgivings, will give you the same gamut of choices as society allowed them. The only proper way to answer the question posed by MAS117 at the beginning of this very discussion is to say, religion is only relevant to a politician if they let it be.

[migrendel]

I have to take issue with this pattern established in the Garden of Eden theory, jmfcst. Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes. Would wearing clothes be against the pattern of the Bible? I suppose a simpler way of saying it, and please keep in mind I don't wish to ask you this question in a hostile fashion, is, would doing things not specifically approved of or practiced by the holy men and women be against Biblical teaching?

[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.

[migrendel]

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

[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.

[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.