Talk Elections

Today Howard Dean came out and said he was putting more about God in his speeches in the South. I was suprised to hear that he is married to a Jew and his children were raised Jewish cause I know he is a Congregationalist. Kerry and Clark have also came out and said that they have Jewish ties. Clark's father was Jewish, and Kerry has found out that his grandparents were Jewish even though he is a Catholic now. Lieberman every knows is a Orthodox Jew. Al Sharpton is a minister, Rep. Kucinich is Catholic, so is Carol Moseley Braun and Gen. Clark, Gephardt is Baptist, and Sen. Edwards is Methodist.

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

I don't care what religion you are unless it changes your views on the issues.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:


Or


Or...


How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

Dean is just pandering to try to get votes in the south.

....and it is absolutely pathetic.

It's absolutely pathetic when Dean tries to use religion in his campaign. When Dubya went to Bob Jones University in 2000, it was brilliant. I see....

I'm intrigued that Dean is a congregationalist. That faith has a strong tradition in Georgia in particular. Many congregational churches (and Presbyterians, Episcopals and Methodists who are loosely associated to them) abound along the historic coast and in Atlanta. The Jewish influence should also play well in Atlanta and Savannah. A lot of Reformed Christians (Presby, Episcopal, Methodist, UCC, Lutheran, etc.) are getting turned off by the evangelical movement that GWB is so ga-ga over.

Interesting.
I'm part of the Reformed Faith myself and I can't stand W's fondness for the "happy clappy" wing of Christianity, although I didn't like him anyway!

This is no different from how George Bush has used religion to gain political momentum.

I would agree with that. Still, someone who can be thinking and open-minded, while having a strong faith (like Tony Blair) would get my respect and admiration.

You mean also like Jimmy Carter?

Christopher Michael: <<My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:...every society embracing homosexuality has been destroyed...The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women....How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, etc...>>

I don't understand the connection with drunkards and peace, but today's feminist agenda is certainly immoral.

Concerning the part about every country embracing homosexuality going down in flames...there are also a lot of countries that have gone done in flames without the homosexuality factor.

How does Blair's acceptance of homosexuality agree with his Christian faith?  Is it logical for a Christian to disagree with the bible?  Blair, like many Christians, has deceived himself into thinking that God makes side deals with those unwilling to accept his instruction.

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." (Gal 6:7-8)

Jmfcst,

I am not a Christian, so I would like you to clarify something for me.  If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?  I would like to hear your answer.

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.

I want a Christian (hopefully JNF) to answer my question, because I want to know what he meant/if it is true.

I wouldn't say it makes one a "bad" Christian.  They've simply allowed themselves to be deceived.   Not to mention that they are contradicting their own faith....if their faith is not defined by the bible, then what defines it?  Did they invent their own religion?

Taking a purely logical point of view, contradicting one's own faith is contradicting one's self.

Thank you for answering my question.

I misread your question...I thought it asked " If you accept homosexualITY, are you a bad christian?" instead of  "If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?"

I don't know what level of "acceptance" you are referring to.  

Accepting them as human beings?...of course I do.

Accepting them as being born into the same system as sin as me?...of course.  

Accepting them as fit for leadership?...absolutely not.   Neither would I accept a heterosexual who justifies fornication as fit for leadership.

Getting back to your question...Any Christian who thinks someone who justifies their opposition to the guidelines of the bible as fit for leadership is purposely deceiving themselves.  They are turning logic on its head by allowing the blind to lead.  Such a Christian that "accepts" unrepentent sinners as leaders is himself sinning.  

Does "accepting" unrepentent sin make you a "bad" Christian?  The bible doesn't use the term "bad Christian",  but it does use terms like "faithful servant".  And accepting things contrary to God's word is not what I consider faithful.  The faithful are suppose to "shun evil", not "accept" it:

Isa 5:20-21 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.

So Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, and Bob Livingston (all three of whom I greatly respect) are all unfit for leadership and I presume you will do everything within your power to oppose them as much as you do homosexuals?  I also presume that Strom Thurmond is equal with homosexuals too with you now, huh?

Setting aside Bob Livingston, whom I believe has displayed too much of a temper problem to be a leader in the first place, not to mention being an idiot for throwing his name into the hat for Speaker of the House in the first place....

If Henry Hyde, Strom Thurmond, and Newt Gingrich were unrepentant of their actions, then "YES", I do NOT think they are fit for leadership.  I would still trust them to run errands (like being the local dog catcher), but I certainly wouldn't allow them to lead people.

I don't see why a politician's stance on fornication is so important to you.  There are hundreds of more important issues facing America today than the issue of fornication.

Fornication probably costs this country hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars per year.  But the impact of fornication and/or homosexuality wasn't my point.

Do you really believe that the bible should be followed to the letter, every single word or point? Even those about different crops and stuff?

Please explain to me how fornication costs the country hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  That's alot of money.

It can't be... translations differ a lot...

Hah, hah. Lol.

hmm...then many children in America need to be afraid, very afraid...

the next time they talk back to their parents, they'll get a good stoning!

Hmm...somehow I'm reminded of Monty Python and the Life of Brian.

As a Presbyterian, I know I am already condemned by many evangelicals to a fiery afterlife by the fact that I was baptized as an infant and have a woman pastor. Yes, having a woman as pastor, wearing clothing of mixed material, not keeping strict kosher, eating shellfish and pork, working on the Sabbath (ah, the life of an airline employee), not making animal sacrifices to the Almighty, and being gay are all against scripture and all apply to me. On the other hand, I try to love the Lord with all my heart, soul and strength; and to love my neighbor as myself. Those were the important things given to us.
A lot of mainstream Christians get tired of evangelicals saying they're "not really Christian". This patronizing, "are you saved?" approach to religion will ultimately turn off a lot of mainstream Protestants and Catholics to the Republican party. It's already started in the North and Midwest, and I wouldn't be surprised if that same feeling started working southward into the cities and coasts of the deep South.

ABSOLUTELY! The Atlanta Journal-Constitution did a very good piece about a year or two ago contrasting Carter's religion (he's a Baptist, but a member of a very liberal congregation in Atlanta) to Bush's (an odd hyperconservative Methodist). Carter's is a much more quiet, humble Christianity that seeks to walk the walk more than just buying books by James Dobson. Compare and contrast Habitat for Humanity with Faith-Based Initiatives.

It was actually me who said that, not Christopher. :)

I wasn't so much addressing Robertson's personal stance on issues like homosexuality or feminism, but rather the paranoid and apocalyptic tone in which he addressed them. I'd feel very, well, shall we say uneasy about a man like that running the most powerful nation on Earth. In that context, it's quite important that a candidate's religious views are known to the electorate.

Candidates can have views like that and not be of a Religious nature.

That's a good point actually.

Thanks. Once in a while I get it right.

Yes... that is rather weird...

Dean is not serious about G-d. But the bigger issue discussed here- does religion matter- is an old and constantly changing idea. Today, I would say that a person's faith is not important, because it is incredible how accepting the American people have become of religions. However, what people will pay attention to is how religius a candidate is- some voters are turned off by religion, others by secularism. I myself am a religious person, but believe it should have no bearing in politics, nd prefer political secularism. When Buah says things like no one is saved who doesn't except Christ, I feel uncomfortable. I still plan to vote for him next year in my first election where I will be 18.

Hey guys.  It's been a while but I am back.  As for this quote, it is different because Bush made his faith a part of what he was about in the begining.  Dean siad that he was tired of elections in the South being about "God, Guns and Gays".  Dean is clearly pandering.  If his faith is important to him, why only talk about it in the South?  Why not talk about it else where?  When Bush talks about faith, it's any time, anywhere and for whatever reason.  It is a part of him, so its beleivible.  I just think its halarious how you people (by all means not all Democrats) continue to support the guy inspite of the fact that he makes outragous statments all of the time and then refuses to stick by them when he is called on them.  The man cannot make-up his mind, one way or the other.  When Dean makes a statement that religion will not be a part of his campaign and then goes back on it 2 weeks later, what does that say about him?  What does that say about his supporters?
It says that you guys are motivated by pure rage and that the Democrat base, deep down, just wants a candidate that is the most anti-Bush.  If this wasn't the case than Liebermann or Edwards or even Gephart would be the big name.  Not Dean.

<<having a woman as pastor, wearing clothing of mixed material, not keeping strict kosher, eating shellfish and pork, working on the Sabbath (ah, the life of an airline employee), not making animal sacrifices to the Almighty, and being gay are all against scripture and all apply to me.>>

Your "logic" is to justify not obeying the laws of the NT by mocking the OT laws and mixing NT & OT law together.

Having a woman as pastor is explicitly against the teachings of the NT as it was against OT law, and against the OT first references prior to the Law of Moses...the bible is uniform in this requirement.

Wearing clothing of mixed material is only mentioned in the Law of Moses, the regulation is NOT mentioned in the NT nor is it mentioned in the first references prior to the Law of Moses.

---

<<not keeping strict kosher, eating shellfish and pork, working on the Sabbath>>

Again, only mentioned in the Law of Moses, the regulation is NOT mentioned in the NT nor is it mentioned in the first references prior to the Law of Moses.

In fact, eating unclean meat is explicitly allowed in the NT.

---

<<not making animal sacrifices to the Almighty>>

Even someone being as intentionally dense as you knows that Christ's one and only sacrifice replaced animal sacrifices that were simply prefiguring Christ’s death.

---

<<and being gay>>

Homosexuality is against the pattern established in the Garden of Eve (predating the Law of Moses) when the context of sex was given in a marriage between one man and one woman.  This context excludes fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bigamy, and bestiality.  Homosexuality is also against the Law of Moses and the writings of the NT….the bible is uniform on this matter.  

---

<<On the other hand, I try to love the Lord with all my heart, soul and strength; and to love my neighbor as myself. Those were the important things given to us.>>

Actually, love towards God is defined, by God himself, as obedience to him:

John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command."

Well, that is what some of us think, anyway...

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?

[I have to weigh in on your comments] Ah, Homosexuality is specifically mentioned in the Bible. It is against Biblical teaching to practice Homosexuality, READ: ROMANS, CHAPTER ONE, Pretty much the whole chapter deals with Homosexuality, Adultery and other issues. But it specifically mentions Homosexuality. So, no, it's not just because holy men and women of GOD don't do those things. I belong to the AFLC [Association of Free Lutheran Congregations] they had an esteemed President for many years. He ministered often in my Church, his job was to run the whole AFLC with the Board of Directors, and travel from member congregation to member congregation. He 'came out' at the very convention that was going to overwhelmingly re-elect him. He admitted he was leading a double life and that he had AIDS, he gave his wife AIDS, she was a well loved teacher at our Bible School near Minneapolis, where the AFLC headquarters are. She died. Then a few years later, he died. It was a shock that still resounds today. He apparently was a holy man of GOD. He was a wonderful Pastor and great speaker and leader, but just couln't live with his own  lies anymore, since the disease was changing his appearance.  He was booted fom his positions of couse, but we [AFLC] saw to it that he was taken care of. He went from the pinnacle to the lowest valley, he became a groundskeeper for the AFLC. He served many years at the helm, during the period of our greatest growth as an Association of Churches. So, don't say that holy men and women of GOD don't do those things.

migrendel,

<<I have to take issue with this pattern established in the Garden of Eden theory, jmfcst.>>

First, let’s establish the fact that it is ok of Christians to use Adam and Eve as a pattern (so no one thinks I’m simply making up a method of establishing doctrine):

Mat 19:3-6 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

1Tim 2:12-14  I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

---

<<Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes. Would wearing clothes be against the pattern of the Bible?>>

Adam and Eve didn’t wear clothes while they were sinless.  Once they sinned, then they needed a covering.  This first reference of clothes symbolizes the need for our sins to be covered with the blood of Christ.  Those that have received the Holy Spirit have been clothed in Christ.

But it certainly wouldn’t be beyond the teachings of the bible to state that nakedness (and sex) in a marriage is how it was meant to be.

---

<<would doing things not specifically approved of or practiced by the holy men and women be against Biblical teaching?>>

Sin is defined as a transgression of God’s law: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” (1John 3:4).  Since Christians believe that the bible was inspired by God so that the bible basically defines God’s will, it would be illogical for a Christian to argue that God has given them the right to ignore what the bible commands.

But, I have perfect liberty to engage in acts not covered in the law.  For instance, I can play sports with a clear conscience because I know such actions are not forbidden by the bible.  In other words, I don’t need the bible’s permission to engage in acts not covered by scripture: “Where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:14)

---

Your questions are always thoughtful and logical.

I only quoted one verse (John 14:15) in the post to which you replied.  I do my search/cut&paste from biblegateway.com.  I believe the default setting is NIV, but there are a least a dozen or so versions to chose from on the site.

Why do you ask?

I think that a candidate's religious views are important in so far as they reflect on his/her personal moral code, which is important.

I don't think we should demand that our presidents be choir boys, but they should have some moral standards.  And their SINCERE religious views are a refection of their moral standards.

With respect to Dean, I don't think it's going to work for him to suddenly say that he is going to talk about religion, when he originally said he wasn't going to talk about religion, and only in the south.  It is patently insincere.

Religion is nothing more than a person's philosophy of life and the best way to live it.  In that sense, secularism is a religion, and I think that secularists should stop effectively demanding special treatment by saying that their belief system should be enshrined in public life, while other belief systems are suppressed.

The fact is that our public discourse will always reflect a certain belief system.  The question is which one.  I think that secularists are using their "no religion" and "separation of church and state" mantras to effectively force their "religion" onto people who may not want it, and delegitimitize other religions, most particularly Christianity.

The NIV reads "If you love me, you will obey what I command."...I see no difference except I prefer the KJV because it is more concise:

"The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" (Ecc 6:11)

Also, the KJV is cool in that it italicizes words the translators added for clarity, so that you know what was added and what wasn’t.  But I also like the paragraph form of the NIV.

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.

Yes, and it should be about other issues. Anyone who is STUPID enough to mix politics and religion, and vote for someone based on the candidates relgion, should go to church and not the voting booths. I had a preacher tell me this before: "God doesn't care about politics. God is not a Democrat or Republican. No political party is more holy or righteous than the other."

Jesus doesn't vote Democratic....

()

....and he doesn't vote Republican either.

I have grown up in a country where the church is socialist, brinking on communism, but that's my world.

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.

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.

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

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.  


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.

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.

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.

A person can have a moral code without being religious.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

Agreed.

Who do you agree with, Salty?

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

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.

Is soulty supposed to mean "soul" instead of "salt"?  Just wondering.

Maybe I should make a thread for everyone explaining te logic behind their usernames, because it gets mighty annoying after a while.......

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

He has to be joking. Even if you see certain points coming from nutcases (which is hard in this case), every sane person can tell the maniacs from those with odd views. There is a marked difference.

Btw, is their anyone else who find it hard to believe that weirdos can practice computers? It is unscientific, I know, but I can't imagine someone who is basically nuts and have a twisted view of the world being modern enough to  master the internet. Like sects and stuff.

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

You believe that feminists want to "kill their children", "become lesbians" and "destroy capitalism"? The last one is especially weird, since it is completely off topic. Do you also believe that "secular humanists" are a threat to society? That every society that has allowed homosexuality has gone down in flames is also rubbish. My country does, as many other European countries, and we're not going down in flames at all. I doubt any country has since biblical times.

It certainly could be?  Geez, if he said the Green Party candidates were actually a veiled reference to being space invaders bent on intergalactic domination would you consider that as possibly being true?!?!

Pat Robertson is nuts!  Not for his religious beliefs ... but because he makes ridiculous statements like "feminism = witchcraft".

Yep. I do. And he said, "has gone down in flames.", not is going down in flames. Your time will come.

No, I wouldn't. I don't believe in aliens.

Then I guess your nuts too, no offense, but believing that is just plain insane.

And on another note, Robertson is wrong regarding his "every society which has embraced homosexuality .... has gone down in flames."

First off, the ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality and I wouldn't exactly say they "went down in flames".

Secondly, most of Europe today accepts homosexuality.  Oddly enough, they haven't gone down in flames.  This leads to someone saying "but they will".  To this I make the ridiculous statement, every society which has accepted the consumption of shellfish has gone down in flames and those which haven't yet, will.

Damn! I was just about to bring up the Greeks, adn then I had to log off... :(

Now you look like the smart one... :(

Btw, the Greek, I believe, actually viewed homosexuality (or perhaps bisexuality) as more refined than heterosexuality, it was a thing for the upper class. The hero of heroes, Achilles, was homosexual, and only joined battle after his lover, Patroklos, had been killed by Hector, during the Troyan war.

Now I got something in, lol... ;)

Robertson is the nutter that says that God is a Republican isn't he?

BTW Pat... Orlando is still standing...

Robertson is about as Christian as Creed, actually less so.