Are Democrats attacking Christians?

[AlAyeti]

Why now are Democrats insisting that nominee John Roberts' Catholic beliefs be fair game as a means to decide his qualificationns as a Supreme Court Justice?

Is this another example of anti-Christian and intolerant views held by the Democrats towards Christians?

Is it proper and decent to ask about a persons religious beliefs to decide their worth in the justice system?

For example I have on many occasions made the assertion that Democrats are hostile to Christians that speak out and feel this is a good example to hold my beliefs as valid.

(One of the sitting Supreme court judges was involved in the ACLU. A one-sided view of American life for sure, but was confirmed.)

So why now the litmus test of Roberts' Catholic faith being an issue for his nomination?

Is it anti-Christian and does it imply that Christians cannot be involved in the American process of justice?

[seyorni]

I suspect you'll find the Democrat's objections to Robert's appointment is not based on his religion, per se, but on his previous judicial opinions which, admittedly, may have been religiously influenced. Democrats don't generally care about race or religion so much as results.

Nor can Democrats be considered anti-religion, AlAyeti. Democrats are pro-freedom. They fear the restriction of current freedoms and the imposition of social and cultural values by special interest organizations, religious or otherwise.

And I'm confused by your description of the ACLU as "a one-sided vision of American life." What does that mean? The ACLU is not a "vision"; it's not a religious, philosophical or political group. It's an organization that defends llegal principles. It pays no attention to its client's politics or religion. It picks cases solely on the merits of the principles in question. It defends the far left, the far right, religious fundamentalists, the KKK, the Black Panthers, radical athiests.... anyone!

[ST88]

Why now are Democrats insisting that nominee John Roberts' Catholic beliefs be fair game as a means to decide his qualificationns as a Supreme Court Justice?
It's not Catholicism per se, but rather the fear of overriding legal principles with religious principles. We recognize in this country that the two are not the same. There are many problems with applying religious principles to law, and the question is fair game. You may be forgetting, AlAyeti, that John Kerry is Catholic.

Is this another example of anti-Christian and intolerant views held by the Democrats towards Christians?
To answer this question would imply that Democrats are routinely attacking Christians, which is itself false. By using simple demographic math, we can state that many Democrats are Christians.

I find it interesting that an attack on Christians can be defined as denying right-wing zealots the opportunity to govern as a theocracy.

Is it proper and decent to ask about a persons religious beliefs to decide their worth in the justice system?
That's a good question. I don't think it is. But that's not what the Democrats are doing. They aren't questioning him because he's Catholic, they're questioning him about specific views that many Catholics have. They don't mind that he, for example, may take Communion every now and then, or that he may tithe, because such things are not unconstitutional.

For example I have on many occasions made the assertion that Democrats are hostile to Christians that speak out and feel this is a good example to hold my beliefs as valid.
It has been my experience that "speak out," as you put it, translates to: try to impose their beliefs upon everyone else.

[youngborean]

It has been my experience that "speak out," as you put it, translates to: try to impose their beliefs upon everyone else.

And how is this wrong? I think we live in such a bored society that this has become wrong becasue our freedom has made us run out of really important things to talk about. Speaking out on either side is imposing beliefs, no? As long as torture is not involved what is the big deal in my opinion. I live in Canada and they just legalized Gay marriage, that was an imposition, but it is also a reflection of a free society. Imposing beliefs is what societies are all about, and thank God that he has made us free thinkers to agree or disagree. If it were truly wrong then all media and opinions should be banned and we can all be automaton nihilists. But that would just be way too boring.

[McCulloch]

It has been my experience that "speak out," as you put it, translates to: try to impose their beliefs upon everyone else.

And how is this wrong? I think we live in such a bored society that this has become wrong becasue our freedom has made us run out of really important things to talk about. Speaking out on either side is imposing beliefs, no? As long as torture is not involved what is the big deal in my opinion. I live in Canada and they just legalized Gay marriage, that was an imposition, but it is also a reflection of a free society.

And just how is recognizing same sex marriage an imposition? No one is forced to attend or participate in a same sex wedding. Same sex marriages have been legalized here in Ontario by the courts for quite some time now. The sky has not fallen. I have not seen any evidence that this has caused societal breakdown or that anyone has been imposed upon. The only attempts at imposition are the conservative types who wish to make this illegal.

[Cathar1950]

Why are people of faith ok and Atheist not? I was watching the "700 club" and hal linseys "intelligence briefing", during the election, wow were they biased. If you didn't vote republican you were a liberal, atheist, child murdering queer.
My feeling is good for you Canadians. Gay marriages don't destroy the family society and marriage. But poverty does.
Next thing you know they will be complaining about breast feeding.
We could learn a few things from the Canadians.
I don't have a problem with the 10 commandments, which ever version they use, I would hate to see all the hundreds posted.
I don't see Democrats attacking any one. It seems to be the other way around to me.

[youngborean]

And just how is recognizing same sex marriage an imposition? No one is forced to attend or participate in a same sex wedding. Same sex marriages have been legalized here in Ontario by the courts for quite some time now. The sky has not fallen. I have not seen any evidence that this has caused societal breakdown or that anyone has been imposed upon. The only attempts at imposition are the conservative types who wish to make this illegal.

This is my whole point. When one side imposes it beliefs on any issue, they don't want to use that word because it is considered bad, so they say only the other point of view is imposition. You are right, the sky has not fallen. But all Canadians are now forced to accept a definition of marriage by law that includes marriages between the same sexes. For instance, custom workers who may not accept same sex marriages as legitimate will now have to accept a same sex couple as married. It is government imposing a new ideology. Same sex marriage cermonies happened long before the government changed the definition of what a married couple is. That was because same sex couples imposed their ideology that their marriages were acceptable. I don't think that one can be an imposition and the other can not. We are free in the west to impose, and others are free to ignore impositions. Big deal. As you said the sky hasn't fallen. I still don't personally recognize a same sex marriage as legitimate, they do. Regardless of the government imposition that I do. It is far more difficult really change people, which is the great thing about the free will that God has put in every man. And you've proven my point perfectly, since the sky was still here when the definition of marriage didn't include same sex marriages. We are all free to impose, granted that we aren't breaking laws (like torturing) in doing so.

[ST88]

But all Canadians are now forced to accept a definition of marriage by law that includes marriages between the same sexes. For instance, custom workers who may not accept same sex marriages as legitimate will now have to accept a same sex couple as married.

Workers in the U.S. Department of Motor Vehicles will also have to accept that some people drive SUVs despite their possible environmentalist leanings.

It is government imposing a new ideology. Same sex marriage cermonies happened long before the government changed the definition of what a married couple is. That was because same sex couples imposed their ideology that their marriages were acceptable.

It's not an ideology. I think that's the big disconnect here. Same-sex marriage does not constitute an assault on anyone's "ideology" because it isn't a religious issue, it's a civic issue. As are the questions to the proposed Supreme Court justice. Having a religion implies having certain opinions about how society should operate. Should those opinions override law? That's a civic issue, not a religious one.

I don't think that one can be an imposition and the other can not.

You're wrong. The imposition is the denial of marital privilege. There is no possible way that same sex marriage affects you except by how you react to it. This is exactly the same reasoning behind women wearing burqas in Islamic totalitarian states.

We are free in the west to impose, and others are free to ignore impositions. Big deal. As you said the sky hasn't fallen. I still don't personally recognize a same sex marriage as legitimate, they do. Regardless of the government imposition that I do. It is far more difficult really change people, which is the great thing about the free will that God has put in every man. And you've proven my point perfectly, since the sky was still here when the definition of marriage didn't include same sex marriages. We are all free to impose, granted that we aren't breaking laws (like torturing) in doing so.

I think you're missing the point entirely. You say you're free to pick and choose which marriages to recognize and which to deny, and so you are: as an individual. Therefore, the idea is not imposed upon you. No one is forcing you to bless their marriage in the name of God. You are free not to work for an organization which must deal with the benefits of marriages (like an insurance company, for example) so that you will not have to be exposed to abberant marriages as you define them. You are also free not to marry someone of the same gender. The only imposition is on your perceived cultural superiority and legitimacy to claim that religion has anything to do with government.

[Cathar1950]

I got to thinking about rape. I remember cultures that made the man marry the woman that he rapped. Now that doesn't seem fair to the woman.
There has been cultures where the man had to swallow so much seminal fluid to become a man. I think we should feel lucky.
I wonder what the statistics is on the practice of abstinence and unwanted pregnecies because they were not prepared. Why do our law makers and the right fight gay marriages, flag-burning, and abortions yet let people die from poverty and neglect and act as if God is doing it to them because they don't belive?

[youngborean]

It's not an ideology. I think that's the big disconnect here. Same-sex marriage does not constitute an assault on anyone's "ideology" because it isn't a religious issue, it's a civic issue. As are the questions to the proposed Supreme Court justice. Having a religion implies having certain opinions about how society should operate. Should those opinions override law? That's a civic issue, not a religious one.

So civic issues are no longer based on ideologies becasue they are governemental? That is the big disconnect. The whole idea of government is to get your ideas out there and impose them on other people. Your original statement was about impositions of ideas. How is a stance on gay marriage not ideological, and how is making it law not imposing an ideology? What is wrong with admitting that? This is a classic example of the ball being turned around towards non-christians and having them deny everything. You don't believe in Same-sex marriage based on inherent data (otherwise all cultures would have the same conclusion about this throughout time), your stance is something that is learned and owned through environmental situations. Because something is civic it doesn't mean it has to be nihilistic. Ideologies of people who support or reject an issue go into law making. It isn't a bad thing, in fact I would argue that it is a good thing about our system. Religion in no way makes any greater imposition than any philosophical system within someones world-view. We all have a world view, and use some sort of rationale to get there.

You're wrong. The imposition is the denial of marital privilege.

Well your right, it is an imposition on people who idellogically define marriage as a union between any 2 people. But so is the other stance. A new definition of marriage is being imposed on the public by the government. Now you may not think that it is a big deal, like McColluch said, "the sky hasn't fallen", but we have yet to have any legal fallout in this area to see the full ramifications. I am not wrong. My point is that any stance based on ideology that becomes law is an imposition on some people. The severity of that imposition is based on perception.

No one is forcing you to bless their marriage in the name of God. You are free not to work for an organization which must deal with the benefits of marriages (like an insurance company, for example) so that you will not have to be exposed to abberant marriages as you define them.

But it still affects decisions I would have to make as you have suggested. I would have to stay away from certain jobs etc. No one forced homosexuals not to get married in private ceremonies. It's only that the definition of marriage did not account for them. Just as it does not account for polygamists, or people that would want to marry other beings. Or dog, dog marriage. Those poor dogs, not subject to the same rights as people.

The only imposition is on your perceived cultural superiority and legitimacy to claim that religion has anything to do with government.

I never said the imposition was major, nor did I say that my perspective was superior, only that it was different, you can infer whatever you wish. I just think it's silly that people complain about this when it is what our whole government structure is based on. People derive their morality and ideologies from all sorts of places. We then make laws (impositions) based on these ideologies. Now thankfully we have a free structure which allows individuals to contribute to our collective morality. The ideology that believes that the definition of marriage should include people of the same sex one and was imposed upon the society as a whole.

No one is forcing you to bless their marriage in the name of God.

Absolutely not now. But with the new hate speech laws in Canada, what happens now if I say that God has not ordained same-sex relationships? Am I not speaking against the charter of rights and freedoms of this particular group? Although no one has been charged under this law for this particular infraction, we have no precedence in Canada to know now what would happen. I think the term is about perception. Obviously you feel that the denial of marriage rights to certain groups is an imposition, I agree. But to others the opposite is true. I guess that's where the saying came, "You can please some people sometimes, but you can't please all the people all the time"