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?
Are Democrats attacking Christians?
Moderator: Moderators
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #51
If that is all you are promoting then fine, but it appears to me that you want a Christian government outlawing both believers and unbelievers from any remotely unbiblical action. I feel that this is not only intolerant, but un-biblical.I am urging people to not allow sin and its consequences to be embraced by anyone that would try to harras or intimidate a believer in Christ, without speaking up.
About the "silencing of the Christian voice", I would probably agree that the laws against Christian activities in specific public areas go a bit far. However, Laxing them to the point that saying or doing anything that is unpromotional to Christianity is made illegal is just as bad. I believe free speech is important.
Add this to your "The homosexual agenda's main goal is to bring down Christianity" bit, and I get the impression that you are nothing but a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Perhaps you could provide some specific examples and evidence so that we can better see where you are comming from? At the moment, your main evidence seems to be the statements that proclaim "This is a fact. I am right. Your position is ungodly". As you can imagine (and examine firsthand) people don't generally respond well to this sort of rhetoric. Civil/humble/rational discussion appears to be the way to go, from what I have seen. Just a suggestion.Hate crimes legislation is a thinly veiled agenda at best
I might dare to say that EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is not out to get Christians. The purpose of the homosexual agenda might just be to gain equal rights, and the purpose of the hate crimes legislation might solely be to..... well, prevent hate crimes. Some supporters probably harbour ulterior motives, but that doesen't mean we should judge the entire organization in accordance.
In the same way, ALL liberals might not be out to get Christians. Some might even be Christians themselves (*gasp*).
I really don't see why we can't debate it here. Isn't the fear of the theocratic movements you argue for the entire reason John Roberts' Catholicism is being made an issue by Dems?TP Platypus,
Start another thread and I will be happy to debate this Christian perspective.
Please.
But if you really want to move it, just get back to me and I will. Or you can. Whatever you want.
-
azchurchmouse
- Student
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:36 am
- Location: Western United States
Post #52
Why now are Democrats insisting that nominee John Roberts' Catholic beliefs be fair game as a means to decide his qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice?
Because no matter who Bush wanted to fill the position on the Supreme Court, they would try to block the appointment. There is so much hatred now between the parties that they will never again see eye to eye on any topic. There is no person on earth that is conservative that Democrats would be ok with. Life they say is often a study in opposites, and today Republicans and Democrats are as opposite as you can get.
Is this another example of anti-Christian and intolerant views held by the Democrats towards Christians?
Yes. When Clinton was serving in his second term as president, at every opportunity he tried to speak at Baptist Christian churches in the South. He carried each week a large Bible with a large cross on the cover......for all those photo ops.
During the Carter administration, Jimmy even taught a bible study at a church while he was in office. I think he was a Bible believing evangelical Christian.
The Democrats fail to remember their own who remained faithful to the faith, and now bash Republicans, just because they are in office.
Is it proper and decent to ask about persons religious beliefs to decide their worth in the justice system?
Yes. A person’s faith says a lot about who they really are. And we need honest, law abiding, ethical, moral people in America’s leadership.
So why now the litmus test of Roberts' Catholic faith being an issue for his nomination?
They will do anything to eliminate Republican Christians. They can’t find any smut on him so they will attack his faith in God. They think maybe that will bring him down.
Is it anti-Christian and does it imply that Christians cannot be involved in the American process of justice?
What they want Christians to do is to only practice their faith at home. It should never be applied at work. Is that what Jesus asks us to do, only follow him at home, not at work? Turn it on and off like a faucet?
Our moment to moment decisions are shaped by the worldview we have adopted and adapted over the course of time, often without realizing that we are dependent upon such a framework for decision making.
Everyone has a worldview. What the democrats are saying is that if your worldview says abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, reading and FOLLOWING the Bible is wrong......you shouldn’t be able to serve.
If serving in politics means leaving faith in Christ at home, then no Christian should serve.
Because no matter who Bush wanted to fill the position on the Supreme Court, they would try to block the appointment. There is so much hatred now between the parties that they will never again see eye to eye on any topic. There is no person on earth that is conservative that Democrats would be ok with. Life they say is often a study in opposites, and today Republicans and Democrats are as opposite as you can get.
Is this another example of anti-Christian and intolerant views held by the Democrats towards Christians?
Yes. When Clinton was serving in his second term as president, at every opportunity he tried to speak at Baptist Christian churches in the South. He carried each week a large Bible with a large cross on the cover......for all those photo ops.
During the Carter administration, Jimmy even taught a bible study at a church while he was in office. I think he was a Bible believing evangelical Christian.
The Democrats fail to remember their own who remained faithful to the faith, and now bash Republicans, just because they are in office.
Is it proper and decent to ask about persons religious beliefs to decide their worth in the justice system?
Yes. A person’s faith says a lot about who they really are. And we need honest, law abiding, ethical, moral people in America’s leadership.
Her name is Ruth Bader Ginsberg. And she held office in the ACLU. She was never questioned about her religious beliefs during her confirmation hearings.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?
They will do anything to eliminate Republican Christians. They can’t find any smut on him so they will attack his faith in God. They think maybe that will bring him down.
Is it anti-Christian and does it imply that Christians cannot be involved in the American process of justice?
What they want Christians to do is to only practice their faith at home. It should never be applied at work. Is that what Jesus asks us to do, only follow him at home, not at work? Turn it on and off like a faucet?
Our moment to moment decisions are shaped by the worldview we have adopted and adapted over the course of time, often without realizing that we are dependent upon such a framework for decision making.
Everyone has a worldview. What the democrats are saying is that if your worldview says abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, reading and FOLLOWING the Bible is wrong......you shouldn’t be able to serve.
If serving in politics means leaving faith in Christ at home, then no Christian should serve.
George Barna said, At the risk of sounding simplistic, its like asking the question, "What would Jesus do if He were in my shoes right now?" and applying the answer without compromising because of how we anticipate the world reacting."
Post #53
THis may be an accurate assessment to some extent, but paints with too broad a brush. The opposition to Roberts has actually been pretty tame, and not universal among Senatorial Democrats. THere is, unfortunately, too much partisanship but I think both parties share the blame for that.azchurchmouse wrote:Because no matter who Bush wanted to fill the position on the Supreme Court, they would try to block the appointment. There is so much hatred now between the parties that they will never again see eye to eye on any topic. There is no person on earth that is conservative that Democrats would be ok with. Life they say is often a study in opposites, and today Republicans and Democrats are as opposite as you can get.
I would disagree, especially with the phrasing of the first question and the answer. The Democrats are not anti-Christian, they are against certain policies that are near and dear to the hearts of some conservative Christians. There is a difference.Is this another example of anti-Christian and intolerant views held by the Democrats towards Christians?
Yes.
So why now the litmus test of Roberts' Catholic faith being an issue for his nomination?
They will do anything to eliminate Republican Christians. They can’t find any smut on him so they will attack his faith in God.
It's not the those who have concerns think Christians should "leave their faith at home," it is that they do not want the religious doctrines of a certain segment of Christians, doctrines which those people have accepted voluntarily of their own free will, to become the law of the land which applies to people of all faiths, including the great variety of Christian denominations.Is it anti-Christian and does it imply that Christians cannot be involved in the American process of justice?
What they want Christians to do is to only practice their faith at home. It should never be applied at work. Is that what Jesus asks us to do, only follow him at home, not at work? Turn it on and off like a faucet?
Our moment to moment decisions are shaped by the worldview we have adopted and adapted over the course of time, often without realizing that we are dependent upon such a framework for decision making.
Everyone has a worldview. What the democrats are saying is that if your worldview says abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, reading and FOLLOWING the Bible is wrong......you shouldn’t be able to serve.
If serving in politics means leaving faith in Christ at home, then no Christian should serve.
The Democrats have many among them who are not shy about talking about their faith, and having their faith influence their approach to policy. Senator Lieberman (Jewish), Senator Kerry, and Senator Harry Ried the majority leader come to mind.
Yes, some Democrats will probably oppose anyone who is dead set against keeping abortion legal. However, this does not mean they are opposing someone because of their faith.
Personally, I think the charge made in the title of this thread is a partisan ploy to slam Democrats, and nothing more. It seems some Republicans will not be happy if even one Democrat opposes any Bush nominee for whatever reason. The tactics pursued by Bill Frist seem to be based on the idea that 'if we have 55% of the votes, we should get 100% of what we want, no questions asked.'
I think this is a short-sighted and un-democratic approach to Senatorial governance.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #54
micatala wrote:
I have to agree with you . I have no idea where being democrate or liberial was Un-Christian that alone Anti-Christian.
i would think that if you look close you will find Bush's nominie has more to do with his pro-corporate stance.
azchurchmouse wrote:
Being a Republican Christian does not always mean a Person of faith.
That Hal Linsay, and the 700 club think so dosn't make it true.
.Personally, I think the charge made in the title of this thread is a partisan ploy to slam Democrats, and nothing more. It seems some Republicans will not be happy if even one Democrat opposes any Bush nominee for whatever reason. The tactics pursued by Bill Frist seem to be based on the idea that 'if we have 55% of the votes, we should get 100% of what we want, no questions asked.'
I think this is a short-sighted and un-democratic approach to Senatorial governance
I have to agree with you . I have no idea where being democrate or liberial was Un-Christian that alone Anti-Christian.
i would think that if you look close you will find Bush's nominie has more to do with his pro-corporate stance.
azchurchmouse wrote:
You mean like the $60 some million to find out about the pres. sex life?They will do anything to eliminate Republican Christians. They can’t find any smut on him so they will attack his faith in God. They think maybe that will bring him down.
Being a Republican Christian does not always mean a Person of faith.
That Hal Linsay, and the 700 club think so dosn't make it true.
No. I belive it is another example of whinny Christian Republicans.Is this another example of anti-Christian and intolerant views held by the Democrats towards Christians?
Post #55
I fail to see where the bible directs Christians to enter into politics
(on either side).
All politicians are scum. It's sad...we want our heroes and role-models...
We want the Winston Churchill's, the Truman's...the FDR's, but they are
gone. A political position ( regardless of justification ) IS NOT A RELIGIOUS
ONE!!!
The point of the constitution is to set the government up to succeed by NOT
encouraging the participation of religion in government.
It's not like I expect a politician to be even vaguely honest ( regardless of
party affiliation ), but I sure get pissed when some dirtbag presents his
"moral" code and implies that I am not Christian because I don't agree
with him.
This is crap...the point of limiting religious speech in places where people
can't just leave is to give people a place to work. If you argue for the ability
to promote your religion in the workplace...that means people you may
find offensive can also promote their beliefs...and it goes on...
There are not prohibitions ( in fact there are protections ) for religion in
the workplace...IF you are practicing your religion and not involving your
coworkers. If you do this, you are guaranteed the right to exercise your
beliefs, but if you step over the line into someone else's beliefs, then you
are in the wrong.
Now the simple answer to your topic is....no
Democrats are attacking Republicans, much in the same way Republicans
attack Democrats. These particular Republicans happen to also be Christian,
but you kid yourself if you think this is about religion...it politics
as usual.
(on either side).
All politicians are scum. It's sad...we want our heroes and role-models...
We want the Winston Churchill's, the Truman's...the FDR's, but they are
gone. A political position ( regardless of justification ) IS NOT A RELIGIOUS
ONE!!!
The point of the constitution is to set the government up to succeed by NOT
encouraging the participation of religion in government.
It's not like I expect a politician to be even vaguely honest ( regardless of
party affiliation ), but I sure get pissed when some dirtbag presents his
"moral" code and implies that I am not Christian because I don't agree
with him.
What they want Christians to do is to only practice their faith at home. It should never be applied at work. Is that what Jesus asks us to do, only follow him at home, not at work? Turn it on and off like a faucet?
This is crap...the point of limiting religious speech in places where people
can't just leave is to give people a place to work. If you argue for the ability
to promote your religion in the workplace...that means people you may
find offensive can also promote their beliefs...and it goes on...
There are not prohibitions ( in fact there are protections ) for religion in
the workplace...IF you are practicing your religion and not involving your
coworkers. If you do this, you are guaranteed the right to exercise your
beliefs, but if you step over the line into someone else's beliefs, then you
are in the wrong.
Now the simple answer to your topic is....no
Democrats are attacking Republicans, much in the same way Republicans
attack Democrats. These particular Republicans happen to also be Christian,
but you kid yourself if you think this is about religion...it politics
as usual.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #56
Chimp wrote:
But they are making big money.
Pretty much.All politicians are scum.
You mean like pat Robertson and hal Linsey? They piss me off too.It's not like I expect a politician to be even vaguely honest ( regardless of
party affiliation ), but I sure get pissed when some dirtbag presents his
"moral" code and implies that I am not Christian because I don't agree
with him.
Those particular rRepublicans are also particular Christians that seem to think that they right and have the only way to interpret their brand of Christianity.Democrats are attacking Republicans, much in the same way Republicans
attack Democrats. These particular Republicans happen to also be Christian,
but you kid yourself if you think this is about religion...it politics
as usual.
But they are making big money.
-
azchurchmouse
- Student
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:36 am
- Location: Western United States
Post #57
“Senator Lieberman (Jewish), Senator Kerry, and Senator Harry Ried the majority leader come to mind.”
John Kerry is not pro life. He believes, as most pro-choice people believe, that, until birth control methods work 100 percent for everyone and are available to everyone, no one has the right to tell any woman that she must give birth to a child.
He tries "to justify a 'pro-choice' position" by stating: "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I cannot impose my religious beliefs on others."
Leiberman is not pro-life. On abortion, he is neither conservative nor moderate. In 71 votes during his nearly 12 years in the Senate, Lieberman voted for the abortion rights position all but twice, according to Pro-life Infonet, an online news service. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Ried is pro-life, and God bless him for standing up for the innocent. Not many politicians do, they need the votes.
He did not go to great pains to hide his sexual obsessions and addictions, and did not care that he humiliated his family. Not once, but over and over again. His actions validated the worst kind of activity-both when it comes to lying about sex and on the issue of oral sex. In the attempt to doge perjury, Clinton contributed to the hot new idea that oral sex wasn’t real sex. He certainly brought this issue into the limelight.
Are we all not supposed to be missionaries for Christ? What is the purpose of our lives on earth? You can’t turn if off like a faucet……Christians are suppose to put Christ first…not their jobs.
This is not true anymore. Read the book, The Criminalization of Christianity”, by Janet Folger. I just posted some examples from the book in another discussion, but I can’t remember where……ha ha. It’s late.
John Kerry is not pro life. He believes, as most pro-choice people believe, that, until birth control methods work 100 percent for everyone and are available to everyone, no one has the right to tell any woman that she must give birth to a child.
He tries "to justify a 'pro-choice' position" by stating: "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I cannot impose my religious beliefs on others."
Leiberman is not pro-life. On abortion, he is neither conservative nor moderate. In 71 votes during his nearly 12 years in the Senate, Lieberman voted for the abortion rights position all but twice, according to Pro-life Infonet, an online news service. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion.
Ried is pro-life, and God bless him for standing up for the innocent. Not many politicians do, they need the votes.
It might have taken that much money to prosecute, but the whole world knew about his sex life.Cathar said, “You mean like the $60 some million to find out about the pres. sex life?”
He did not go to great pains to hide his sexual obsessions and addictions, and did not care that he humiliated his family. Not once, but over and over again. His actions validated the worst kind of activity-both when it comes to lying about sex and on the issue of oral sex. In the attempt to doge perjury, Clinton contributed to the hot new idea that oral sex wasn’t real sex. He certainly brought this issue into the limelight.
It’s not necessarily talking about your faith to people, it’s the ability to live it, to walk it and not be harassed and thought stupid. The”left” in this country think Christians are idiots. That anyone with faith is a moron, someone who needs a crutch.Chimp said, “This is crap...the point of limiting religious speech in places where people can't just leave is to give people a place to work. If you argue for the ability to promote your religion in the workplace...that means people you may find offensive can also promote their beliefs...and it goes on...”
Are we all not supposed to be missionaries for Christ? What is the purpose of our lives on earth? You can’t turn if off like a faucet……Christians are suppose to put Christ first…not their jobs.
Chimp you also said….” ...IF you are practicing your religion and not involving your co-workers. If you do this, you are guaranteed the right to exercise your
beliefs, but if you step over the line into someone else's beliefs, then you
are in the wrong. “
This is not true anymore. Read the book, The Criminalization of Christianity”, by Janet Folger. I just posted some examples from the book in another discussion, but I can’t remember where……ha ha. It’s late.
Post #58
Oh please....you can't dictate what people think. If you're so hung up on what people think then drop your faith.azchurchmouse wrote:
It’s not necessarily talking about your faith to people, it’s the ability to live it, to walk it and not be harassed and thought stupid. The”left” in this country think Christians are idiots. That anyone with faith is a moron, someone who needs a crutch.
Exactly...if you are, why wouldn't you quit your job then and be a missionary?azchurchmouse wrote:
Are we all not supposed to be missionaries for Christ? What is the purpose of our lives on earth? You can’t turn if off like a faucet……Christians are suppose to put Christ first…not their jobs.
Post #59
People get fired for idiotic reasons all the time...if the firing
is not justified there are legal remedies ( put there because
people get fired for idiotic reasons ).
For a moment, consider the position of the company...they pay you
to show up and do your job. You want to witness to your coworkers.
Does this happen on company time? Are you and the coworker on
break? If not, you, in effect, have made your employer complicite in
your promotion of your beliefs.
I appreciate your desire to evangelize...some feel called to do just that.
You should consider when it is appropriate to do so. If the subject of your
"good news" is not ready to hear it, you may alienate, upset, or turn some
-one away from becoming Christian. I would liken it to dating...or the early
stages...if you constantly bug someone to go out on a date...what happens?
You get called stalker...but if you bide your time wait and watch...the perfect
opportunity will appear.
is not justified there are legal remedies ( put there because
people get fired for idiotic reasons ).
For a moment, consider the position of the company...they pay you
to show up and do your job. You want to witness to your coworkers.
Does this happen on company time? Are you and the coworker on
break? If not, you, in effect, have made your employer complicite in
your promotion of your beliefs.
I appreciate your desire to evangelize...some feel called to do just that.
You should consider when it is appropriate to do so. If the subject of your
"good news" is not ready to hear it, you may alienate, upset, or turn some
-one away from becoming Christian. I would liken it to dating...or the early
stages...if you constantly bug someone to go out on a date...what happens?
You get called stalker...but if you bide your time wait and watch...the perfect
opportunity will appear.
Post #60
The facts bare witness that Democrat "Christians" promote anti-Christian agenda's.
Jesus specifically spoke to religious leaders that did the same thing in Herod's court.
"politics" does not excuse supporting evil.
That is an individual choice.
Democrats attack "Christians" that point out that the democrat is doing something wrong. So. . . they hide behind the word "politics."
I person that willingly chooses to do something wronng should be held accountablr for it. Christians are given the directives from Christ, to do just that.
The "bad" thing is that it is done in front of people who do not value morality but instead sell it out for relativism and excuse.
Rome all over again. But the democrats are far more like Nero and the following licentious Roman leaders thann the current voices in the GOP.
Jesus specifically spoke to religious leaders that did the same thing in Herod's court.
"politics" does not excuse supporting evil.
That is an individual choice.
Democrats attack "Christians" that point out that the democrat is doing something wrong. So. . . they hide behind the word "politics."
I person that willingly chooses to do something wronng should be held accountablr for it. Christians are given the directives from Christ, to do just that.
The "bad" thing is that it is done in front of people who do not value morality but instead sell it out for relativism and excuse.
Rome all over again. But the democrats are far more like Nero and the following licentious Roman leaders thann the current voices in the GOP.
