Archbishop Chaput critiques famous JFK 'Houston speech' [CC]

[Orogeny]

Its not a question of using his or her religious beliefs.

If a politician has strongly-held religious beliefs, should he/she ignore those beliefs while governing?

It is an understanding that in a pluralistic society the populace deserves to be free from having a religious belief imposed on them, the government should not support or propound religion and that all religious beliefs deserve respect.

Would being pro-life and working to appoint supreme court justices who are also pro-life count as imposing a religious belief on the populace?

Peace

Tim

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Would being pro-life and working to appoint supreme court justices who are also pro-life count as imposing a religious belief on the populace?

It is possible to object to capital punishment on religious grounds but realize that the practice is legal. It is possible to be pro-life but realize that the Supreme Court decision as to abortion has some legal basis.

So, appointing a judge who believes that capital punishment is not legal or that there was no basis for the Supreme Court’s opinion may be irresponsible.

Scalia on abortion:

“On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were … trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion,” Scalia told correspondent Lesley Stahl.

“And you’re against that?” Stahl asked.

Scalia replied, “Of course. There’s nothing” (in the Constitution to support that view)."

 

[rlg94086]

It is possible to object to capital punishment on religious grounds but realize that the practice is legal. It is possible to be pro-life but realize that the Supreme Court decision as to abortion has some legal basis.

So, appointing a judge who believes that capital punishment is not legal or that there was no basis for the Supreme Court’s opinion may be irresponsible.

I somewhat agree with your comments, but I don’t think anyone is saying that they would support a pro-life judge who believes that there was “no basis” for the Supreme Court’s decision regarding abortion. Realizing that the SCotUS decision “has some legal basis” does not mean you have to agree with it. A “pro-life” judge could very well understand the basis but disagree with it and still be making a reasoned, judicial judgment. Supreme Court decisions are not unanimous. Surely, you don’t believe there is only one correct interpretation of the Constitution.

Now, I make these comments in regards to a SC justice. In the case of a lower court judge, they must adjudicate according to the laws, as passed. It is not sinful for a judge to uphold laws that are contrary to our faith. It is not in their power to change them. For legislators and the executive branch, though, it is a different matter. For example, if a governor or president wishes to pardon every death row case that comes to his desk, he is free to do that.

 

[Orogeny]

It is possible to object to capital punishment on religious grounds but realize that the practice is legal. It is possible to be pro-life but realize that the Supreme Court decision as to abortion has some legal basis.

It is legal because the Supreme Court decided it is. Am I wrong in thinking that if a case challenging the legality of abortion came before the Supreme Court, the court could determine that abortion is not legal?

So, appointing a judge who believes that capital punishment is not legal or that there was no basis for the Supreme Court’s opinion may be irresponsible.

Does that mean that any Supreme Court nominee who believes that court was wrong in deciding R-v-W as it did is not qualified? Or, maybe better put, irresponsible?

Peace

Tim

 

[JimG]

To be fair, it must be noted that John F. Kennedy was not pro-abortion. Abortion was not an issue at the time.

The Kennedy political family embraced the pro-choice position later, after the Democratic party had made that position a de-facto requirement for Dems to hold high public office. At that time, they gathered some liberal Catholic clerics, including the astoundingly pro-choice congressman Fr. Robert Drinan, SJ, to help them come up with a rationale which would allow them to retain their Catholicism and their politics.

 

[JimG]

Scalia on abortion:

“On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were … trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion,” Scalia told correspondent Lesley Stahl.

“And you’re against that?” Stahl asked.

Scalia replied, “Of course. There’s nothing” (in the Constitution to support that view)."

Yes, Scalia’s point was that the Constitution had nothing to say about abortion, either pro or con, and that the SCOTUS should therefore have returned the matter to the states.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

It is legal because the Supreme Court decided it is. Am I wrong in thinking that if a case challenging the legality of abortion came before the Supreme Court, the court could determine that abortion is not legal?

No.

Does that mean that any Supreme Court nominee who believes that court was wrong in deciding R-v-W as it did is not qualified? Or, maybe better put, irresponsible?

No.

 

[Orogeny]

No.

Then why would appointing a justice that is pro-life be irresponsible? Wouldn’t someone who has strong religious beliefs that life begins at conception be likely to appoint such a justice? And if he/she did, is that imposing their religious beliefs on the populace?

Peace

Tim

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Then why would appointing a justice that is pro-life be irresponsible? Wouldn’t someone who has strong religious beliefs that life begins at conception be likely to appoint such a justice? And if he/she did, is that imposing their religious beliefs on the populace?

Appointing someone who disagrees with a court decision, said disagreement solely because the appointee is pro-life, is irresponsible.

 

[Lujack]

Yes, Scalia’s point was that the Constitution had nothing to say about abortion, either pro or con, and that the SCOTUS should therefore have returned the matter to the states.

This position doesn’t make sense.

If the pro-choice people are right, and the fetus is not alive, than abortion is a mere medical procedure just like any other, and neither the state nor the federal government can regulate it.

If the Catholic Church is right, as I believe it is, and the fetus is a living baby, than the states must outlaw abortion, because the fetus is entitled to the right to life.

No middle position holds up logically. It has to be one way or the other. Scalia is wrong here, because if the fetus isn’t alive, it has no rights at all, and no state can regulate the procedure. If it is alive, it has all the rights of an infant, and can’t be electively murdered.

 

[rlg94086]

This position doesn’t make sense.

If the pro-choice people are right, and the fetus is not alive, than abortion is a mere medical procedure just like any other, and neither the state nor the federal government can regulate it.

If the Catholic Church is right, as I believe it is, and the fetus is a living baby, than the states must outlaw abortion, because the fetus is entitled to the right to life.

No middle position holds up logically. It has to be one way or the other. Scalia is wrong here, because if the fetus isn’t alive, it has no rights at all, and no state can regulate the procedure. If it is alive, it has all the rights of an infant, and can’t be electively murdered.

Scalia is correct that the Constitution is silent on the matter of whether a fetus is a “living baby” or not. It isn’t a middle position - it’s no position. The fetus is definitely alive, but personhood is the question at hand. While it is obvious to many of us from a genetic standpoint - a new, living being with distinct human dna, it is not accepted by many. Since the Constitution does not define when life begins, it does not have a position. The Supreme Court took it upon itself to decide that no one can prevent a woman from killing the life within her. So far, they have not determined that a woman can kill her toddler, even though the Constitution is also silent on toddler’s rights.

 

[Adeodatus]

Let’s not personalize this with irrelevant inquiries, OK?

Then you have given your answer.

 

[rlg94086]

Appointing someone who disagrees with a court decision, said disagreement solely because the appointee is pro-life, is irresponsible.

I think this is a case of reductio ad absurdum. I have never heard of anyone with a legal background who disagrees with the court’s decision “solely because they are pro-life.” I’ve always heard the legal arguments for their mistake. All you have to do is read the dissents in the cases.

By assuming the “someone” at hand is basing their disagreement completely on their personal beliefs, you are assuming a non-legally minded person is being considered for an appointment to the bench. That’s just plain absurd.

 

[Orogeny]

Appointing someone who disagrees with a court decision, said disagreement solely because the appointee is pro-life, is irresponsible.

If all things are equal and the choice is between two individuals, one pro-life and one pro-abortion, and the pro-life person is chosen, would that be imposing one’s religion on the populace? Should the pro-life person be rejected simply because of their position on abortion?

Peace

Tim

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Then you have given your answer.

Actually, no.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

By assuming the “someone” at hand is basing their disagreement completely on their personal beliefs, you are assuming a non-legally minded person is being considered for an appointment to the bench.

Just because a person has opinions which are extra-legal does not make that person a non-lawyer and some would consider the person legally-minded. Wasn’t Roy Moore in AL running for governor? He was a judge and certainly non-legally minded.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

If all things are equal and the choice is between two individuals, one pro-life and one pro-abortion, and the pro-life person is chosen, would that be imposing one’s religion on the populace? Should the pro-life person be rejected simply because of their position on abortion?

It usually is best, when dealing with civil legal talent as to lay matters, to go with the best legal mind.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Which shows why I disagree so often with the archbishop. I think he does not understand what separation of church and state means in a pluralistic society. Which is why he can be wrong on his political statements.

Where in the Constitution does it say “separation of church and state”?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Where in the Constitution does it say “separation of church and state”?

Right after the ‘right to privacy’, a noted and accepted constitutional right.

In the constitution it says slavery shall no longer exist in the US. Two questions were argued:

1. Does that make it illegal to hold slaves?
2. If yes, what’s the penalty?

The point is that not every legal point is set out in ink on paper in the constitution.

 

[Ender]

Right after the ‘right to privacy’, a noted and accepted constitutional right.

The point is that not every legal point is set out in ink on paper in the constitution.

This is disingenuous in the extreme. Stating a truism that the Constitution doesn’t expressly cover everything - like communicating over the internet - cannot be stretched to mean that justices are free to invent things that are not in there - such as things found in a non-existent penumbra.

Ender