That’s what voting your well-formed, Catholic conscience is.
Nope. And I have explained my views on this thread several times, thank you very much.
Any reversal of settled precedent is judicial activism.
Yes, if it involves reversing settled precedent. Does it?
A Catholic senator should not oppose a judge who follows the law or settled precedent. All things being equal, personal viewpoints of a nominee are somewhat irrelevant.
Well, we disagree.
Well, you should check with some constitutional scholars on the separation of church and state. Or, check this thread – it has been thoroughly discussed previously.
I do not need to “check” with anyone. The so-called separation of Church and State is a modern contruct based on thin air. The Constitution holds no such provisions–anywhere. The establishment clause simply dictates that the state cannot favor/establish any religion, and that the state cannot prevent the free exercise of religion (which means politicians most definitely can base their decisions on the faith-based morality). To say that is somehow the establishment clause creates a wall is a ridiculous stretch. Sadly, Americans are weak and they have allowed the left to literally hijack the Constitution.
And you oppose that in all cases?
I don’t know. Was Brown-v-Board of Education a case of reversing settled precedent? Was supporting the settled precedent of Plessy-v-Furgeson the right thing to do? Is there any circumstance where settled precedence should be reversed?
A Catholic senator has the opportunity to change the law. But since the SCOTUS made law by ruling that abortion restrictions were unconstitutional, why shouldn’t a Catholic senator, who believes what the Church teaches, oppose a pro-abortion nominee to the bench? When does one have to check their true, faith-based beliefs at the door and when can one use those beliefs?
Nope.
Yes and no.
Many. Let’s just not fool ourselves about decrying ‘judicial activism’.
Because the question is if the nominee will follow the law and established precedent. If a senator wants a law change, he or she should submit a bill.
Have your elected representative submit a bill.
Not really. A law can be “legal” but be invalid. The Greeks proved that. Any law that violates natural law in invalid. Therefore, the law must be abrogated. That’s why we abrogated slavery and why we introduced child labor laws and passed laws protecting children from physical punishment. We realized that the laws, as they stood, were immoral. A law that is immoral is not valid. As Plato said, “Law exists for the good of the citizen. A law that harms its citizens is a false law.”
Why do your call yourself Catholic, if your faith does not permeate every part of your life?
Let’s not personalize this, OK?
Why is it that when you don’t like something, it must be left heavy? Americans are weak and they have allowed the left to literally hijack the Constitution? Does this mean there are more lefty’s than righty’s? Are you saying that the establishment clause was created only by the left? Wow, the left must be highly intelligent to pull the wool over every Americans eyes for the last 200 years?
No. The establishment clause was twisted by the Left through ideological interpretation to change ‘Freedom of Religion’ to ‘Freedom from Religion.’ You are correct that “the state cannot favor/establish any religion,” but no one in this thread is promoting that. An individual, acting according to their well-formed conscience, is not “establishing a religion” when they vote according to their beliefs on non-religious issues: abortion, gambling, drinking, divorce, etc. Also, setting aside generic times or calls for prayer (i.e. as Congress has done during times of crisis); national holidays reflecting the majority of the people (i.e. Christmas); and even funding social programs provided by faith-based organizations (as Bush put in place and Constitutional Professor Obama is continuing) are not state establishment of religion.Why is it that when you don’t like something, it must be left heavy? Americans are weak and they have allowed the left to literally hijack the Constitution? Does this mean there are more lefty’s than righty’s? **Are you saying that the establishment clause was created only by the left? **Wow, the left must be highly intelligent to pull the wool over every Americans eyes for the last 200 years?
The separation of Church and State is a contruct interpreted by the Supreme Court and is based on the law, not hot or thin air. The state cannot favor/establish any religion, which I believe was interpreted as once you are a politician elected by the PEOPLE, you are also part of the GOVERNMENT, and restrictions apply. I took a shot at it.
Christ was very clear about where the moral duty of Christians should lie…he also said we must enter from the narrow path…and everyone who cries Lord Lord will not enter the KingdomWhy do your call yourself Catholic, if your faith does not permeate every part of your life?
Why would a Muslim or a Jew call themselves such, if their faith did not permeate every part of their lives?
If no other faith in the world accepts that one can be faithful and unfaithful simultaneously, how do you believe that you can get away with it in the Catholic Church?
These are the tough questions that we have to ask ourselves in prayer. We either believe (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc) or we don’t believe. If we don’t believe everything that our faith teaches, we can say that we are sympathetic to this or that teaching of a specific faith. That would be honest. But to say that I am Muslim, but I believe that I can lay my Islamic faith aside to support something that is contrary to my faith is being unfaithful.
I think that you need to think this through carefully. Maybe you do belief and you are in conflict because the culture in which we live tells us that we have to place civic duty over moral conscience or maybe you are sympathetic to some Catholic teachings. This is a very difficult task to soul search oneself at this level. But all of us have to do it at some point in our lives. What we may never do is to pick and choose, regardless of our faith tradition. Faith traditions do not allow for compromises.
That being said, we win some and we lose some. But at least we give it a shot, when we have the opportunity. Given the opportunity to vote for that which I believe is moral, I have a duty to do so, regardless of what the current culture says. I don’t answer to culture, I answer to God. If the current culture does not want me in a public post, it can fire me at the next election.
One of the politicians whom I have most admired, not so much for his political competency, but for his honesty, is Jimmy Carter. President Carter was openly Baptist and his Baptist faith guided his life and work. The admirable thing about him was that he did not apologize for being Baptist or thinking like a Baptist. That’s a person with whom one can disagree on politics, but one cannot accuse of being dishonest about his faith.
If a Baptist can be firm about his faith and be in public office, so can any other person of any other faith. From there, let the voters decide if they want to keep him under their employ.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Based on their religious beliefs? Isn’t that imposing religion on the populace?
But you already know that faith, any faith, must permeate a person’s whole life. That’s the meaning of the word fides, to be faithful. The question is one that all of us, not just you, must grapple with.
The state cannot favor/establish a religion. We agree on that point. However, the state must NOT do ANYTHING that retricts the free practice of religion. That is where the so-called wall comes into play (if one insists there is a wall). In other words, the state cannot say anything encourage or discourage religious practice, not even regarding people who work for the government, because to do so would infringe on their constitutionally protected right to freedom “of” religion (it is critical to note that the clause says “freedom of religion,” not "freedom from religion).Why is it that when you don’t like something, it must be left heavy? Americans are weak and they have allowed the left to literally hijack the Constitution? Does this mean there are more lefty’s than righty’s? Are you saying that the establishment clause was created only by the left? Wow, the left must be highly intelligent to pull the wool over every Americans eyes for the last 200 years?
The separation of Church and State is a contruct interpreted by the Supreme Court and is based on the law, not hot or thin air. The state cannot favor/establish any religion, which I believe was interpreted as once you are a politician elected by the PEOPLE, you are also part of the GOVERNMENT, and restrictions apply. I took a shot at it.
Exactly. One cannot divorce themselves from their Catholic faith and still remain authentically Catholic. Kennedy was simply wrong.
