Democrats Still Don't 'Get It' On Religion

[Maranatha]

Commentary
…
For a tutorial on the role of religion in the judiciary and politics, Democratic Party leaders should have listened to a symposium called “Values and Legislation” held last week in the Capitol and sponsored by The Economist magazine (a corporate sibling of RollCall) and Stanford University.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) noted that one of Bush’s appointees, Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, a Roman Catholic, was being opposed by Democrats for his “deeply held beliefs” against abortion - even though he ruled that the state’s late-term abortion law was unconstitutional.

“So, clearly,” Sessions said, Pryor “could follow the law even though he disagreed with it.” He implied that Democrats opposed Pryor because they disagreed with his religious views. “We can’t have a democracy with a religious test,” he said.

Sessions said that, with exceptions, it’s “totally bogus” that religious voters want to “impose their views on everybody.” Rather, “they feel disrespected and misunderstood, especially by the media.” And, they think that the courts are determined to “secularize America far beyond what the people want to do.”
…

 

[Richardols]

Maranatha:

Democratic Party leaders should have listened to a symposium called “Values and Legislation” held last week in the Capitol and sponsored by The Economist magazine (a corporate sibling of RollCall) and Stanford University

“Democratic Party leaders,” sure. But you said Democrats. No qualification. Why do you presume that all us Democrats follow the Party leadership in lock step?

Are the views of all Republicans to be equated with the views of the Party leadership?

 

[Fiat]

“Democratic Party leaders,” sure. But you said Democrats. No qualification. Why do you presume that all us Democrats follow the Party leadership in lock step?

Perhaps because some people view the Democratic Party (both its leadership and its card-carrying citizenry) as a totalitarian regime wherein if you don’t goose-step alongside their moral relativism ideology you’re labeled as a …gasp…fundamentalist…gasp!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fiat:

Perhaps because some people view the Democratic Party (both its leadership and its card-carrying citizenry) as a totalitarian regime wherein if you don’t goose-step alongside their moral relativism ideology you’re labeled as a …gasp…fundamentalist…gasp!

I think men and women of good will in both parties should work to purge their parties of the most objectionable members.

In this case, remembering the issue of the thread, we should bear in mind that the Constitution forbids applying a religious test for office – and yet many politicians on the left do exactly that – even publicly stating that it is the nominee’s religkious beliefs that are objectionable.

People who hold so little respect for the Constitution – and for their own oaths to support the Constitution – do not belong in office, in either party.

 

[Fiat]

vern humphrey:

I think men and women of good will in both parties should work to purge their parties of the most objectionable members.

In this case, remembering the issue of the thread, we should bear in mind that the Constitution forbids applying a religious test for office – and yet many politicians on the left do exactly that – even publicly stating that it is the nominee’s religkious beliefs that are objectionable.

People who hold so little respect for the Constitution – and for their own oaths to support the Constitution – do not belong in office, in either party.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. First, there is no requirement that a member of any political party divorce himself from his religion. Very religious people have every right to belong to whatever political party they wish. Secondly, do you think that Christianity is in some sort of conflict with the Constitution? Third, perhaps if you could explain how a person can distinguish his political ideology from his religious ideology, I’d be able to understand your perspective a little more.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fiat:

I’m not sure what you’re saying…

I gather that from your post.

Fiat:

First, there is no requirement that a member of any political party divorce himself from his religion. …

When people support a political party that opposes the critical doctrine of their religion, they have a real conflict.

Fiat:

Very religious people have every right to belong to whatever political party they wish. Secondly, do you think that Christianity is in some sort of conflict with the Constitution? …

I’m simply bemused that you would even ask that question. The Constitution protects religion. One way it does that is by stating that no religious test will be applied to candidates for office (That’s Article VI, Clause 3). Yet some Senators openly ask nominees about their religion in confirmation hearings.

Fiat:

Third, perhaps if you could explain how a person can distinguish his political ideology from his religious ideology, I’d be able to understand your perspective a little more.

If you oppose abortion (and as a Catholic, you must), and yet support a political leader who acts to facilitate abortion, you are conflicted, are you not?

 

[Fiat]

When people support a political party that opposes the critical doctrine of their religion, they have a real conflict.

So is it your suggestion that religious people exempt themselves from political parties when the political party doesn’t affirm every tenent of their faith? Forgive me if I don’t see that as a healthy action in the democratic process.

I’m simply bemused that you would even ask that question. The Constitution protects religion. One way it does that is by stating that no religious test will be applied to candidates for office (That’s Article VI, Clause 3). Yet some Senators openly ask nominees about their religion in confirmation hearings.

No disagreement with you here. If you would reread my post, my questions was directed toward specific conflicts between the U.S. Constitution and Christianity in general, not to whether a religious litmus test should be applied to judicial nominees.

If you oppose abortion (and as a Catholic, you must), and yet support a political leader who acts to facilitate abortion, you are conflicted, are you not?

Again, my question doesn’t pertain to a “political leader,” it pertains to the U.S. Constitution. Frankly, I see NO CONFLICT between the Church’s position on abortion and the U.S. Constitution. The conflict is in the manner in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the constitution to provide for the fiction of an abortion right.
Fiat

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fiat:

So is it your suggestion that religious people exempt themselves from political parties when the political party doesn’t affirm every tenent of their faith? Forgive me if I don’t see that as a healthy action in the democratic process.

You like to make strawmen, don’t you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

There are certain issues (called the 5 non-negotiables on these forums) that no Catholic can support. Benedict XVI before his election denounced abortion and euthanisia as incomptable with Catholicism.

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Fiat:

Again, my question doesn’t pertain to a “political leader,” it pertains to the U.S. Constitution. Frankly, I see NO CONFLICT between the Church’s position on abortion and the U.S. Constitution. The conflict is in the manner in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the constitution to provide for the fiction of an abortion right.
Fiat

And my answer is that a Catholic cannot support politicians who themselves support abortion. Further, the acts of pro-abortion politicians to impose a religious test for office – a test which would exclude Catholics – is an anti-Catholic move,

 

[LoneRanger]

broad brushes are untrue and unfair…

you can find fault and glory within both sides of the isle…

 

[vern_humphrey]

LoneRanger:

broad brushes are untrue and unfair…

you can find fault and glory within both sides of the isle…

The issue is about individual politicians, who can certainly be judged on their records.

If you have a politician on your ballot who has voted for measures that support abortion, and against measures to limit abortion, can you morally vote for him?

The national leadership of the Democratic Party is markedly pro-abortion. I don’t ask Democrats to become Republicans – I ask them to turn out the pro-abortion politicians in their party. I will work to do the same in the Republican Party.

 

[Fiat]

vern humphrey:

You like to make strawmen, don’t you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

There are certain issues (called the 5 non-negotiables on these forums) that no Catholic can support. Benedict XVI before his election denounced abortion and euthanisia as incomptable with Catholicism.

And my answer is that a Catholic cannot support politicians who themselves support abortion. Further, the acts of pro-abortion politicians to impose a religious test for office – a test which would exclude Catholics – is an anti-Catholic move,

If you review this thread, I think you’ll see that you and I are actually on the same page. You will notice that the “strawman” was brought in by Richardols in which he starts discussing not the elected officials themselves but the political parties. Specifically, Richardols questions why people (presumably those whom he would term neoconservatives), think Democratic party members must follow “lock-step” with the Democratic leaders.

Fiat

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fiat:

If you review this thread, I think you’ll see that you and I are actually on the same page. You will notice that the “strawman” was brought in by Richardols in which he starts discussing not the elected officials themselves but the political parties. Specifically, Richardols questions why people (presumably those whom he would term neoconservatives), think Democratic party members must follow “lock-step” with the Democratic leaders.

Fiat

That is a vaild question. Part of the answer is to look at the leaders themselves – so many of them are pro-abortion that it is a fair question to ask how a Catholic can follow such leaders. If you cannot follow your leaders, you should work to get new leaders.

 

[Philip_P]

I’ve been thinking about how to do this for a while. I’m considering actually registering as a Democrat (currently registered as independent) so I can vote in primaries.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I’ve been thinking about how to do this for a while. I’m considering actually registering as a Democrat (currently registered as independent) so I can vote in primaries.

Join the Party . Pay the dues. Attend the meetings. Work for the Party. You’ll soon be elected Committee Chairman for your county or political subdivision. Then start promotiing pro-life candidates. And write to your elected representatives, telling them you support pro-life policies, and sign your letter as “Chairman, Buggs County Democratic Committee.”