People Of Praise ( Amy Barrett )

  • Thread starter Thread starter RidgeSprinter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like a charismatic, multicultural, and ecumenical version of Opus Dei.

Not my cuppa (either org), but not seeing a problem if someone else finds it helpful. It’s so hard to get a spiritual director nowadays and these organizations provide it on tap.

Of course, those who hate religion will make it out to be Jonestown Part II.
 
Last edited:
Is anyone bothered by their ideas of headship and only males in positions of authority?
 
Not vis a vis Amy Barrett, since such concepts have obviously not affected her life and career.
It’s not like she’s taking her judicial workload home to her husband and saying, “Honey, how should I decide this one?”
And I’m sure she’s not taking it down to her spiritual leader at People of Praise (if she’s even a member, as the article isn’t clear on that) and asking him.
 
PattyltPatron

35m

Is anyone bothered by their ideas of headship and only males in positions of authority?

No, that’s the way Christ set up his church, he gave authority to the Apostles.
 
Peebo said:
No, that’s the way Christ set up his church, he gave authority to the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Do you think some Christians and non or other religions might have an issue with her belonging to an organization that believes and practices this? If she fully accepts this (and we don’t know this) it might cause conflict with her being a SCJ?

I mentioned this before somewhere on CAF. I have no problem with Amy being a devout and practicing Catholic. I would, however have a problem with her placing her Catholic beliefs above the constitution. If that situation should ever arise, I would hope she would recurse herself.

As an example to make clear what I am stating… pretend the constitution is clear that the death penalty is a legal use of penalties and a case comes before her requiring a decision on a specific use of the death penalty. As a Catholic, her religious conviction is that it’s never justified in conflict with the constitution. I would expect her to bow out of making a ruling on this case due to her personal views conflicting with constitutional law.

Note: I’m not talking about her views on abortion as I don’t think abortion can be read into the constitution.
 
Pattylt said:
Do you think some Christians and non or other religions might have an issue with her belonging to an organization that believes and practices this? If she fully accepts this (and we don’t know this) it might cause conflict with her being a SCJ?
Click to expand...
It’s unconstitutional for someone to be excluded from the bench due to religious beliefs. She should not even have to answer questions about such stuff. One could also make a similar fuss about the Catholic Church (since we have no women priests or deacons), various Protestant churches (that support the idea of headship), the LDS (also big on headship), etc.

Furthermore, Amy Barrett has been a federal judge since 2017. If there was any irregularity in how she was deciding the cases (such as taking them home to her husband to tell her what to do, etc), it would have come to the fore and been dealt with by now. As a practical matter, anybody who works in or with the judiciary knows that such a scenario is highly unlikely, especially when the judge in question has such great qualifications and is not just someone’s underqualified political crony.

The organization itself does not appear to be engaging in any kind of illegal or questionable practices. Thus, there does not appear to be a moral issue with her being a member, if indeed she is even a member.

All I see is another lame smear/ scare attempt in an election year.

I have found that many people cannot understand how a woman can be simultaneously strong and independent in a career while closely following any kind of traditional or Scripture-based faith. The media and the world constantly push the idea that religion is for stupid sheeple only, that all the smart people are atheists unless they are somehow capitalizing on religion for a career full of money and power. The media and the world are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
If she fully accepts this (and we don’t know this) it might cause conflict with her being a SCJ?
Click to expand...
What is the “this” that is so alarming? That she believes in a traditional family model - the kind that was the norm when I was a kid growing up?

It seems that people today view the role of “head of household” as some kind of position of dominance. I would say that I’m the head of my household, but I do very little that I don’t discuss and gain concurrence from my wife. I earn the salary that keeps a roof over our heads and food on the plate, but it is in no way superior to my wife’s role of running the household and taking care of our children.
 
We, as Catholics, are all under the authority of the teachings of the Catholic Church. It doesn’t matter if we are men or women.
 
MikeInVA said:
What is the “this” that is so alarming? That she believes in a traditional family model - the kind that was the norm when I was a kid growing up?
Click to expand...
I would add that hers is not the only large family in Washington or in government or in the judiciary.
Kennedys have been running around in Washington and in state governments for years, with so many kids you can’t keep track of them all.
There are other large families who are less well known.

It’s generally a case of a family that has enough money (often, though not always, inherited) that they can afford to have a bunch of kids and the household help/ support needed to allow Dad, or Mom and Dad, to pursue good careers.
 
Ah darn. I’m so disappointed to learn Amy Barrett is involved in fringe stuff. I was on the brink of rethinking my ‘never Trump’ position.
 
Perhaps it would be useful for you to read the speech she gave after being told she was nominated. And several people who have clerked for her have said that she is fair and looks only at the law and not what she would prefer. Don’t look for a problem where it does not exist.
 
Judge Barrett’s pastor was on Fox News this morning and he explained the organization quite well. He has no problem with it.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
It’s unconstitutional for someone to be excluded from the bench due to religious beliefs
Click to expand...
I agree with the sentiment, but how does this work in reality?

I’m Senator Blah from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. I vote against a nominee because I don’t like their religion. How do you know? Where is it in the Constitution I can’t do that?
 
Last edited:
They’re supposed to show that her religious beliefs are somehow negatively impacting either her competency to do the job, or her moral character to sit on the court.

Her competency isn’t in serious question, especially since she’s already been a Supreme Court clerk and a federal appellate judge.

If this group she belonged to was doing something illegal, or really socially unacceptable like marrying off 15-year-old girls to the leaders, they might have a morals argument. But they’d have to show she was a member and reasonably knew or could have known such activities occurred. And given that she just had a confirmation hearing 3 years ago she has likely been investigated thoroughly for this sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
They’re supposed to show that her religious beliefs are somehow negatively impacting either her competency to do the job, or her moral character to sit on the court.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess the votes aren’t secret, but all you know is that a Senator didn’t vote for the nominee. I think they could base their vote on religion and we’d never know.

Now, if they gave religion as the reason, that’s discrimination, but I’m sure what the recourse is.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top