It’s Barrett....(Democrat Hysteria Game Thread)

creepycoug said:

creepycoug said:

WestlinnDuck said:

creepycoug said:

alumni94 said:

creepycoug said:

WestlinnDuck said:

So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.

I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.

We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.

The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson


"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black

So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?

And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.

Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...

Yeah, sure.

And? What's your point?

My apologies. I left this for too long and couldn't come back to it. Meant to add the following:

I'm not administering a religious test. I feel like you're trying to talk me into confirming this broad. You don't need to do that. I'm not on a witch hunt here.

For the record, I do reject your categorical conflation of humanist concerns with religious as mostly rhetoric. Like Jefferson, I recognize a distinction between natural rights (to worship privately) and social duty. So, no, they're not the same to me. But like I said, we've litigated that one in the Tug.

Out of curiosity, would you pursue this point as feverishly as you are now if the appointee-to-be were some kind of non-Christian religious follower? How would a Muslim appointee feel for you? Or some other devout follower of old stories that didn't involve Jesus? You may remain consistent in your view, but I can read minds and some of your friends would be lying if they said yes.

Houhusky said:

creepycoug said:

creepycoug said:

WestlinnDuck said:

creepycoug said:

alumni94 said:

creepycoug said:

WestlinnDuck said:

So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.

I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.

We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.

The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson


"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black

So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?

And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.

Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...

Yeah, sure.

And? What's your point?

My apologies. I left this for too long and couldn't come back to it. Meant to add the following:

I'm not administering a religious test. I feel like you're trying to talk me into confirming this broad. You don't need to do that. I'm not on a witch hunt here.

For the record, I do reject your categorical conflation of humanist concerns with religious as mostly rhetoric. Like Jefferson, I recognize a distinction between natural rights (to worship privately) and social duty. So, no, they're not the same to me. But like I said, we've litigated that one in the Tug.

Out of curiosity, would you pursue this point as feverishly as you are now if the appointee-to-be were some kind of non-Christian religious follower? How would a Muslim appointee feel for you? Or some other devout follower of old stories that didn't involve Jesus? You may remain consistent in your view, but I can read minds and some of your friends would be lying if they said yes.

Not to argue @WestlinnDuck points but....

The "wall of separation" is not in the constitution. Both Washington and Adams wrapped the executive in a blanket of open Christianity while still asserting a freedom of religion. Even Jefferson regularly attended church service held in congress' House during both his terms. Jefferson's personal views in a letter, not directly about the 1st amendment, are irrelevant. IMO the courts usage of Jefferson's innocuous letter, 100 years later, to determine the singular totality of the 1st was the court reading their own opinion into the law.

Historically, Jefferson's wall of separation was the evolution of Martin Luther's Separation of Two Kingdoms doctrine and the first use of the wall analogy was Puritan theologian Roger Williams in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenant of Persecution. Laws are created from the religious conscious of its society, they are not progenerated from a miasma of objectivity that simply exists outside the human experience... (ironically argument to the contrary is essentially a religious one.) The framers, including Jefferson, understood that the very idea of natural rights and a separate church and state was rooted in religious thought.

Therefore, my objective, secular ruling is that the 1st amendments goal was in fact to remove the state from religion NOT the religion from the state. The modern appearance that Laws are created from secular reason is just a testament to the religious and cultural thought homogeneity that has existed within the US. I don't find it possible to argue that the framers wrote about being endowed by their creator to certain specific natural rights and then attempted to create a legal system devoid of religious conscious enshrining those inherently religious rights. They fully understood that the nation's laws would (and should) be reflection of its citizens' religion(s).

The question of a different religion is a bit of a false equivalency... The constitution is rooted in Judeo-Christian values, post reformation Christianity and Scottish enlightenment ideals are directly inline with most modern Catholic beliefs. Put simply; If you grew up in a culture understanding the ten commandments then you are less likely to struggle with the ten amendments of the bill of rights.

I think its pretty ignorant to blanket treat all magically sky fairy beliefs as equally compatible with western morals or the constitution. If someone was a scientologist I would be pretty fucking worried about their seat on the Supreme Court.

TLDR: B===D~~~~ (.)(.)