Anti-Catholic bias?

post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
[Post New]09/25/2017 10:41
quote
Anonymous
This happened a few weeks ago, but I haven't seen anyone discuss it. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/opinion/the-dogma-of-dianne-feinstein.html?mcubz=0

I am personally concerned that one's faith is being used as a litmus test. It would not be acceptable if it were a Muslim being interrogated in this way (can you image if a lawmaker, in the process of approving a nomination said "Islamic dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern?" - that statement would be disturbing to me) or a Jew, or any other faith.
[Post New]09/25/2017 10:43
quote
Anonymous
Get a life. I'm Catholic and can't stand when people go looking for examples of "poor me" I'm being dissed for my religion. Try being black. Then you will know what discrimination is.
[Post New]09/25/2017 10:43
quote
Anonymous
I agree with you, OP. But, I suspect you will get very little agreement on this site.
The people here will attempt to call your comparison a false equivalency, or something like that.
[Post New]09/25/2017 10:43
quote
Anonymous
I am Catholic. It is a nonissue.
[Post New]09/25/2017 10:44
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Get a life. I'm Catholic and can't stand when people go looking for examples of "poor me" I'm being dissed for my religion. Try being black. Then you will know what discrimination is.

So- because other groups have faced more discrimination, that means that it's OK?
[Post New]09/25/2017 10:46
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Get a life. I'm Catholic and can't stand when people go looking for examples of "poor me" I'm being dissed for my religion. Try being black. Then you will know what discrimination is.

Um, I AM black. Please take your assumptions elsewhere.
[Post New]09/25/2017 10:50
quote
Anonymous
In this country there are definitely politiicians who want to remove separation between church and state and make the US more "godly" and "Christian." I think it is on all of us to make sure that we don't go down that slippery slope. The founding fathers were very clear on that.
[Post New]09/25/2017 10:59
quote
FruminousBandersnatch
Member Offline
There should be (and is not allowed to be) any religious test for a judge or any other political office.

The issue Feinstein and others have to deal with is the fact that candidates for judicial positions refuse to make any statements about their beliefs on issues. Because of that, lawmakers have to rely on previous decisions, statements, etc. to try to figure out what that person is likely to do as a judge and if they have a bias towards any particular position or "side."

In this case, the questions about being an "orthodox Catholic" and "Catholic dogma" are attempting to get at Ms. Barrett's position on abortion and other "life" issues.

That's not being biased against Catholics, that's trying to evaluate whether a potential Federal judge is capable of separating his/her religious beliefs from the job of being a judge.

If I were a candidate for such a position, it would be reasonable for lawmakers to ask whether I can separate my atheism from my job as a judge, as well.
[Post New]09/25/2017 10:59
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:In this country there are definitely politiicians who want to remove separation between church and state and make the US more "godly" and "Christian." I think it is on all of us to make sure that we don't go down that slippery slope. The founding fathers were very clear on that.


In this country there are definitely politicians who want to prohibit the free exercise of religion and make the US more “progressive” by wiping away any evidence of religion. I think it is incumbent upon all of us that we don’t go down that slippery slope. The founding fathers were very clear on that.
[Post New]09/25/2017 11:03
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In this country there are definitely politiicians who want to remove separation between church and state and make the US more "godly" and "Christian." I think it is on all of us to make sure that we don't go down that slippery slope. The founding fathers were very clear on that.


In this country there are definitely politicians who want to prohibit the free exercise of religion and make the US more “progressive” by wiping away any evidence of religion. I think it is incumbent upon all of us that we don’t go down that slippery slope. The founding fathers were very clear on that.


Find me a quote from a US politician who wants "to wipe away any evidence of religion." I can find you hundreds who want to put religious policies into law.
[Post New]09/25/2017 11:16
quote
Anonymous
FruminousBandersnatch wrote:There should be (and is not allowed to be) any religious test for a judge or any other political office.

The issue Feinstein and others have to deal with is the fact that candidates for judicial positions refuse to make any statements about their beliefs on issues. Because of that, lawmakers have to rely on previous decisions, statements, etc. to try to figure out what that person is likely to do as a judge and if they have a bias towards any particular position or "side."

In this case, the questions about being an "orthodox Catholic" and "Catholic dogma" are attempting to get at Ms. Barrett's position on abortion and other "life" issues.

That's not being biased against Catholics, that's trying to evaluate whether a potential Federal judge is capable of separating his/her religious beliefs from the job of being a judge.

If I were a candidate for such a position, it would be reasonable for lawmakers to ask whether I can separate my atheism from my job as a judge, as well.


Well, the dogma of Islam is very much against things like same sex marriage. Would it be acceptable to ask a Muslim candidate if she is able to separate her Islam from her job as a judge?
[Post New]09/25/2017 11:16
quote
Anonymous
FruminousBandersnatch wrote:There should be (and is not allowed to be) any religious test for a judge or any other political office.

The issue Feinstein and others have to deal with is the fact that candidates for judicial positions refuse to make any statements about their beliefs on issues. Because of that, lawmakers have to rely on previous decisions, statements, etc. to try to figure out what that person is likely to do as a judge and if they have a bias towards any particular position or "side."

In this case, the questions about being an "orthodox Catholic" and "Catholic dogma" are attempting to get at Ms. Barrett's position on abortion and other "life" issues.

That's not being biased against Catholics, that's trying to evaluate whether a potential Federal judge is capable of separating his/her religious beliefs from the job of being a judge.

If I were a candidate for such a position, it would be reasonable for lawmakers to ask whether I can separate my atheism from my job as a judge, as well.

No, it is not. It's not legal.
[Post New]09/25/2017 11:18
quote
Anonymous
Where religious and secular law conflict, we need to ensure that secular law will prevail. The US is not a theocracy and the Bible/Torah/Koran are not our founding documents.
[Post New]09/25/2017 11:18
quote
Anonymous
What would the media say if they had asked, "Do you consider yourself an orthodox Muslim?"
[Post New]09/25/2017 11:32
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:What would the media say if they had asked, "Do you consider yourself an orthodox Muslim?"
I don't care what the media would say, but I think it's reasonable to try to ensure judges have allegiance to our laws and not religious teachings of any kind. The Catholic judge in the Kim Davis case was very clear that he separated his personal faith from his role as a judge.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics