Jump to content

Leadership and Belief

Neonmoon

By Neonmoon
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted (edited)

I was watching a segment on Fox News about unfair attacks against Amy Coney Barrett's for her religious beliefs. They proposed that attacking Barrett for being catholic or her catholic beliefs was unfair and a double standard as if anyone attacked a Jewish or Muslim person based on their beliefs, they would be accused of being anti-semitic or islamophobic. The jewish commentator said it was a double standard and should not be done. The US has freedom of religion and one's beliefs should be held sacred and free from attack. 

Should one's beliefs be open to attack for people in leadership positions or judgeship positions?

 

 

Edited by Neonmoon
I can't spell for shit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

Look, I don’t give a shit what religion you practice but when your religious beliefs have outsized influence on say, your interpretation of the rule of law, and the consequences of that interpretation are citizens losing their rights because that’s the way god wants it, it’s a big fucking problem.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Hook 'Em 15
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hookemATL

hookemATL 11610

Posted
Posted

If it is a prerequisite for her nomination to the SC (according to the shitheel/craven/morally defunct GOPers themselves), then it should be in play and they can go fuck a rock.  You cant strategically select someone uber Catholic, thereby signaling to everyone that Roe v. Wade is deliberately under threat, and then get pissed when someone brings up her beliefs and how they would guide her in such a case. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Actually, the more I think on it, I think religious extremism is a fair attack.  The actual religion is not.  Religious extremists should not be imposing their beliefs on the rest of us.  Someone with dangerous world views shouldn't be a judge.

yeah, but i have not seen any evidence that her catholicism and her inclusion in that group has affected her jurisprudence. provide some evidence of her trumping the law with the bible or something. 

you water down your opposition and your legitimacy when you go after someone baseless because of their religion. it should be off limits, and it's a bad look, unless you can cite a couple examples.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

If one is seeking to impose their religious beliefs on others then yes.  Just because someone has certain beliefs no.

good.

 

the Green New Deal is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Saint Peter was very clear in his writings circa 60 A.D.  He had tremendously robust thoughts on D&C procedures, the electric chair, and life-sustaining ICU machines.  

As such, all of his followers should heed his calls.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well I agree that it is a double standard, but I disagree it should not be in scope. I think everyone's beliefs should be questioned, especially in positions in power, whether that be president or supreme court justice. I know this country believes in freedom of religion, and has a long history of faith, but I don't believe that should give you a free pass. 

If you believe abortion is murder, and homosexuality is immoral, why are those beliefs unattackable? Because it's religious?

If you believe women are subservient to men, and women shouldn't be allowed to show their skin, why is that off limits? 

If you believe jesus came down to the US and now makes you wear magic underwear, why are those off limits? 

If someone believed the earth was flat, would anyone want those people judging others? or in a leadership position?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10681

Posted
Posted

I think it is going to happen. Aside from being Uber Catholic, she belongs to a group called People of Praise. Among other practices, a woman is assigned to another woman as an advisor and was called your "handmaid" . In fact, the author of the book, The handmaid's Tale has said she was inspired by this very charismatic catholic spinoff sect. They now accept other denominations, but she and her husband belong as did their fathers before them. They don't practice polygamy but they do believe that men have authority over wives and they do threaten the advisors with the Bible verse she included in her book, shut up and sit down. A cursory glance and that might be Exodus 14:14. 

The author went farther with her dystopian world but she did get her kernel of an idea from them.

Kind of worth a few questions if you ask me.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I think it is going to happen. Aside from being Uber Catholic, she belongs to a group called People of Praise. Among other practices, a woman is assigned to another woman as an advisor and was called your "handmaid" . In fact, the author of the book, The handmaid's Tale has said she was inspired by this very charismatic catholic spinoff sect. They now accept other denominations, but she and her husband belong as did their fathers before them. They don't practice polygamy but they do believe that men have authority over wives and they do threaten the advisors with the Bible verse she included in her book, shut up and sit down. A cursory glance and that might be Exodus 14:14. 

The author went farther with her dystopian world but she did get her kernel of an idea from them.

Kind of worth a few questions if you ask me.

Yeah, they've done stuff like opened schools and moved into poor neighborhoods where they've repaired houses and practiced urban farming. They sound truly terrifying.

https://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28711

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

I was watching a segment on Fox News about unfair attacks against Amy Coney Barrett's for her religious beliefs. They proposed that attacking Barrett for being catholic or her catholic beliefs was unfair and a double standard as if anyone attacked a Jewish or Muslim person based on their beliefs, they would be accused of being anti-semitic or islamophobic. The jewish commentator said it was a double standard and should not be done. The US has freedom of religion and one's beliefs should be held sacred and free from attack. 

Should one's beliefs be open to attack for people in leadership positions or judgeship positions?

 

 

These are the same people who accused Barack Obama of being a Kenyan Muslim terrorist bent on the destruction of America. They also hated him because of something his Christian pastor once said. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10681

Posted
Posted (edited)

They are welcomed and encouraged to do all the good they can in this world. I just don't want to live in a theocracy. This might be how they start.  I personally have always liked the Jewish judges but Trump and his ilk would never nominate one. Oh well.

Edited by burntorangebongos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, but i have not seen any evidence that her catholicism and her inclusion in that group has affected her jurisprudence. provide some evidence of her trumping the law with the bible or something. 

you water down your opposition and your legitimacy when you go after someone baseless because of their religion. it should be off limits, and it's a bad look, unless you can cite a couple examples.

What burntorangebongos said.  Also, I don't believe in going after anyone because of their religion.  I do think people who hold extremist views, religious or otherwise, should be asked about them if we're considering appointing them to one of the most powerful positions in the world for decades.

29 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I think it is going to happen. Aside from being Uber Catholic, she belongs to a group called People of Praise. Among other practices, a woman is assigned to another woman as an advisor and was called your "handmaid" . In fact, the author of the book, The handmaid's Tale has said she was inspired by this very charismatic catholic spinoff sect. They now accept other denominations, but she and her husband belong as did their fathers before them. They don't practice polygamy but they do believe that men have authority over wives and they do threaten the advisors with the Bible verse she included in her book, shut up and sit down. A cursory glance and that might be Exodus 14:14. 

The author went farther with her dystopian world but she did get her kernel of an idea from them.

Kind of worth a few questions if you ask me.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

What burntorangebongos said.  Also, I don't believe in going after anyone because of their religion.  I do think people who hold extremist views, religious or otherwise, should be asked about them if we're considering appointing them to one of the most powerful positions in the world for decades.

 

Who defines what extremist views are? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
Just now, formermav43 said:

Who defines what extremist views are? 

The Senate.  Since they're supposed to give advice and consent.  If the nominee is a member of the Flat Earth Society, Q-Anon,  People of Praise, Haredi Judaism, etc. their choice to associate themselves with an extreme movement, religious or otherwise, is fair game.  Asking them about the basic tenets of Judaism, Catholicism, Lutheranism, whatever religion of your choice is not fair game.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4320

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I think it is going to happen. Aside from being Uber Catholic, she belongs to a group called People of Praise. Among other practices, a woman is assigned to another woman as an advisor and was called your "handmaid" . In fact, the author of the book, The handmaid's Tale has said she was inspired by this very charismatic catholic spinoff sect. They now accept other denominations, but she and her husband belong as did their fathers before them. They don't practice polygamy but they do believe that men have authority over wives and they do threaten the advisors with the Bible verse she included in her book, shut up and sit down. A cursory glance and that might be Exodus 14:14. 

The author went farther with her dystopian world but she did get her kernel of an idea from them.

Kind of worth a few questions if you ask me.

If we read the same article about this, this isn’t quite accurate. The headline suggested this, but the article itself painted a slightly different picture. As I remember the article, the Handmaiden’s Tale was partially inspired by an unnamed group that shared some similarities to People of Praise. The extent of those similarities and their relevance to anything at all is a different matter.
 

Based on the article and the timeline and locations given, it was pretty clear that People of Praise could not have been the direct inspiration for the book. If I remember right, people of praise was in the Midwest while the unnamed group was from New Jersey.

As to the question at hand, it’s absolutely appropriate to try to determine whether a nominee can fairly apply the law. Personal/spiritual/religious philosophies often intermingle with academic and professional philosophies. The line can get murky, but I think it’s clear enough. It’s fair to work out how murky a given nominee’s line is.

Religious tests and the bigoted language that gets slipped into these discussions shouldn’t have a place in decent society. There are appropriate places to debate and discuss religious matters, but government is definitely not that place.
 

This is mostly just a proxy for abortion anyway. It would be nice if we could deal with it directly rather than perpetually come up with new ways to talk around the issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)

I always found it odd how many people think of Germany as anti-Catholic.  It's literally the largest denomination there, roughly 1/3rd.  As recently as WWII, it was almost half the nation.  

Having said that, based on deep and vast personal experience---there is no group of people more boring than German Catholics.  Holy Shit.  I've met sheetrock with more personality.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The Senate.  Since they're supposed to give advice and consent.  If the nominee is a member of the Flat Earth Society, Q-Anon,  People of Praise, Haredi Judaism, etc. their choice to associate themselves with an extreme movement, religious or otherwise, is fair game.  Asking them about the basic tenets of Judaism, Catholicism, Lutheranism, whatever religion of your choice is not fair game.

But you’ve already differentiated extreme religious movements from those you consider beyond question even in this response. What’s the distinction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted

Just an FYI - you will hear Comey-Barrett has already been confirmed - so this should be easy. 

It's not that simple. When she was confirmed for the Court of Appeals, she correctly stated she had no power to ignore precedent.

As a Supreme Court justice, she may ignore or overturn precedent. Knowing which precedent she would overturn is important.

The Right to Privacy is an important fundamental right for citizens of this nation. The Supreme Court found it to be fundamental, but a new Supreme Court can reverse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10681

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

But you’ve already differentiated extreme religious movements from those you consider beyond question even in this response. What’s the distinction?

I don't know much about confirmation hearings but I thought the Senators could cite a speech or writing and ask about it. So technically, religious beliefs are not ever off the table. Are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Can you explain what you mean by "proxy for abortion" ? I want to make sure I understand what you mean, please.

The goal of certain groups on the right (religious or otherwise) has been to overrule Roe and its right to privacy. Religious beliefs dictate the goal (no abortion). Religious beliefs are not controlling whether an act is protected by the Constitution.

Abortion drives those on the religious right. They will throw the baby (right to be left alone/privacy) out with the bathwater (abortion) in order to achieve their religious beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I don't know much about confirmation hearings but I thought the Senators could cite a speech or writing and ask about it. So technically, religious beliefs are not ever off the table. Are they?

Nothing is off the table. There are things some want off the table, but that is not how it works.

The goal of the No Religious Test clause was to prevent the government from taking up the causes of a religion or faith. At the time, England required officials to pledge support for the Church of England (the King was the head of that church). The framers saw that as establishing a state religion, so they banned the practice in the Constitution.

The duty of a Justice is to the Constitution, not her religion. Period. 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think it's open to fair game to question a Catholic (or Muslim or Jewish person, etc.) on their religious or spiritual beliefs and how it informs their values and political beliefs, when looking at vetting for a political appointment.

The opposite would be true too, if you had an atheist candidate it would be fair to similarly "attack", and I use air quotes there because it's just normal, good vetting and not an attack, to understand what sort of heathen and sinful beliefs (if any?) the atheist might be harboring before wanting them on the Supreme Court, e.g. believing abortion at any stage or age is murder or being cool with killing babies at 39 weeks and 6 days.

Edited by Rougarou
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

The opposite would be true too, if you had an atheist candidate it would be fair to similarly "attack", and I use air quotes there because it's just normal, good vetting and not an attack, to understand what sort of heathen and sinful beliefs (if any?) the atheist might be harboring before wanting them on the Supreme Court, e.g. believing abortion at any stage or age is murder or being cool with killing babies at 39 weeks and 6 days.

Agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45494

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hookemATL said:

If it is a prerequisite for her nomination to the SC (according to the shitheel/craven/morally defunct GOPers themselves), then it should be in play and they can go fuck a rock.  You cant strategically select someone uber Catholic, thereby signaling to everyone that Roe v. Wade is deliberately under threat, and then get pissed when someone brings up her beliefs and how they would guide her in such a case. 

But they were just joking!  No big deal!  Come on, can't take everything so serious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

But you’ve already differentiated extreme religious movements from those you consider beyond question even in this response. What’s the distinction?

 

Extremist: "A person who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics." 

 

So I don't care if a Catholic judge goes to church, was divorced, etc.  And I'm sure that Catholic teachings have impact on her worldview.  I do care if someone chooses to be a member of an organization that was the basis for the Handmaid's Tale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

You're right.  We should ask nominees if they believe scientists.

which scientists?

 

LOlz.  Follow the money    grants and funding.

 

How many times has the alleged science changed on Cv-19?  California already has energy crisis in place, now they want to tie their transportation into that same limited ability.   But it's scientific...

 

but non-theological dogma is exempt.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I don't know much about confirmation hearings but I thought the Senators could cite a speech or writing and ask about it. So technically, religious beliefs are not ever off the table. Are they?

No, they're not. And I don't think they should be off the table, in the sense that @Mole described of understanding someone's worldview and consequent ability to apply the law fairly. I get the sense that some here are advocating something more inquisitorial than that, though I could be wrong.

5 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

 

Extremist: "A person who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics." 

 

So I don't care if a Catholic judge goes to church, was divorced, etc.  And I'm sure that Catholic teachings have impact on her worldview.  I do care if someone chooses to be a member of an organization that was the basis for the Handmaid's Tale.

Well that bit about it being the basis for the Handmaid's Tale has already been discredited. But that's part of the problem here: that story gets passed around and colors people's perceptions of a group; on the other hand, they themselves talk about all the work they have done in poor neighborhoods, for instance (which is a bit abnormal in itself). So "beyond the norm" according to whom? 

As an easy example, 44% of professing Christians attend church services weekly or more - by definition, someone attending even every Sunday is "beyond the norm." Should they be subject to scrutiny over their religious practice just because they go to church once a week?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

No, they're not. And I don't think they should be off the table, in the sense that @Mole described of understanding someone's worldview and consequent ability to apply the law fairly. I get the sense that some here are advocating something more inquisitorial than that, though I could be wrong.

Well that bit about it being the basis for the Handmaid's Tale has already been discredited. But that's part of the problem here: that story gets passed around and colors people's perceptions of a group; on the other hand, they themselves talk about all the work they have done in poor neighborhoods, for instance (which is a bit abnormal in itself). So "beyond the norm" according to whom? 

As an easy example, 44% of professing Christians attend church services weekly or more - by definition, someone attending even every Sunday is "beyond the norm." Should they be subject to scrutiny over their religious practice just because they go to church once a week?
 

Only if they're going to an church services in an extremist sect.  I don't care whether or not a nominee is religious, how devout they are, or the basic tenets of their religion.  If they choose to affiliate with an extremist group, religious or otherwise, I care about that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...