Conquer Club

Some relevant news items:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20726/wat ... k-berrien#

Democrats attack a super hot Catholic judicial nominee over her religion. It's illegal to do this in the United States, but no one seems to care (other than people like me).

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/ ... index.html

The king of conservative media (or whatever) is drudging up old 19th century anti-Catholic stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 080335a3eb

A baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding for religious reasons is getting his ass kicked.

Is religious freedom on the way out in the United States? Do you think we see a partial repeal of the 1st Amendment (either through an amendment or judicial activism)? Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?

Good points and good questions.

JP

jusplay4fun wrote:Good points and good questions.

JP

Seriously though... that Notre Dame law professor is gorgeous. And I'm not a fan of blondes. I had one hot law professor (a brunette) and it was like a minor miracle. You don't find a lot of super hot law professors.

Actually seriously though... this is a thing now. I am legitimately worried about it. I forgot to mention the whole "Catholic hospitals and employers have to provide abortion and birth control" issue.

thegreekdog wrote:Some relevant news items:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20726/wat ... k-berrien#

Democrats attack a super hot Catholic judicial nominee over her religion.

That article claims the judge in question says it's okay to put religious principles before the law. Doesn't sound like a very impartial judge.

That said, the fact that the US has such a thing as 'conservative judges' and 'liberal judges' shows that it doesn't really have an impartial judiciary in the first place, so I guess religious partiality probably ought to be okay as well.

There's only religious freedom for Islam, which will dominate the earth if allowed to persist.

thegreekdog wrote:Some relevant news items:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20726/wat ... k-berrien#

Democrats attack a super hot Catholic judicial nominee over her religion. It's illegal to do this in the United States, but no one seems to care (other than people like me).

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/ ... index.html

The king of conservative media (or whatever) is drudging up old 19th century anti-Catholic stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 080335a3eb

A baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding for religious reasons is getting his ass kicked.

Is religious freedom on the way out in the United States? Do you think we see a partial repeal of the 1st Amendment (either through an amendment or judicial activism)? Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?

Do you think that if they were excommunicated they'd oppose gay marriage.

I actually kind of agree with you on both cases. I am a little wary of people using religion as a shield though. There are plenty of Catholics who support gay marriage, after all. Being Catholic and supporting marriage isn't something that's mutually exclusive.

But you raise a larger issue, which I think is a little silly. Do you really think that other religions aren't focused on?

mrswdk wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Some relevant news items:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20726/wat ... k-berrien#

Democrats attack a super hot Catholic judicial nominee over her religion.

That article claims the judge in question says it's okay to put religious principles before the law. Doesn't sound like a very impartial judge.

That said, the fact that the US has such a thing as 'conservative judges' and 'liberal judges' shows that it doesn't really have an impartial judiciary in the first place, so I guess religious partiality probably ought to be okay as well.

I believe she answered that question twice. First, she said if there is a religious reason for a judge to rule a certain way, he or she should recuse himself or herself. Second, she said that she does not put religion before the law. Regardless of what the article says, this woman does not think it's okay to put religion before the law. Also, for what it's worth, Justice Scalia was and Justice Thomas is Catholic. Justice Ginsburg is Jewish. Their religions did not influence their decisions. In any event, it is literally against the law to require a religious test for government service.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Some relevant news items:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20726/wat ... k-berrien#

Democrats attack a super hot Catholic judicial nominee over her religion. It's illegal to do this in the United States, but no one seems to care (other than people like me).

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/ ... index.html

The king of conservative media (or whatever) is drudging up old 19th century anti-Catholic stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 080335a3eb

A baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding for religious reasons is getting his ass kicked.

Is religious freedom on the way out in the United States? Do you think we see a partial repeal of the 1st Amendment (either through an amendment or judicial activism)? Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?

Do you think that if they were excommunicated they'd oppose gay marriage.

I actually kind of agree with you on both cases. I am a little wary of people using religion as a shield though. There are plenty of Catholics who support gay marriage, after all. Being Catholic and supporting marriage isn't something that's mutually exclusive.

But you raise a larger issue, which I think is a little silly. Do you really think that other religions aren't focused on?

Based on my strict constructionist interpretation of the law, I don't think any judge should be able to oppose gay marriage for legal reasons. I'm sure there are arguments, but I haven't seen many anti-gay marriage decisions recently. The decisions dealing with that issue seem to be ones where someone religious is not doing something for a gay marriage.

And yes, you are correct... not all Catholics are against gay marriage (e.g. me). I'm pretty sure the Pope has gay marriage opposition way down on his list of things to care about.

And yes, I do think other religions are focused on and I don't think it's silly. I chose Catholicism because that's mine. Most conservatives focus primarily on Islam (although Bannen is certainly not a fan of Catholics and I know a bunch of Christian coalition folks who aren't big fans).

Religious freedom is a mistake.

Omnis enim orbis terrarum sub Roma regebatur benevolentiam ora Iovi.

One State Religion must be chosen and all heretics and infidels must be destroyed.

All Hail Zeus-Jupiter-Wotan-Amon-Ra.

Freedom is nothing more than once perception. Nobody is truly free.

We have a right to be free of religion.

I believe religions should lose their tax free exemptions.

notyou2 wrote:I believe religions should lose their tax free exemptions.

We can feed and provide for the poor with the taxes paid by the religious organizations. Jesus would approve!

thegreekdog wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Some relevant news items:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20726/wat ... k-berrien#

Democrats attack a super hot Catholic judicial nominee over her religion.

That article claims the judge in question says it's okay to put religious principles before the law. Doesn't sound like a very impartial judge.

That said, the fact that the US has such a thing as 'conservative judges' and 'liberal judges' shows that it doesn't really have an impartial judiciary in the first place, so I guess religious partiality probably ought to be okay as well.

I believe she answered that question twice. First, she said if there is a religious reason for a judge to rule a certain way, he or she should recuse himself or herself. Second, she said that she does not put religion before the law. Regardless of what the article says, this woman does not think it's okay to put religion before the law. Also, for what it's worth, Justice Scalia was and Justice Thomas is Catholic. Justice Ginsburg is Jewish. Their religions did not influence their decisions. In any event, it is literally against the law to require a religious test for government service.

The article didn't really do a very good job of setting out exactly who has said what and when tbh. Seems like you're getting twister about some shitty website's shitty and sensationalized reporting on what was probably a minor aside made one by not-very-senior politician.

As you say, two of the supreme judges (or whatever they're called) are Catholic and one of them was only put in his position like 1-2 years ago, so it doesn't look like being a Catholic has yet presented any real obstacle to becoming a super judge.

Also, your repeated sexual objectification of the judge in question does make it seem like your defense of her has more to do with your stiff penis than any sort of moral or legal umbrage.

tgd's objectivity rating: 52%

Yeah, the opposition may be mentioning that she's Catholic, but I think the real issue is that she's anti-abortion. There are many types of Protestants and most Muslims and various others who are also anti-abortion, so I think if she was associated with one of those she would be equally opposed.

Dukasaur wrote:Yeah, the opposition may be mentioning that she's Catholic, but I think the real issue is that she's anti-abortion. There are many types of Protestants and most Muslims and various others who are also anti-abortion, so I think if she was associated with one of those she would be equally opposed.

No she wouldn't. There are tons of people of Islam apologists in the pro-choice crowd, to the point of delusion. i.e. forcing the women to wear sheets over their bodies somehow empowers them.

-TG

God = The Government

We must guarantee a complete lack of separation between church and state.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Yeah, the opposition may be mentioning that she's Catholic, but I think the real issue is that she's anti-abortion. There are many types of Protestants and most Muslims and various others who are also anti-abortion, so I think if she was associated with one of those she would be equally opposed.

No she wouldn't. There are tons of people of Islam apologists in the pro-choice crowd, to the point of delusion. i.e. forcing the women to wear sheets over their bodies somehow empowers them.

-TG

What about women who choose to wear Halloween costumes without anyone forcing them to?

inb4 'forced by cultural norms'

thegreekdog wrote:Some relevant news items:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20726/wat ... k-berrien#

Democrats attack a super hot Catholic judicial nominee over her religion. It's illegal to do this in the United States, but no one seems to care (other than people like me).

I briefly read that, but from what I read, people are attacking (her) for being a judge with religious beliefs. No problem with opinions, people can say what they want about others, provided it isn't defamation or character assassination. I'd have an issue with her too if she were basing her judgments on either her religious beliefs or personal beliefs, rather than adhering to what the law requires. If I misread that article, my bad.

thegreekdog wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/ ... index.html

The king of conservative media (or whatever) is drudging up old 19th century anti-Catholic stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

I don't care what comes out of Wikipedia generally. Didn't bother to read.

thegreekdog wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 080335a3eb

A baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding for religious reasons is getting his ass kicked.

Is religious freedom on the way out in the United States? Do you think we see a partial repeal of the 1st Amendment (either through an amendment or judicial activism)? Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?

Alright, so I'm siding with the baker. Privately owned bakery, completely allowed to bar people provided the service is blanket. Sucks to be gay, go to another bakery?

Freedom of religion does not mean someone can do literally anything they want as long as they cite religious beliefs. Would it be okay for people in America to carry out human sacrifices if that was part of their religion? Should Southerners who cited religious reasons for enslaving and/or lynching black people have been allowed to keep doing so?

It seems fair enough to say that citizens can't discriminate against each other just because they're religious. Not sure why you guys are so desperate to protect the right to be gratuitously homophobic.

Dukasaur wrote:Yeah, the opposition may be mentioning that she's Catholic, but I think the real issue is that she's anti-abortion. There are many types of Protestants and most Muslims and various others who are also anti-abortion, so I think if she was associated with one of those she would be equally opposed.

Then they should ask if she is anti-abortion, not whether she is Catholic.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Some relevant news items:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20726/wat ... k-berrien#

Democrats attack a super hot Catholic judicial nominee over her religion. It's illegal to do this in the United States, but no one seems to care (other than people like me).

I briefly read that, but from what I read, people are attacking (her) for being a judge with religious beliefs. No problem with opinions, people can say what they want about others, provided it isn't defamation or character assassination. I'd have an issue with her too if she were basing her judgments on either her religious beliefs or personal beliefs, rather than adhering to what the law requires. If I misread that article, my bad.

thegreekdog wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/ ... index.html

The king of conservative media (or whatever) is drudging up old 19th century anti-Catholic stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

I don't care what comes out of Wikipedia generally. Didn't bother to read.

thegreekdog wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 080335a3eb

A baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding for religious reasons is getting his ass kicked.

Is religious freedom on the way out in the United States? Do you think we see a partial repeal of the 1st Amendment (either through an amendment or judicial activism)? Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?

Alright, so I'm siding with the baker. Privately owned bakery, completely allowed to bar people provided the service is blanket. Sucks to be gay, go to another bakery?

(1) Catholic judge - The woman has consistently maintained both through the questioning and prior that religious preferences should not enter into decisions. As Duk notes, the issue is that she may be anti-abortion. If she is anti-abortion, she should be questioned on that basis, not on her religion.

(2) Bannen - The point of bringing up Bannen is that there is a large group of people (largely Christians by the way and one of whom is the president) who believe everything Bannen says. Bannen said that to 60 minutes (not Wikipedia). I cited to Wikipedia because of the anti-Catholic sentiments in the United States.

thegreekdog wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Yeah, the opposition may be mentioning that she's Catholic, but I think the real issue is that she's anti-abortion. There are many types of Protestants and most Muslims and various others who are also anti-abortion, so I think if she was associated with one of those she would be equally opposed.

Then they should ask if she is anti-abortion, not whether she is Catholic.

They probably should -- I don't disagree. I was merely pointing out that their motivation is probably not to restrict religious freedom.