Roberts' Hearing A Forum For Catholic Bashing

[Annie]

Nothing new here, just keeps happening:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007259

The JFK Question
Sens. Specter and Feinstein impose an unconstitutional religious test.

BY MANUEL MIRANDA
Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:01 a.m.

They should be ashamed. We should be ashamed. We have not progressed much in 45 years it seems, and we appear to be traveling in the wrong direction.

Article VI of the Constitution prohibits a religious test from being imposed on nominees to public office. The clause was motivated by the experience of Catholics in the Maryland colony and Baptists in Virginia who had been the targets of Great Britain's two Test Acts. These infamous laws of intolerance sought to prevent anyone who did not belong to the Church of England from holding public office. The Test Acts did not say that Catholics could not hold office; the bigotry was more subtle. Officials questioned would-be public servants to determine whether they believed in particular tenets of the Catholic faith.

While questioning John Roberts on Tuesday, Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter asked:

"Would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by John Kennedy when he was a candidate, and he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960: 'I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.' "​

Hours later, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California made it worse:

"In 1960, there was much debate about President John F. Kennedy's faith and what role Catholicism would play in his administration. At that time, he pledged to address the issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interests, not out of adherence to the dictates of one's religion. . . . My question is: Do you?"​

How insulting. How offensive. How invidiously ignorant to question someone like Judge Roberts with such apparent presumption and disdain for the religion he practices. The JFK question is not just the camel's nose of religious intolerance; it is the whole smelly camel.

Outrage over this line of questioning was ecumenical. In his new blog, Jewdicious.blogspot.com, Jeff Ballabon of the Center for Jewish Values posted this from the Senate's hallways:

I mean how grotesque is it that the Left feels free to indulge openly in half-century-old religious prejudice? This is not some crazy person standing outside with a rusty hanger--it is a United States Senator in her official capacity on national television. And this is no off-the-cuff blurt--these questions are excruciatingly researched and drafted and worded and reviewed and approved and choreographed by teams of liberal lawyers and advisors both on her staff and off. She--the senator who keeps harping at this hearing that her concern is the protection of people of faith--thinks an obnoxious question born of religious bigotry is legitimate because it was posed in 1960?​

Non-Catholic Christians also spoke up. Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America issued this statement:

It is precisely this kind of anti-Christian religious litmus test that many Americans find deeply offensive. . . . Feinstein is dipping her toe into the very ugly, muddy waters of religious bigotry. America's Founding Fathers considered religious beliefs to be an asset, even essential to public officeholders. Sadly, Sen. Feinstein apparently believes the opposite of those wise men to whom we owe gratitude for our free and strong country.​

Catholic leaders were stunned. Austin Ruse of the Culture of Life Foundation:

Senator Feinstein invoked those terrible debates in America about whether Catholics could have a role in the public square. Apparently Senator Feinstein agrees with those who feared faithful Catholics in public office. Senator Feinstein's questioning is an unconscionable dredging up of a dark time in America. . . . She owes Judge Roberts and all Americans an apology.​

By Wednesday morning, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue and the Catholic think tank Fidelis reacted also, and to their credit took both the Republican and the Democrat to task. Mr. Donohue, the feisty veteran, called the two senators' questions a "dirty road" and a "disgrace." Fidelis's president, Joe Cella, wrote the two senators thoughtfully worded letters asking for their apology and to refrain from further offense. But Mr. Cella drew distinctions:

Of the two Senators remarks, Senator Feinstein's were the most disturbing because she referred to the Catholic faith as 'dictates.' It shows her callous insensitivity and ignorance of the teachings of the Catholic faith. Forty-five years since JFK faced similar questions about his Catholic faith, we continue to have Senators asking questions about the apparent conflict between their Catholic faith and public service in this country. It is unfortunate that the issue of his religious faith arose. This question has no place or bearing on his confirmation.
​

The JFK question has no place in a Senate confirmation process. The Constitution says so. As I noted in an earlier column new secularist bigotry has found a home in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was not the first to say so. In July 2003, the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, reacted to the growing evidence of a religious test in the Senate: "Many people already believe that a new kind of religious discrimination is very welcome at the Capitol, even among elected officials who claim to be Catholic. Some things change, and some things don't. The bias against 'papism' is alive and well in America. It just has a different address."

A Catholic archbishop's voice in politics is a rare enough thing, but it was not alone. Representing more than 1,000 synagogues, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations wrote this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee a few days earlier: "As a community of religious believers committed to full engagement with modern American society, we are deeply troubled by those who have implied that a person of faith cannot serve in a high level government post that may raise issues at odds with his or her personal beliefs."

Now, two years later, the situation is worse. Anti-Semitism marred the confirmation battles of associate justices Abe Fortas, Louis Brandeis, and Benjamin Cardozo, but it was unpronounced and hidden. John Roberts will be only the 11th Catholic (out of 109 justices) to serve on the Supreme Court in its 215-year history. But his confirmation may be a historic first. It marks the introduction, on the record, of a constitutionally prohibited religious test for a Supreme Court nominee. We are going in the wrong direction.

Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column will appear daily during the Roberts hearings.

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[theim]

Offensive? Yes, but its just what I've come to expect. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would appear if a Muslim appointee was asked: "Now Mr. Mohammed, do you think you will be able to not follow the Q'u'r'a'n, and make sure no trace of Islam ever enters your decisions?" I can hear CAIR now...

 

[Annie]

Offensive? Yes, but its just what I've come to expect. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would appear if a Muslim appointee was asked: "Now Mr. Mohammed, do you think you will be able to not follow the Q'u'r'a'n, and make sure no trace of Islam ever enters your decisions?" I can hear CAIR now...

I can't imagine a US Senator saying anything of the sort. It's always been ok to bash Catholics.

 

[Bonnie]

I can't imagine a US Senator saying anything of the sort. It's always been ok to bash Catholics.

Unless your a KENNEDY from Chamelot

I wonder if the general public has any idea how pathetic these leftist politicians are?

 

[Annie]

Unless your a KENNEDY from Chamelot

I wonder if the general public has any idea how pathetic these leftist politicians are?

Actually, Kennedy managed to bash the Church on abortion, indirectly. There is no limit on attacking Catholics, only 'the extreme Catholic' representatives respond. In the US, Catholics are an analogy to the US, worldwide. Fair game, always, for any reason.

 

[theim]

Unless your a KENNEDY from Chamelot

I wonder if the general public has any idea how pathetic these leftist politicians are?

They don't count. Only "extreme Fundamentalist" (read: practicing) Catholics are fare game. "Catholics" who hold none of the church's principles to such an extent they might as well convert to Unitarianism are A OK.

 

[Annie]

They don't count. Only "extreme Fundamentalist" (read: practicing) Catholics are fare game. "Catholics" who hold none of the church's principles to such an extent they might as well convert to Unitarianism are A OK.

I'm pretty touchy here, I grew up in a wealthy German-Lutheran community. Had to deal with adults that would question and deride a 5-7 year old, demanding answers and providing derisions of faith and ethnicity. (The Irish suck, not too mention the Catholics).

 

[acludem]

Give me a break people. These Senators, and I would hardly characterize Arlen Specter as a liberal, were asking these questions of Roberts because it is important that a nominee be able to base decisions on the Constitution and not on his/her religion. The same questions have been asked of many other SCOTUS nominees. I guarantee that if this was a Muslim candidate, conservative Republicans would be asking these questions and more of the candidate. The right is only concerned with freedom of religion when they are prevented from forcing their religion down the rest our throats. There was no religious test put to John Roberts, but face it if he had answered, "I will vote according to Catholic doctrine" don't tell me you Protestants wouldn't be bothered.

acludem

 

[Annie]

Give me a break people. These Senators, and I would hardly characterize Arlen Specter as a liberal, were asking these questions of Roberts because it is important that a nominee be able to base decisions on the Constitution and not on his/her religion. The same questions have been asked of many other SCOTUS nominees. I guarantee that if this was a Muslim candidate, conservative Republicans would be asking these questions and more of the candidate. The right is only concerned with freedom of religion when they are prevented from forcing their religion down the rest our throats. There was no religious test put to John Roberts, but face it if he had answered, "I will vote according to Catholic doctrine" don't tell me you Protestants wouldn't be bothered.

acludem

go read the Catholic bashing thread. Based on yesterday's hearings. You are so wrong, this time.

 

[KarlMarx]

I just emailed the Dragon Lady and the "distinguished" Senator from Pennsylvannia (I was polite but told them in no uncertain terms how offended I was and that were stinking hypocrites .... in so many words, of course)

I don't expect that they'll read it, or, if they do, to care very much.... but at least they will have heard about it....

If anyone is so inclined to voice their displeasure via email, these are the URLs of their email pages.....

Senator Diane Fienstein http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

Senator Arlen Specter http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.Home

 

[KarlMarx]

Give me a break people. These Senators, and I would hardly characterize Arlen Specter as a liberal, were asking these questions of Roberts because it is important that a nominee be able to base decisions on the Constitution and not on his/her religion. The same questions have been asked of many other SCOTUS nominees. I guarantee that if this was a Muslim candidate, conservative Republicans would be asking these questions and more of the candidate. The right is only concerned with freedom of religion when they are prevented from forcing their religion down the rest our throats. There was no religious test put to John Roberts, but face it if he had answered, "I will vote according to Catholic doctrine" don't tell me you Protestants wouldn't be bothered.

acludem

For you information, the same questions were NOT asked to Justice Ginsberg... but I suppose if they called Judge Roberts a goddamned papist, you wouldn't find anything wrong with that, either.

In my opinion, you wouldn't characterize anyone to the right of Vladimir Lenin as a liberal, you socialist wienie!!!

And look at who is talking about shoving their views down our throats! Mr ACLU himself! Your buddies in the ACLU are the ones who are suing to get all forms of religion tossed out of society... just who is shoving whose member down whose throat (or up whose a$$)? Just when were you forced to read a Bible, or go to church by the government? But thanks to you atheist bastards, you have the government denying us the freedom to express our religion! I am sick to death of the rest of us have to walk on eggshells to keep from offending arrogant self-righteous atheists like you..

You and your kind won't be satisfied until all churches and synnagogues are bulldozed, all priests and rabbis thrown into concentration camps, all US citizens are atheist and Communist .... and the United States becomes the Socialist States of America.

 

[Bonnie]

For you information, the same questions were NOT asked to Justice Ginsberg... but I suppose if they called Judge Roberts a goddamned papist, you wouldn't find anything wrong with that, either.

In my opinion, you wouldn't characterize anyone to the right of Vladimir Lenin as a liberal, you socialist wienie!!!

And look at who is talking about shoving their views down our throats! Mr ACLU himself! Your buddies in the ACLU are the ones who are suing to get all forms of religion tossed out of society... just who is shoving whose member down whose throat (or up whose a$$)? Just when were you forced to read a Bible, or go to church by the government? But thanks to you atheist bastards, you have the government denying us the freedom to express our religion! I am sick to death of the rest of us have to walk on eggshells to keep from offending arrogant self-righteous atheists like you..

You and your kind won't be satisfied until all churches and synnagogues are bulldozed, all priests and rabbis thrown into concentration camps, all US citizens are atheist and Communist .... and the United States becomes the Socialist States of America.

:halo:

 

[Nuc]

For you information, the same questions were NOT asked to Justice Ginsberg... but I suppose if they called Judge Roberts a goddamned papist, you wouldn't find anything wrong with that, either.

In my opinion, you wouldn't characterize anyone to the right of Vladimir Lenin as a liberal, you socialist wienie!!!

And look at who is talking about shoving their views down our throats! Mr ACLU himself! Your buddies in the ACLU are the ones who are suing to get all forms of religion tossed out of society... just who is shoving whose member down whose throat (or up whose a$$)? Just when were you forced to read a Bible, or go to church by the government? But thanks to you atheist bastards, you have the government denying us the freedom to express our religion! I am sick to death of the rest of us have to walk on eggshells to keep from offending arrogant self-righteous atheists like you..

You and your kind won't be satisfied until all churches and synnagogues are bulldozed, all priests and rabbis thrown into concentration camps, all US citizens are atheist and Communist .... and the United States becomes the Socialist States of America.

No comment on the content of your post. I would like to ask you why you have a picture of Jack Casady as your avatar?
:huh:

 

[KarlMarx]

No comment on the content of your post. I would like to ask you why you have a picture of Jack Casady as your avatar?
:huh:

He's been an idol of mine, ever since I was a kid....

 

[Nuc]

He's been an idol of mine, ever since I was a kid....

You realize that his politics are not in accord with yours? Or you just like good bass playing?

 

[KarlMarx]

You realize that his politics are not in accord with yours? Or you just like good bass playing?

Yes, I am certainly aware of that. And yes, I do think that Jack Casady is probably the best rock bassist of all time.

BTW. Ann Coulter is a big fan of the Grateful Dead, too. Stranger things have happened.

 

[Gunny]

I can't imagine a US Senator saying anything of the sort. It's always been ok to bash Catholics.

I have to agree, and I'm not even Catholic.

 

[Nuc]

Yes, I am certainly aware of that. And yes, I do think that Jack Casady is probably the best rock bassist of all time.

BTW. Ann Coulter is a big fan of the Grateful Dead, too. Stranger things have happened.

He's good, but not the best. Not surprised about Ann Coulter, she looks like pure skank, groupie potential very high. But Jack wasn't in the Dead, he was in the Airplane. And Hot Tuna.

 

[acludem]

Marx: No one called Roberts a "papist", that was what Republicans called Kennedy. As for your silly, drivel-filled diatribe about me being a socialist, try reading a few of my posts and you'll see you're wrong. Lenin wasn't a marxist per say, he took some of Marx's philosophy and put his own spin on it, but I won't bore you with facts and history, you like fiery rhetoric better. If I had to place myself on the political spectrum, I am to the right of Hillary Clinton, but to the left of Joe Lieberman. In other words, I am center-left.

When has the government denied you the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit? Are you upset because you can't force your particular religious views down the rest of our throats? Do you crave the kind of power the Taliban had in Afghanistan? It sure sounds like it. Also, just an FYI, I'm not an atheist per se, I practice Buddhism, and so am a religious person, just not your religion. I read the Holy Bible, some of what it said made sense, some didn't it. I have also read the Holy Qu'ran, the Talmud, as well as some Hindu texts, and the Sutras I study in my particular form of Buddhism. Don't lecture me on religion, I know way more about it then you, but I hope you decide to make a study of it, it gives you a whole new perspective on the rest of the world. I strongly support the freedom of all religions to practice openly and without fear of retribution, something you clearly don't support.

Acludem

 

[no1tovote4]

Which type of Buddhism do you practice acludem?