This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
Posted on 01/11/2006 5:16:48 PM PST by tbird5
Imagine that, Rueters carring water for the enemy within
This has much more to do with conservatives than it does with being Roman Catholic (and I am a Roman Catholic). We have a huge liberal faction in the Church that we have to "fight".
Well, as a Mormon, I'm shocked!! (not really, I can see beyond these things and see the person)
Ping
Miers was not forced to withdraw because she is an Evangelical. She was forced to withdraw because it turned out she was not what she was represented to be.
The leftists would love to split the working alliance between conservative Catholics and Evangelicals, but they'll have to do better than that.
I'm giving my all important ok on that Reuters and I'm not Catholic.
It will also give a majority to the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bildebergers.
Just kidding.
Irrelevant.
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
The new Pope and now the Supreme Court! ROTFLMAO!!! We Catholics are taking over!!! All the hysteria is hysterical! LOL!
Plus la change, plus la meme chose.
I'll tell you. I couldn't think of any potential Catholic President who I would have traded for Reagan (non denominational Christian) or GWB (Methodist). When it comes to governing America, conservatism and leadership are the important things. Of course, I wouldn't want either of them as Pope. ;o)
So, it's not a problem where we really have Evangelicals or Conservatives opposing Miers ~ rather, it was a Catholic led group that demanded Alito.
Funny to see Kennedy and Schumer focusing in on the Rusher/Alito axis in these hearings.
Interesting- a Catholic majority.
"rather, it was a Catholic led group that demanded Alito"
Good, about time. Most protestants deep done really don't like catholics.
Subtract Kennedy.
But evangelical Protestants seem so far to be embracing Alito, unlike President George W. Bush's last court nominee, Harriet Miers.
"Look at how the evangelical right responded to one of its own when it came to Harriet Miers," said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
Bush nominated Miers, a fellow conservative Christian, last year but she withdrew under fierce attack from conservatives who questioned her credentials and commitment to conservative ideology.
"It just shows you how it's mostly about ideology and not about religion," added Walker, whose Washington-based coalition of 14 Baptist bodies works for religious liberty causes.
Never fails, they'll always take the opportunity to re-write history. During the period of time refered to everyone wrote articles about how Christian conservatives were the ones backing her, it was everyone else on the Conservative scale against. Now they are stating Miers was forced out because of Christian conservatives. In truth, neither accounts were correct. The Christian conservative movement was split between Dobson on one side (who at the end flipped into opposition), those opposed, and those like Perkins that were opposed but reserving judgement which is about the same thing. The rest of the conservative movement was pretty solidly against her, with a significant minority wanting to give Faith because G.W.B. chose her. Overall, it was one of the rare times most of the movement was in sync that she should go by the end and it was NOT based solely on ideology but grave doubts about her qualifications, judicial philosophy and abilities for the job.
No doubts about Alito's experience, qualifications, intellectual firepower as well people have a fair confidence his Judicial philosophy is not one that embraces the concept of a living Constitution. This is why he has the backing of conservatives, including evangelicals. being a Catholic or an evangelical means not a wit to me.
Religion "has pretty much become passe" as an issue, he suggested, except to the degree that it becomes a hot potato in nearly every U.S. presidential campaign when candidates define their stand on abortion.
Religion passe? Not quite. The difference is that a person identifying themselves as a member of a certain church means nothing unless you are pledging yourself to a satanic Cult. Ted Kennedy states he is a Catholic. Ted Kennedy is a social Catholic. It's meant to enhance his resume, appeal to constituents, it's more of a family tradition then spiritual devotion. Whereas the Pope is a Catholic in spiritual Faith, as it should be. It's no different for any body of faith. protestant, evangelical..everyone has their own social worshipers that congregate to socialize or advance themselves rather then reserve the time for worship.
Instead of getting caught up on classifications of Faith, people have gotten wise to the knowledge someone defining themselves as a Christian doesn't mean they are pro-Life, believe in keeping the Pledge intact, etc... To take it a step further, someone that is a "conservative" Christian for want of a better term at the moment, could believe in a living Constitution. There is no certainty a conservative Christian or catholic automatically will treat the Constitution in the manner of a Thomas. neither is there certainty a Liberal necessarily will support a living Constitution, though most tend to. So, using religion to devine how a Justice will approach the Constitution is out because it isn't a fail safe barometer. Doesn't mean religion is passe, just that it has no ability to answer the broader question of whether someone will make law. It's meaningless in this debate except in defining characters of the nominees.
Kennedy gets really wound up about practicing Catholics...as do alot of those Congressional types.
And on a personal note, Ted Kennedy is a disgusting and beneath contempt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.