One doesn't have to be Catholic or pro-life to conclude that Roe v. Wade is without a firm constitutional basis.
I'm not at all religious and consider myself strongly pro-choice, but I still recognize Roe v. Wade as ends-justify-the-means-jurisprudence.
If the justices who uphold Roe also demonstrated a willingness to look outside the constitution to determine and protect other personal liberties such as the right to property, self defense, contract, etc., I'd be less inclined to criticize them.
I read the opinion. I don't find the Catholic influence in there. There is much discussion of clinical procedures. Could you direct us to the paragraph that hints at the Catholic influence?
(NOTE: I did not read Justice Thomas opinion so I cannot speak to it.)
I also read Justice Ginsburg's dissention and would posit to you that if either of the two opinions are resting on something outside the constitution it would be Ginsburg's.
Could it be, just maybe, that in this case the minority happen to be more concerned with an agenda outside the court than the majority?
I know that thought doesn't allow for the cute Catholic bashing, however I think if you read the opinion you would conclude that there is a greater chance that the latter is the case than the former.
Now far be it from me to step in and interfere with a good Catholic joke. Because as a Protestant I can assure you that the anti-Christ will probably come from the papacy (sp?).
(Catholics now please... See the tongue firmly planted in cheek and I KNOW that that is not the first time you have ever heard that.)
yip yip
The Catholic members of SCOTUS are not what one might call "progressive." They are there as a sop to the religious right, even though in the long run the Catholic members and the Protestant members of the right will be at each others' throats.
This decision is simply an attack on Roe V. Wade. Like a major barrage; pretty soon Roe will go down. It will be a major step backward, a major step toward true repression.
As a liberal Catholic, I'm pretty danged insulted by this broad-brush painting of the decision as a "Catholic" decision.
There's plenty of anti-abortion Protestants who're singing for joy right now.
The problem PW is that the Supreme Court isn't to make law and Roe vs. Wade did not create law.
I do not know If R vs W can be overturned. It should never have won. There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. In the same way I do not think in the present climate an abortion law could be seen as unconstitutional. The battle ground could be parents rights over a minor dependent, a father's rights in a marriage situation and similar here the rights of a developed fetus that could sustain life outside the womb (but that wasn't the issue). Rather than going to the courts those desiring abortion should have went to their law makers. As it is the majority seems to be in favor of some forms of abortion the majority through the democratic process should decide its proper limits.
Or in another light, any decision reversing R vs W may have little to no affect on existing abortion laws but only clarify the rights the Constitution does cover and those it doesn't. If it was a Constitutional right, decided by the Supreme Court, to have a drivers license and then the Supreme Court decided it wasn't a Constitutional right would everyone lose their drivers license?
If prolife supporters could see the future they should have supported legalized abortion 50 years ago and then taken the law to the Supreme Court saying it denies ones right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But thats how liberals work their oligarchy.
Catholic bashing? It's called bigotry Becky.
It's not bigotry at all. I wish that we lived in a country that could actually mention the gorilla in the room. Stating the obvious isn't "bigotry" or "anti-Catholic" bias. The Church (as those of you who missed the Reformation, which seems to include trolls Leonid and Coyote) has a very straight forward view on interfering in the internal politics of nations: do it by any means necessary. The modern Catholic heresy of "a culture of life" (which only dates back to the 1870s -- for almost two millennia it was, SURPRISE!, very close to the three trimester system of Roe v. Wade) openly blessed Father Frank Pavone to take his "Priests for Life" as a special ministry and kicked off their "secular" political operation last August. Alas, they didn't get enough signatures in Nebraska to push their "Son of Terri Schiavo" initiative, although they can keep all they had, and are assured of it in the 2008 election.
The homily of the Red Mass two years ago was a beautiful masked plea for the Catholic jurists to overturn Roe. Which is, if you're a devout Catholic, a very difficult position to ultimately oppose. Two justices openly drool at the prospect of overturning Roe, and the two new papists are "officially" neutral, Roberts' wife is a rabid anti-abortion activist with a fascinating group called "Feminists for Life."
It's not "bigotry" to point out political reality. So get over it. If you're a dissenting Catholic, good for you. But don't believe that every pressure of the Holy See isn't being brought to bear on those five jurists.
And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
Hart,
And the sage shows his ignorance. Unfortunately your screed falls flat when one is reminded that Justice Kennedy is actually pro Roe.
And... And even in his decision left the door open for a challenge to the partial birth abortion ban.
So much for your Catholic conspiratorial cabal.
yip yip
Ooops, I said "sage," perhaps I should have said "sade?"
The Church (as those of you who missed the Reformation, which seems to include trolls Leonid and Coyote) has a very straight forward view on interfering in the internal politics of nations: do it by any means necessary.
HW people no matter what their faith work to promote their beliefs and lifestyle because they see value in it for themselves and others. They believe in what they do because just as everyone else they lived responsible lives making difficult decisions looking for the best way. Not to respect this and to claim someones values are invalid or their tactics unacceptable simply because of their associations is plain and simple bigotry (intolerance). Our founding father's recognized this inherent right in every man and created our Constitution based on this enlightened view. To suggest, as is being done here, that people holding views of a certain group (a very large established and respectable group) are to be disregarded is not only the highest form of bigotry but un-American. Freedom isn't freedom if all are not free.
These Judges made sound legal judgments. What is being suggesting is anything that resembles Catholic beliefs should not be allowed. How is that not 'repression'?
Of course HW I'm sure from your view I will just burn in eternal hellfire to your delight. I feel the love.
I agree on the charges of "Catholic bashing" above. This is not a Catholic issue, it's an ideologue issue. You don’t have to be Catholic to be a narrow minded control freak, and many Catholics recognize the right of others to live their lives according to their own beliefs.
As to "There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution", there is also no right to lots of things in the constitution. Should we ban healthcare in general because it’s not in the Constitution? Sewer service, computers, tennis? None of this is in the constitution.
Thats the point William. You go to your lawmakers for those issues, not using the court to push a then minority view. Did it work for the better (R vs W)? That is the divide that still exists today. Right now the public and lawmakers have spoken clearly they see a certain type of abortion as clearly wrong and the Supreme Court kept their proper place to rule on the Constitution only.
Personally, if I want to know the "right or wrong" of a medical procedure, I'd rather ask my doctor.
R vs W basically said those medical decisions weren't government business. That works for me. Didn't you use to say you were a Libertarian? Since when was Libertarianism about handing personal decisions over to the government?
Coyote, if you're lecturing me on "ignorance," then I must defer to your clearly demonstrated expertise in the field.
OK William
There are a few points I mentioned that may enter the Supreme Court.
You must be confusing me with someone else though I find some libertarian views profound though not practical.
I realize the post comes off as Catholic bashing, though such views are not original to this post nor an accurate reflection of my feelings about Catholics as people. I don't care what anyone believes, so long as they don't attempt to impose their religious beliefs on me.
That aside, how do you respond to the fact that five of the nine justices are Catholic and they voted in unison on an issue directly related to a well-known priority to Catholics around the world, particularly in light of the Pope's recent call to Catholic leaders to enact their beliefs into law?
Actually, virtually all Protestants were against all forms of birth control until the mid-twentieth century (and not the reformation).
The influence of the great leadership of Pope John-Paul II promoted an admiration for conservative ideology among many Catholics, especially with his anti-communist stand and the geopolitical circumstance. But Becky this is not a decision based on religion but law. If you want to take out any religious overlap from our legal system your just.... hmm...so many words.
Many protestants are liberal promoting gay marriage and clergy etc. Even many Evangelicals that you want to claim are a conservative danger to the United States are actually democrats or outright liberals, that's why I just can't accept the stand of many at PK on an Evangelical threat to this country or in this case Catholics. People have to be free to create in their own image. We work out the differences through our enlightened political system.
I'm not really clear on why so-called "partial birth abortion" is ever a necessary procedure
you might find the amicus brief filed by the american college of gynecologists and obstetricians, here, to be somewhat helpful.
Let's see here... three separate challenges, backed by the medical community, to the "partial-birth abortion" law were filed in federal court. Each challenge was successful (law was found to be unconstitutional) and each was appealed and upheld. Each federal ruling along with each appeals court ruling were inline with the 2000 Supreme Court ruling striking down the Nebraska "partial-birth abortion" law as unconstitutional.
Meanwhile Bush gets two Catholics on the Supreme Court and the every single Catholic on the Court rules contrary to the Court's own 2000 ruling as well as the aforementioned SIX federal court rulings. But not a single non-Catholic joins the majority.
Coincidence? I find that very hard to believe!
This ruling is an opening gambit to the eventual outlawing of all abortions. All these five Catholic Justices need is the proper case to come before them and it's a done deal. As the above-linked ACGO statement points out, this ruling effectively makes a huge percentage of abortions illegal. And haven taken this step, I can't see what grounds this same group of Catholic Justices could use to not outlaw every other form of abortion without contradicting this ruling.
What's worth noting here is that while "partial-birth" abortion is very widely misunderstood to refer to late-term abortions, it in fact rarily involved late-term (3rd trimester) abortions. A lot of Americans, myself included, have always been very uncomfortable with 3rd trimester abortions. But this law is really a case of misdirection by the religious right and their lackies in Congress and those who were recently kicked out of Congress by We The People.
Kevin
Its conservative vs. liberal. Everyone and his mother knew that Bush would put conservatives on the court and abortion precedent might change (though that in itself would not necessarily change any State law). Just because they happen to be Catholic now its a Catholic theocracy conspiracy? Are you suggesting being Catholic is a disqualifier for a federal judgeship?
Leonid, any religion is a disqualifier for a public office if the office holder uses his office to promote his personal doctrinal beliefs. It doesn't matter if it's Roman Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, or what. When his personal moral beliefs are used as the basis for making law for the rest of us, that person is morally disqualified to hold his office.
In view of the fact that the Pope recently instructed Roman Catholic office holders to use their positions to legislate their beliefs (Becky wrote about it on this site), I do think that people have a right to be concerned about the Catholic block on the Supreme Court, and that this concern may well and justifiably color their interpretations of what just happened.
Now tell me again what does Catholicism have to do with the decision made?
Sounds more like anti-Catholic bigotry to me.
Shame on you all.
Now if I were to question Justice Ginsberg's 'Jewishness' I would be immediately slapped down as a bigot.
You all need to take a chill pill and relax.
God works in mysterious ways and this is a step forward for the Culture of Life.
So all you all liberals and democrats can go on and continue using contraception and abortion to keep your 0-1 children family goals in line in order to own that second home down in Florida and those lovely trips to Paris in winter. You don't want to crimp your materialistic lifestyles now do you?
Let us commonfolk continue to live by the Word of God and raise our lovely families as you all contracept your liberal and democratic causes to death (hence the culture of death moniker you all so richly earned as per Pope John Paul II).
God bless you all.
Tito
You're demonstrably wrong, Leonid. Not all of the 5 Catholic Justices are conservative. Occam's Razor quite clearly indicates that the common thread is Catholicism.
Tito, you are so clueless that it's almost laughable. Becky, Nancy and myself are none of us liberals nor are we Democrats. And I'd be willing to bet that many of you "commonfolk" both earn more and own more materialistic bling than I do.
But most telling of all is that you ended up refuting your own rhetorical question with the remainder of your comment. Although I suspect you probably didn't realize it or you'd have changed the wording. Which underscores one of my chief concerns with your ilk - the abject inability/unwillingness to THINK.
Lastly, it's very interesting to me that the same exact crowd claiming this so-called "culture of life" mumbojumbo also happen to be the most outspoken supporters of death via war and guns which serve no purpose other than, as Lynard Skynard put it, to "put a man six feet in a hole" - which is to say handguns and other firearms uniquely unsuited to hunting anything other than humans.
I'm pretty sure that Catholics haven't edited God's prohibition against lying out of the Bible. Yet few of you seem to have a problem defying God on the issue...
Preemptive karma:
"I'm not really clear on why so-called "partial birth abortion" is ever a necessary procedure and find it utterly repulsive and inhumane."
Is it more humane to tear them to pieces in utero and then extract them? The pieces still look like babies; only in parts.
One you see, one you don't.
In the end you have a dead baby.
At what point, in the unborn baby's path to the outside world, is it not inhumane to make parts? Even a dog who is to be euthanized and has a litter inside her will deliver live pups at the vet before they kill the mother. How many mills send out the parts of children to be used in labs for experiments and beauty treatments? Show me the money!!
http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/
http://www.priestsforlife.org/im...mages/
index.htm
I personally am not in favor of abortion except in cases of rape, danger to the life of the mother, or a profoundly retarded/disabled baby; the abortion should be done very early in the pregnancy or not at all. For me life is precious, a gift.
On the other hand, who am I to dictate to others how they should believe on this issue? Or what they should do? That would be tantamount to dictating their morals to them. That's unacceptable.
Instead, those of us who feel as I do, or who feel even more strongly that all abortion is wrong, rather than spending time on pushing legislation down the throats of others, should focus our efforts on (1) education on alternatives and (2) aiding those who may have had abortions and are now suffering the aftermath. It never leaves the woman unscarred, even if it was the best choice for her. And quite often the baby's father is affected as well. Condemnation and force do absolutely no good.
Frankly I'd rather not have us go back to the days of back street abortions. I'd rather have our women choose other alternatives wherever possible, but certainly I would not want these women ostracized or even imprisoned for their choices, especially since such a decision is made under very difficult circumstances.
Elm, I can't imagine aborting a baby after the first trimester. It's just sickening to me. Like Nancy said, unless there's a severe problem, I just personally think it's horrible. But I recognize that sometimes there is a severe problem, and I also recognize that making something like abortion illegal doesn't stop it. So like Nancy, I long ago decided that legislation wasn't the answer. Changing hearts and minds - and providing alternatives and opportunities and love to women - is the answer.
Since I wrote this particular post, I have learned a bit more about the procedure and I can grant that it may be the best option in some cases. But God I really have a problem with late term abortions, so it's hard to separate these issues out. That's why we need a Court that can keep their religious beliefs separated from their logic and the law. We ask a lot of them, and that's why only the nine most wise judges in the land ought to be serving on the Supreme Court. Sadly, they aren't. We have five who believe the law of the Catholic Church is higher than the secular law of this country. This particular decision might not affect you, but maybe the next one will.
Occam's razor, eh? Here' a small shave.
Is the fetus alive? Why yes, of course it is alive.
What kind of life is it? Hmm. Let's check the DNA. Why, it's human life.
How inconvenient for us.
"On the other hand, who am I to dictate to others how they should believe on this issue? Or what they should do? That would be tantamount to dictating their morals to them. That's unacceptable. "
The law that makes you drive the speed limit and pay your taxes is a moral law. Every one has morals dictated to them, why should abortion be any different. This country was founded on morals, ergo laws.
John Carroll who helped write and sign the Constitution was a Roman Catholic. I imagine his religion had an influence on his input. It’s not because the five judges are Catholic that they voted to overturn the ban, it is because they respect life, the mother’s and the child’s, and they respect this Country and the principles it was founded on.
98% of abortions are performed on perfectly whole and healthy children. What defect is worthy of death?
Nearsightedness? brown eyes? being short? being female? being less than genius? How about being Black or Catholic? Margaret Sanger was sure these were defects. And heaven forbid you were a Black Catholic like Judge Thomas.
"That's why we need a Court that can keep their religious beliefs separated from their logic and the law"
The Constitution gives us the freedom to have "life". Without life there is no need for the law. The law doesn't promise happiness, just the pursuit of it. How can you separate the “right to live” from the law?
Each and every one of us had a mother who chose to carry out her pregnancy no matter the inconvenience. Have you asked your mother if you were planned and wanted? We are made in the image and likeness of God, even as a fetus; a God who gives us the gift of life. Who are we to exchange a child for pleasure, career and convenience?
A 9/11 happens every day in the abortion mills of this country. If you had to look at the results, you couldn't handle it. If you dare to look you would not believe that it is just a choice. It is a child.
Women deserve better than abortion.
http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/
http://www.feministsforlife.org/
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/ index.htm
Mr Blackitt: Because every time they have sexual intercourse they have to have a baby.
Mrs Blackitt: But it's the same with us, Harry.
Mr Blackitt: What d'you mean...?
Mrs Blackitt: Well I mean we've got two children and we've had sexual intercourse twice.
Mr Blackitt: That's not the point... We *could* have it any time we wanted.
Mrs Blackitt: Really?
Let's hope that you understand that pregnancy cannot occur every time you have intercourse with the exception of your five fertile days in a cycle.
The ignorance of women and their fertility is amazing. This should be the first lesson in sexuality and all females should understand how to chart and track their fundicy from the very first menses. To pop a pill and put on a patch or ring is not freedom. This is slavery to chemicals and being used as an object instead of the beautiful creature that a man can respect and cherish and give his life to.
Patrick, how about this shave: Iraqis are alive and they have human DNA. Are you ready to call off the war? Mass murderers are alive and their DNA is human. Are you ready to end the death penalty? Ruptured apendixes are alive and they have human DNA. Are you ready to ban apendectomies? Conjoined twins are alive and their DNA is human. Are you ready to ban separation when death is the risk? Fertilized eggs in a petrie dish are alive and have human DNA. Are you ready to require that all fertilized eggs be implanted in in vitro procedures so that none are left to die? Multiple fetus pregnancies involve living human DNA. Are you ready to ban terminations of some of the fetuses in order to give the rest a chance at life? Rape victims carry live human DNA in their wombs. Are you ready to tell them they must carry their attacker's child to term?
Who made you God? And why would you want to live in a free country where we believe people have the right to make their own decisions about personal matters, and where an already-born human is valued more highly than a multi-celled, unthinking, unfeeling mass of tissue that does not even know it exists?
Elm, your rigid view of abortion is clearly, unmistakably based on your religion. But I don't share your religion. How can you reasonably, rationally expect that it is right to force your religion-based belief on me?
Also, I think you need to lighten up on Monty Python. It's an extremely funny skit meant to make a lot of points that you are obviously missing from your black and white literalist point of view.
Elm, your rigid view of abortion is clearly, unmistakably based on your religion. But I don't share your religion. How can you reasonably, rationally expect that it is right to force your religion-based belief on me?
The belief is the right to life as stated in the Constitution. Sorry if you are offended. Did you ask your mother?
Elm: The law that makes you drive the speed limit and pay your taxes is a moral law.
Is that moral law based on your doctrinal/religious position/interpretation? Then I'm against that law. It is not, however, based on religious doctrine or one's interpretation of whatever holy book or organization he/she belongs to or that her religious leaders, of whatever ilk, espouse. Therefore you are comparing apples to oranges and that doesn't make for valid debate.
Elm: I am Becky's mother. She's always been deeply loved and wanted. She does not fit into any of the criteria in which I hold abortion a viable choice: I was not raped, she was/is not mentally or physically impaired, and her birth did not threaten my life. I stand with her position on this subject.
Freedom isn't freedom if all are not free.
So why is it, Leonid, that you want to limit my freedoms based on your religious beliefs? That's your quote above. You don't make much sense here!
Becky said: "where an already-born human is valued more highly than a multi-celled, unthinking, unfeeling mass of tissue that does not even know it exists?"
Already born humans are a multi-celled, some times unthinking, sometimes unfeeling mass of tissue.
Is thinking what makes us human?
Is feeling what makes us human?
Is knowing you exist what makes you human? Most 1 year olds don't know they exist.
Elm, the Constitution specifically refers to "natural born citizens," who, if I'm not mistaken, must, by definition, be born to be citizens. In fact, only people who are born here are citizens unless they go through an immigration process. So clearly, the Constitution doesn't anticipate protecting pre-porn humans. As I read it, there is nary a word about fetuses or embryos. No, it's all about people who have been born.
Furthermore, the Constitution lays out the rules for the government, not the people, and what it particularly can and cannot do. So the "right to life" is something that cannot be abridged by the government (though like every other right, there are certain circumstances when the public good outweighs the right) and I don't see the government out there performing abortions.
In any case, I think the pro-life activists have skewed the clear meaning of the Constitution to make it fit their own religion-based belief that life begins at conception (or, if you're Catholic, even sperm are sacred). Because if someone has also got the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and those are given equal billing in the Constitution with life, you have a difficult row to hoe to say that the Constitution somehow dictates that the life of an unborn embryo or fetus, which doesn't even enjoy citizenship, enjoys greater protection than the right of its parents to the liberty to make up their own minds as to whether they are ready to be parents or instead wish to use chemicals or condoms or in extreme instances even abortion to preserve their right to pursue happiness in the form of pleasure, career and convenience. Frankly, I believe it's none of the government's business what makes someone happy. And neither is it yours.
Most 1 year olds don't know they exist.
You just lost the debate, elm. Wow. That is so intellectually weak it's almost scarry.
Excuse me, scary. I never could spell that word after reading Richard Scarry books.
Hey! Take your bigotry and go join Stalin, Pol Pot, and The French Revolutionary Terror promoters.
These 5 Catholics worked their way up by embracing and espousing a certain judicial philosophy. They were supported by and put on the court by non-Catholics because they had that philosophy. That all you can see is their religion just shows what kind of a bigoted, ignorant hater you are.
And by the way only 25% of this country is Catholic, but almost 70% oppose partial-birth abortion which I am sure is why the pro-abortion people want to stir up bigotry--to try to win the debate by going throough a corrupt back door.
Oh, and to add to what my mother wrote above, I happen to have been an accident! If you want to carry it all out to extremes, I wouldn't even exist if it weren't for a malfunctioning condom. So elm, are you going to say that my mother somehow was doing something evil in pursuing happiness with my father and preparing to throw perfectly good human DNA in the trash, but God intervened and spoiled their selfish plans and brought me into the world anyway?
Tell me, elm, are my husband and I evil because we've had sex nearly every day for the 20 years of our marriage (and a couple years before that) and only produced two children? We have blocked an awful lot of sperm that contained human DNA. Is that too much pursuit of pleasure and career and convenience for you? Should we have had as many children as God blessed us with in 20+ years so that we were forced to sell the lot of them for scientific experiments because we couldn't afford to feed them anymore?
How far do you care to go with all of this nonsense? Are you going to blame God for all the human DNA he has allowed to spontaneously abort in the multiple miscarriages I and many other women have had? Are you going to blame God, who by your rigid belief system "has the whole world in his hands" and "sees every sparrow that falls," for standing by and allowing every human being with human DNA who ever lived to die, and a good number of those with pain and suffering?
You tell me which is better. Is it better to abort a mass of tissue that has no consciousness and feels nothing or to allow it to develop to term, put it in a Catholic orphanage where it might get molested for years and become mentally ill and self-destructive? Abort it or let it be born and then grow up in a home with drug-addicted parents who don't want it? Abort it or have it orphaned when its parents die of AIDS? Aborti it or have its parents always resent it because they couldn't finish college and spent their adult life struggling financially and being emotionally strained? Abort it, or have it live out its deformed days in an institution that is financially draining society? Abort it, or force its mother to be a single mother because no decent man will marry a girl who has someone else's child? Abort it or fill the world up with bloody mouths we bloody can't afford to bloody feed and who would, if born, have eventually died of starvation, dissentary, disease, war, etc.?
Wake up. This is not some bookish debate. This is reality, elm. Real people's lives. People who get to make their own choices. People whom the government must allow to make their own choices. Born people. You want to live in fantasy land? Go right ahead. But understand that a lot of the world doesn't live in fantasy land and there isn't a thing you can do that will ever change that.
Apparently, the good Deacon doesn't read well enough to realize I also oppose late term abortions. His logic fails him as well, as both Hart and Kevin have eloquently explained.
I don't care what you believe about abortion. The issue is dragging in the religion of the 5 whose judicial philosophy got them onto the Supreme Court--put there by people who mostly were non-Catholic but who were pro -life as well as literal constructionists on the Constitution. Couldn't Justice Ginsburg's liberal attitude been shaped by a liberal Jewish background---SO WHAT? If her side had won and people started writing about her Jewish roots there would be screaming and yelling (rightfully) about anti-Semitism.
But, of course, if Catholics are in the majority and you don't like the decision, then let's bring in some good-old fashioned anti-Catholic bigotry to save the day.
In the most recent poll almost 70% of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion--Catholics are only 25% of the population. Are we to live in a dictatorship that says democracy is for everyone but those whose morals are the same as Rome's and they can't try to influence a majority that will affect the philosophy by which Court Justices are chosen.
If Ginsberg and four other Jewish Justices had won, by themselves, and without any other Jewish Justices dissenting then you might have a point, Deacon. As it stands, though, your analogy fails utterly.
Also, I'd be willing to bet that a huge percentage of non-idealogues who oppose "partial-birth" abortion mistakenly believe that they are opposing the abortions of potentially viable fetuses (i.e., 3rd trimester). I'd bet that because for a very long time that was precisely how I saw the issue. It was only through bothering to educate myself that I discovered that in fact "partial-birth" abortions are very rarily performed anywhere in the 3d trimester.
IF, and I stress that qualifier, this 2003 law were about banning abortions of viable fetuses then I'd likely support it. But it's not and I'm pretty confident that if the American public knew the facts that we'd see a significant drop in the public support for this kind of legislation.
Becky, fabulous job debating this issue in the thread here! Seriously, I'm impressed.
It is true that the 5 votes in favour of restricting the partial delivery and crushing/puncture of a baby's skull came from Catholics. Yet, it is not clear that their Catholicism is the only reason for their opposition to the procedure. Most people find it revolting without consulting Roman dogma.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that there is no widespread conservative condennation of jews being on the court, even though jews tend to be pro choice and liberal. Ginsburg wrote a pro abortion choice dissent, she is jewish. Lets pick on the jews now! Sound hateful?.well it is!
I also think that the fact that most of the top judges in the United States are Catholic is unremarkable. Catholicism is the largest religious denomination in the United States, with perhaps 70-90 million babtized Catholics currently living in the U.S.A. Many of the best and brightest lawyers and judges also come from states like New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and California. These are states where there is a high priority put on education and where the best law schools are located. They are also states with huge catholic populations. It is not remarkable that many of America's top judges reflect the ethno-religious makeup of the states that produce most of the top lawyers in the nation.
Kevin--if all 9 justices were Jewish and agreed on a decision based on a shared authentically American school of constitutional law, then it would be clear anti-Semitism to prattle about their religion--and I think most Americans would agree it would be anti-Semitism
But 5 Catholics make a decision based on a genuine American school of constitutional law--and we're supposed to believe that the opponents of the decision are bringing up the justices' religion out of the purest motives. Please! We Catholics-and all other fair Americans-- aren't that stupid.
Sorry, Deacon, but your analogy still has a fatal central flaw in it. Jews, pro-choice or not, haven't been very publically hounding Jewish politicians over the last several years for voting contrary to certain (but only on a select few issues, oddly enough...) Jewish teachings and threatening them with denial of some fundamentally important Jewish ritual as punishment for said contrary votes.
Whether you are stupid or not remains to be seen. All I know thus far is that you've failed utterly to come up with even a vaguely applicable analogy with which to press your argument. I could suggest one but I'm thinking that God gave you a brain with the express intention that you would use it. Try not to disappoint Him again, huh?
Are we to live in a dictatorship that says democracy is for everyone but those whose morals are the same as Rome's...
No one is saying that at all. What we're saying is that when the 5 Catholic justices vote as a block, when the Pope has directed that Catholics use their positions to influence decisions based on papal doctrine, and when none of the other justices vote with the 5, the appearance is that religion was the basis for their decision, not law.
That's a valid assumption and not Roman Catholic bashing.
Many of us do not believe that Roman doctrine is right. We believe something else, and we don't want anyone limiting our freedoms based on the doctrine of one church. Even as I am against our government making these types of decisions for us, I happen to agree morally with the decision of the Supreme Court on this issue, but it makes me nervous when the only unifying factor in the decision is the religion of the 5 justices. What's next? What is it in my personal life and belief system that's going to be limited or taken? I may not agree next time.
Elm: I am Becky's mother. She's always been deeply loved and wanted. She does not fit into any of the criteria in which I hold abortion a viable choice: I was not raped, she was/is not mentally or physically impaired, and her birth did not threaten my life. I stand with her position on this subject.
Becky's Mom
It's a good thing she was "perfect"
Does she have freckles?
It seems that the majority of tomorrow will be the Catholics that accept children as a gift from God and not their personal property that they can take or leave.
Becky said:"but God intervened and spoiled their selfish plans and brought me into the world anyway?
I'm glad to hear that you give God credit for your existence. that's a step forward.
Few realize it today, but before 1930 all Christian churches opposed contraception as an unnatural and thus impermissible interference with God’s design for human sexuality.
That changed when, at their 1930 Lambeth Conference, Anglicans began permitting the use of contraception on a limited basis; other denominations quickly absorbed the secular sexual morality that flooded into the Protestant world. Today no Protestant church maintains the historic Christian faith on this issue. Only the Catholic Church has stood firm and resisted the onslaught of secularism in sexual ethics.
Things grew so bad in the Protestant world that by the early 1970s some Evangelical leaders were advocating not only contraception, but even abortion. At that time abortion and contraception were viewed as "Catholic" issues. When abortion was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, these Evangelicals rethought the issue and became firmly prolife.
In recent years, as the prolife mindset has grown strong in Evangelical circles, some are even reconsidering the issue of contraception and are rejecting the contraceptive mindset. In doing so, they are returning to the historic position of Christianity and the position of their own Protestant forebears.
From Crosswalk:In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used, confining themselves to the required statement of risks the procedure entails. From one standpoint this ought not to be surprising. Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue. . . .
It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. . . . The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.
In an angry dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared the majority decision to be "alarming." Most remarkably, she attacked the majority's concern for the emotional health of mothers (due to the unique bond between mother and child) to be "discredited."
Here is Justic Ginsburg's statement:
This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution--ideas that have long since been discredited.
The acknowledgement of a unique bond between mother and child, born or unborn, is an "ancient" notion long since "discredited?"
by Albert Mohler
How is this a Catholic ruling?
How does Rome have any pressure to bear on this ruling?
"Of course, being Catholic does not make one pro-life. Consider such Catholic stalwarts as Cuomo, Giuliani, Pataki, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Leahy, Durbin, Dodd...."
How many "Catholics" are in Congress?
24 in the Senate, 131 in the House.
The teachings of Jesus Christ as passed on by the Catholic Church are available for all and meant to be followed by all because they are true.
"fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child "assuming the human form."
That form is what a child looks like at that stage of being a human being. Because it is in the embryonic stage makes it no less a Human Being.
elm: you've missed a number of things in this string of discussion, among them that, while this has gone into the issue of abortion, the main point of Becky's article was the Catholic block of votes on the Supreme Court in view of the recent directive from the Pope that Catholics use their positions to legislate Roman Catholic doctrine. She has a very valid concern here. When someone's highest loyalty is to the papacy in Rome, how can he/she have the best interests of the United States and its people at heart? His/her views are filtered through doctrinal issues, and often the mindset is not even recognized. That's dangerous to the freedom of the rest of us.
By the way, Anglicans are part of the Catholic family, along with Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox. They just don't accept that the Pope in Rome is truly the Vicar of the Son of God and, therefore, infallible. Infallibility belongs to God alone.
P.S. I was Becky's high school English teacher, 8th through 12th grades. She is perfect: perfectly delightful!
NancyJ said:"When someone's highest loyalty is to the papacy in Rome, how can he/she have the best interests of the United States and its people at heart?"
Their highest loyalty is to Jesus Christ and the fulfillment of the covenant which He represents. They find the path to JC through the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is Christ's Church.
Interested in history?
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. John Henry Newman
P.S. I was Becky's high school English teacher, 8th through 12th grades. She is perfect: perfectly delightful!
NancyJ
I'm delighted that she was allowed to be born. Heaven forbid you have "less thans" in your class.
St. Peter’s role as a Shepherd is, in a way, unique because it is universal. Despite his human frailty, he is given care of all the Churches. And, if we take Lk 22:31-32 seriously, he is called to be the shepherd of all the shepherds. That’s a big responsibility. In fact, it is a crushing burden which he could never fulfill on his own power. That’s why we pray for the Pope (meaning “Papa” or father) in every Catholic Eucharist across the globe – He needs the grace of the Holy Spirit to fulfill his role. The bit about Peter stretching out his hands with others leading him where he does not want to go – it does not just refer to his crucifixion under Nero, but to the daily laying his life down for his flock, the “white martyrdom” that we can see so clearly in the weary but relentless witness of John Paul II
Laying down your life for the good of others is not a selfish, dictorial act.
I respectfully disagree with you on many, many issues, but I give you the freedom to believe as you choose. My hope is that you will respect my beliefs in the same way and never, never support legislation based on religious doctrine.
Therein lies my objection to the decision by the Supreme Court that we have been discussing. And my fear that my hope may not survive reality.
NancyJ said:My hope is that you will respect my beliefs in the same way and never, never support legislation based on religious doctrine.
Religious doctrine that supports rights given naturally by God is a very good paradigm on which to base legislation. Remember "One Nation under God."
Doctines which law is based on:
Thou shall not kill, meaning abortion, hurting another person, abusing alcohol and drugs, slander, road rage, hatred and bigotry, mutilating your body, euthanasia.
Honor thy father and mother, caring for aged and infirm relatives, obligations to spouse and children,
Thou shall not steal, meaning taking what is not mine, making restitution for what was stolen, wasting time at work, gambling excessively, not paying debts, not sharing with the poor.
Thou shall not lie, gossiping, slandering.
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife or possessions, by adultery, or envy.
These are the doctrines which the natural law and government are based on.
The Catholic faith is not as scary or as restictive as some here mentioned in their posts. To have the love and compassion that Jesus requires of us is to be in the world but not of the world. That is a freedom which is life-giving for old and young alike.
No one should kill their young.
This is just common decency.
The Supreme Court forced nothing on anyone, though you would hardly believe it from the comments on the internet and in the media. All that the Supreme Court did was give the people back the right to debate on a particular issue to do with abortion. The 70% of the people who regularly oppose partial-birth abortion on polls have been given their rights back. According to this Supreme Court decision if the U.S. Congress and the people's elected representatives make a different decision, then that decision would presumably hold. But by distorting the court's decision it makes it easy to say that somehow the people's democratic rights have been trampled on and the 5 justices are somehow coercing people. All they did was give the people their voice back (on this one abortion issue) and even if they overturn Roe v. Wade it will merely give back the whole issue for the people to decide (and women are in a comfortable majority in the U.S.)
The justrices are just unraveling government by lawyers and judicial fiat on issues that for hundreds of years in the U.S. have been the province of the people.
And the situation holds--these 5 justices built their careers on a judicial philodsophy that goes back to the founding years of our nation. They were promoted and given these positions by politicians overwhelmingly non-Catholic. So to drag in their religion at this point it is hard to see it is not bigotry causing it.
What the founder of Protestanism had to say about artificial barrenhood.
Mr Blackitt: No no, I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.
MARTIN LUTHER
(SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FOUNDER OF LUTHERANISM)aka as protestant
"[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her—that is, he lies with her and copulates—and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him" (Commentary on Genesis).
For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.
Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.
Given the widespread contraceptive practice of the first century of the Christian era, euphemistically referred to as 'using magic' and 'using drugs,' it is logical to see in the New Testament prohibition of mageia and pharmakeia an implicit condemnation of contraception. This is especially true when the contexts (Gal. 5:20 and Rev. 21:8, 22:15) refer to sins against chastity".
Thomas Aquinas taught that not all the truths of the faith can be proved by reason, but all the objections to the faith can be disproved by reason.
Contraception reduces the gift of self between spouses. Fecundity, as a normal, healthy, and ontologically good aspect of the human person, is withheld through contraception. This transforms an act which should signify total self-giving into a caricature of itself. At the least, people who engage in contracepted sex fail to value and accept their spouses as persons in their totality. Contracepted sex signifies an apprehension on the part of one or both spouses to commit fully to a permanent bond between them, the bond incarnated in a child.
Another manifestation of contraception's immorality is its perpetuation of the pernicious myth of the "unwanted" child. A child is no longer seen as an ontological good (a "gift from God"), valuable in every and all circumstances, but rather as one of many possible options, valuable only on a functional level. This is the contraceptive mentality, and it has many negative ramifications. Children who are conceived when contraception fails may become targets of abortion since they are "unwanted" or, to speak more accurately, since the parents are unwanting.
Even children who are "planned" may experience the unfortunate effects of the contraceptive mentality. These children have become valuable to their parents and are sought only under certain circumstances.They do not experience unconditional love and acceptance; they experience affection only at their parents' convenience. A lack of total love and acceptance must be disconcerting to a young child seeking affirmation and a sense of value.
MARTIN LUTHER
SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FOUNDER OF LUTHERANISM) aka protestantism
"[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her—that is, he lies with her and copulates—and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him" (Commentary on Genesis).
Mr Blackitt: No no, I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue
For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.
Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.
More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.
Given the widespread contraceptive practice of the first century of the Christian era, euphemistically referred to as 'using magic' and 'using drugs,' it is logical to see in the New Testament prohibition of mageia and pharmakeia an implicit condemnation of contraception. This is especially true when the contexts (Gal. 5:20 and Rev. 21:8, 22:15) refer to sins against chastity"
Thomas Aquinas taught that not all the truths of the faith can be proved by reason, but all the objections to the faith can be disproved by reason.
Contraception reduces the gift of self between spouses. Fecundity, as a normal, healthy, and ontologically good aspect of the human person, is withheld through contraception. This transforms an act which should signify total self-giving into a caricature of itself. At the least, people who engage in contracepted sex fail to value and accept their spouses as persons in their totality. Contracepted sex signifies an apprehension on the part of one or both spouses to commit fully to a permanent bond between them, the bond incarnated in a child.
Another manifestation of contraception's immorality is its perpetuation of the pernicious myth of the "unwanted" child. A child is no longer seen as an ontological good (a "gift from God"), valuable in every and all circumstances, but rather as one of many possible options, valuable only on a functional level. This is the contraceptive mentality, and it has many negative ramifications. Children who are conceived when contraception fails may become targets of abortion since they are "unwanted" or, to speak more accurately, since the parents are unwanting.
Even children who are "planned" may experience the unfortunate effects of the contraceptive mentality. These children have become valuable to their parents and are sought only under certain circumstances.They do not experience unconditional love and acceptance; they experience affection only at their parents' convenience. A lack of total love and acceptance must be disconcerting to a young child seeking affirmation and a sense of value.
elm: This blog is not a place for debating religious doctrine or I'd argue with you--and neither of us would win over the other. As Ogden Nash said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Don't confuse him with the facts. Use a double bitted axe."
My concern with everything you say, doctrine aside, is your willingness to force those beliefs on others--something the Roman Catholic Church has been guilty of through the ages. She has not changed, IMHO, if this last directive of the Pope and the block on the Supreme Court are any indication.
This is not Catholic bashing. If another religion tried to do this, I'd have the very same reaction. It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing morally with the decision they made. If you had been a reader of this blog for some time, you'd know I'm a seriously committed Christian and not a liberal. I'm also not particularly politically correct, so I don't hesitate to state what I see. What I see, keeping in mind the history of the Papacy and its willingness to force its beliefs on others, makes me very nervous. You don't have to like that.
These are the doctrines which the natural law and government are based on.
Wrong. One needn't believe in God, much less religious doctrines, to believe that murder, theft and slander are wrong. Thomas Jefferson was but one example of a Founder who disbelieved Roman doctrine but who valued and espoused "natural law." The famous allusion to natural law in the Declaration of Independence is the result of Jefferson the Deist. This would be the same Jefferson who rewrote the New Testament to more accurately reflect his disbelief in the Godhood of Jesus.
Remember "One Nation under God."
Is a perversion of the famous pledge written by Francis Bellamy (1892) which was edited into the pledge many decades after (1954) it became our national pledge, obviously without either the permission or the support of Bellamy. Bellamy said that the purpose of the pledge was to teach obedience to the state as a virtue. It was a Catholic group (surprise, surprise!!), the Knights of Columbus, who first urged adding the phrase "under God" to the pledge, and when it was later added served more as a propagandistic tool to highlight the official atheism of the Soviets than anything else.
The Catholic faith is not as scary or as restictive as some here mentioned in their posts.
Perhaps. But I have a different view and that gets to the very point of all this. The Roman Catholic Church has a very bloody, excruciatingly repressive history associated with it's past involvement with government. I have zero desire to go back to the Dark Ages, thank you very much. You are free to believe as you wish. All the rest of us ask is for the same consideration.
NancyJ said:What I see, keeping in mind the history of the Papacy and its willingness to force its beliefs on others, makes me very nervous. You don't have to like that.
How does the pope force anyone to believe anything? You give him way more power than he really has.
As with Pontius Pilot, he has no power that was not given to him from above.
Kevin said: Thomas Jefferson was but one example of a Founder who disbelieved Roman doctrine but who valued and espoused "natural law." The famous allusion to natural law in the Declaration of Independence is the result of Jefferson the Deist
What influence did John Carroll have on the writings?
How does the pope force anyone to believe anything?
The same way he did it during the Dark Ages and the time of the Inquisition: threats and coercion. You've been talking about history, go read the history of your church in the unexpurgated pages of history (the history that has not been changed in order to white wash). If you believe that someone has the power to condemn you to hell or grant you everlasting life, and with the condemnation he threatens torture now (or death), you'd likely at least give lip service to his commands, especially if you believe that he can grant you absolution from all your sins (yesterday's, today's, and tomorrow's) if you grant him what he wants, and that in the process, wealth and power can be yours. That's how it worked in history; that's how it can work now.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The pope is a man, a human being, who believes he is the infallible Vicar of the Son of God. That idea puts into his head the concept of absolute power. That has a siren song of its own for any fallible human, and the pope is fallible.
What influence did John Carroll have on the writings?
What possible difference does that make? I mean seriously! Jefferson's rejection of both Romanism and the Diety of Christ are beyond question. Jefferson is the one who insisted on inserting "natural law" into the Declaration.
What are you trying to accomplish here? Clearly it's not a constitutional defense of these five Justice's ruling. You passed the point of no return on that long ago. You've made clear that you don't distinguish between civil law and church law. We're clearly not interested in becoming Catholics, Becky, Nancy or myself are fully capable of carrying our weight in a doctrinal argument if we chose to do so. But we're not interested and it's a debate you can't win even if we were. So what are you trying to accomplish here?
Nancy
You just can't separate religion from life or our legal system. When people hear doctrine, ideas of the trinity and works vs. faith come first to mind. Though the values system we are talking about could be said to be part of Catholic doctrine, we are talking about values and not theology.
The Justices made valid decisions based on the law and come from a values system that is shared by most religions. I certainly don't want a valueless society.
Elm, it truly is a fascinating thing to see how rabidly blind you are here to the core issue. You do not seem to believe for one moment that without Christianity or some other religious morality a person can still be moral. Do you really believe that without the Ten Commandments, we would not have made murder illegal?
My very best friend once had a baby with encephaly. A perfect little body and face, but almost no brain. She did not find out until she was into the third trimester. Her choice was simple: carry a grossly deformed baby to term, deliver it, and watch it die or have a late term abortion. Nobody found anything wrong with her decision to terminate the pregnancy immediately. That is the sort of situation that these procedures are for, and the type of travesty of humanity that you focus on, late term abortion of a healthy fetus, is extremely rare and appalling to even most atheists. You don't need a deity to understand that.
I'm sure you are on an evangelical mission here, hoping you will save a soul or at least do your Christian duty and give us the opportunity to accept the truth. But many of us have already been down that road, and we know your position better than you think we do. We respect your beliefs, but we don't share them. To us, our God-given intelligence has pulled us out of religion and into something higher and more satisfying.
And in case you haven't realized it out yet, I do believe in God. I just don't put him in a box and think I have him all figured out like you do.
Leonid, I can't believe after all the verbiage put forth on the subject of legislating morality, you don't understand that it is wrong--let me put that in capital letters--WRONG to base legislative or judicial decisions on religious doctrine. I also don't believe that you can't see very clearly the danger of the scenario we have here: 5 Roman Catholic justices form a block on an issue with which not one of the others joins, and this shortly after a directive from their pope to use their positions for making and enforcing Catholic doctrine.
I happen to be pretty much in moral agreement with the basis of this decision, but what if it were a decision that would force me to violate a moral religious doctrine that I believe very strong in? If we aren't aware NOW of the dangers of this, we certainly won't be in any position to stop it then.
The Roman Catholic Pope was totally out of line when he directed his followers to use their positions to legislate and enforce Catholic doctrine. His followers are just as wrong when they do as he directs.
Then the judges would be impeached Nancy. Nothing to fear.
Ha! Do you have your head in the clouds. NOT a question.
I am a Catholic.
In fact, I am not just any Catholic.
My older brother is Arch-Bishop Joseph McFadden of Philadelphia.
And I AGREE with what Becky has written here.
I do not want the Pope (or any other religious leader) dictating to, or coercing either the Legislature that writes our laws or the Judiciary that interprets them.
Even a blind man can read this handwriting on the wall.
Hear! Hear!--Leonid, listen up.
The charges of "Catholic-bashing" which have tended to be more catholic bashing, and I've replied to them in a longer post than can politely placed here. Naturally, it's entitled "Catholic Bashing."
Here.
The individual members of the Supreme Court negotiate agreement on how our laws are or are not to be applied to daily life; decisions are made by majority rule. The need and ability to negotiate is greatly reduced when the majority of those individuals already share a belief system. Consider how difficult it is to lay aside one's beliefs in order to judge the merits of an opposing view. How much more difficult it is to do so equitably as one of a group sharing beliefs challenged by that differing view.
Five Supreme Court justices share an affiliation distinguished by precepts believed to come from an infallible source. It is not unreasonable to question if they can be fair and impartial when reviewing issues on which judgment already has been rendered by an authority the faithful consider higher than their own.
We must remain vigilant against the loss of our power to change the law.
By creating and upholding courts of law, we take upon ourselves the maintenance of behavioral standards once enforced by the fear of divine retribution. We bind ourselves by law because through experience we have learned that we can judge between right and wrong and must to live with any hope of security. Religion does not keep us from transgression so much as recognition of the consequences does. Those who give power over their lives to an authority that does not recognize the rights of the individual give up the possibility of justice.
Commenting by HaloScan
