<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi Roger,<BR>
<BR>
It is also possible that Sotomayor knows her own Catholic tradition well and realizes that the Church did not consider the abortion of a first trimester fetus murder until 1917. Perhaps she also knows that two of the greatest minds of the Church--Augustine and Thomas Aquinas--did not believe that the early fetus was a person. As I have argued endlessly on this list, their position has good scientific support.<BR>
<BR>
Also it is possible that Sotomayor is a secret member of an organization called "Catholics for Free Choice," which points out all these significant historical facts.<BR>
<BR>
Nick<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com on behalf of Joe Campbell<BR>
Sent: Fri 6/5/2009 2:19 AM<BR>
To: lfalen<BR>
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020<BR>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?<BR>
<BR>
Roger,<BR>
<BR>
You can be pro-life and also pro-choice. The issue is whether or not <BR>
you are truely in favor of freedom of religion and thought and <BR>
practice and are willing to accept that some folks don't share your <BR>
narrow world view. Why not let them decide for themselves.<BR>
<BR>
Joe Campbell<BR>
<BR>
On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:44 AM, lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> I do not think that her views on abortion are well known. If turns <BR>
> out that she is pro-life, I lot of you with the possible exception <BR>
> of Keely will be less enthused with her appointment. It would be <BR>
> ironic if she turned out to be the reverse of Souter on the abortion <BR>
> issue.<BR>
> Roger<BR>
> -----Original message-----<BR>
> From: Ted Moffett starbliss@gmail.com<BR>
> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:41:37 -0700<BR>
> To: Moscow Vision 2020 vision2020@moscow.com<BR>
> Subject: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?<BR>
><BR>
>> Gender, racial or ethnic background may or may not be important in <BR>
>> a choice<BR>
>> for a US Supreme Court justice, but it seems religious background <BR>
>> is not a<BR>
>> major focus in the case of Sotomayor's nomination.<BR>
>><BR>
>> And why is this issue not on the front page? If she were Muslim, <BR>
>> Hindu or<BR>
>> Atheist, the full force of the religious bias in the US body <BR>
>> politic towards<BR>
>> a challenge to the Christian/Judaism monopoly on US politics would be<BR>
>> revealed, despite the claim of the religious right that <BR>
>> Christianity is<BR>
>> being marginalized in government. Religion is a dominant influence <BR>
>> on<BR>
>> ideology that should be open to full critical rational fact based<BR>
>> discussion, as well as gender, racial or ethnic background.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Article on Sotomayor's Catholic background:<BR>
>><BR>
>> <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/politics/31catholics.html?ref=global-home">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/politics/31catholics.html?ref=global-home</A><BR>
>> -------------------<BR>
>> Why is there not a single US Senator who declares themselves of <BR>
>> another<BR>
>> religious background than Christian or Jewish, of one variety or <BR>
>> another?<BR>
>> There are two US Senators who are "unspecified." Now there's a <BR>
>> faith for<BR>
>> you!<BR>
>><BR>
>> <A HREF="http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html#109">http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html#109</A><BR>
>><BR>
>> <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate</A><BR>
>><BR>
>>> From website above:<BR>
>><BR>
>> According to the data, no Senator falls under the category "No<BR>
>> Religion/Atheist/Agnostic" - a category embodied by 15.0% of the U.S.<BR>
>> population according to the 2001 Census.<BR>
>> -------------------<BR>
>> Religion is the most pervasive form of prejudice against a political<BR>
>> position (and despite what some might wish otherwise, US Supreme <BR>
>> Court<BR>
>> justice nominations are very political in nature) in US politics, <BR>
>> in the US<BR>
>> Senate or the presidency. More than gender, race or ethnicity.<BR>
>><BR>
>> No politician running for the US Senate or the presidency would <BR>
>> stand a<BR>
>> chance if they openly declared themselves Atheist.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Ted Moffett<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
> =======================================================<BR>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>
> <A HREF="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>
> <A HREF="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>
> =======================================================<BR>
<BR>
=======================================================<BR>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>
<A HREF="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A> <BR>
<A HREF="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>
=======================================================<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>