<div><em><em>Wed Jun 10 19:15:45 PDT 2009</em> , *Paul Rumelhart* <</em><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020"><em>godshatter at yahoo.com</em></a><em> wrote:</em></div>
<p><em><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-June/064300.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-June/064300.html</a></em></p>
<div>I'm not saying "we just <br>can't know" about her regularity of church attendance. I'm saying "we <br>just can't know" what's in her heart, what she actually believes deep <br>
down inside. The most regular church attender might be a closet <br>Luciferan Satanist, people who never go to church may be extremely <br>spiritual Christians. We can speculate wildly about what they actually <br>believe. We can even read what they claim to believe, but we'll never <br>
know exactly what they actually believe, because we can't get inside <br>their heads or their hearts. <br><em>---------------</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Secretly "Luciferian Satanist" SCOTUS nominees? Reads like a "National Enquirer" front page headline... Do you really think there is any significant probability that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito, all Catholic SCOTUS members, are secretly "Luciferian Satanists?" I don't.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If Sotomayer were an outspoken Muslim, Hindu or Atheist, we would discover how much people think religious orientation is an important issue regarding choosing a SCOTUS member. As I stated earlier, there is not a single member of the US Congress who is explicitly Atheist. If I am wrong, someone correct this error.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I considered whether prejudice against a Gay politician is as strong as prejudice against an Atheist politician, and came to the conclusion that an openly Gay US Congressional candidate has a better chance of election than an openly Atheist politician, regardless how qualified or morally upstanding. There is a bias in the US in favor of those of Christian or Jewish background and belief when it comes to political life, and any candidate for the US Congress or the presidency (or the SCOTUS) who was explicitly Atheist would be opposed aggressively by those of religious orientation who have a prejudice against Atheists. No one in this thread has addressed this issue full on...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Determining the mindset of a US Supreme Court nominee is not so full of doubt that we can't make a probable reasonable judgement on whether or not they are a "closet Luciferian Satanist" if determining they attend church regularly. I suppose error is possible, but highly unlikely. Unless someone is deliberatly hiding their religious orientation, a reasonable probable judement can be determined about what they believe regarding religion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Examining the religious beliefs of a US Supreme Court nominee is important to evaluate their values orientation. It is naive to think that a lawyer in their professional judgements truly always only apply the law as it is written, without some sort of personal bias, even if unconscious, influencing their decisions. And religion is one of the main factors in life determining bias, often unconscious.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Whether Sotomayer attends church regularly, belongs to Opus Dei, or is what some call a "cultural Catholic" (which some might claim means she is not a practicing Catholic, but only has a Catholic background), is important to determine her orientation to critical values issues the US Supreme Court will face. Scalia is a conservative Catholic that some claim has associations with Opus Dei, a conservative Catholic organization. The official position of the Catholic church opposes abortion. Based on the current religious orientation of Sotomayer and Scalia (there may be other factors though that influence their values), on decisions that involve abortion rights, one of the most important issues the SCOTUS may face, I think Sotomayor is not as likely to orient her decisions towards over turning Roe v. Wade, or undermining abortion rights in other ways, as much as Scalia will.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A comparison with orientations within Islam might be made. Someone supporting Islamic Orthodoxy has a different orientation than a Sufi Muslim:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.sjsu.edu/upload/course/course_6217/Phukan_Islamic_Orthodoxy_and_Sufism.pdf">http://www.sjsu.edu/upload/course/course_6217/Phukan_Islamic_Orthodoxy_and_Sufism.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/10/09, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a></b> <<a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>Ted and Paul,<br><br>I guess i have to ask the question, "Does it make a difference one way or<br>
the other"?<br><br>Taking myself as an example, I was raised and am a practicing Catholic. I<br>do not believe in abortions at all, however, I do believe in choice. Pro<br>choice does NOT equal pro-abortion.<br><br>And just as an aside, have you ever noticed how the "anti-abortion" folks<br>
are usually pro death penalty? I think those of us that oppose the death<br>penalty (which I do), should just call it post-birth abortions and we<br>could get most of the anti-abortion folks on board!<br><br>Wayne<br><br>
<br><br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> Ted Moffett wrote:<br>>> On 6/5/09, *Paul Rumelhart* <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>> wrote:<br>>><br>>><br>>> I used to speculate wildly about whether or not our former<br>>> President was<br>
>> really a believer or if he was blatantly manipulating the religious<br>>> right through their own predilictions (or both). What it comes<br>>> down to<br>>> is this: we can't look into their hearts. Sotomayor may be the most<br>
>> devout Catholic evar, but doesn't outwardly show it on a day-to-day<br>>> basis. For all I know, she goes to church three times a week just<br>>> to<br>>> get away from her family. We just can't know.<br>
>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Why do you state "we just can't know" about Sotomayor's regularity of<br>>> church attendance?<br>><br>> Rereading that, I see I wasn't very clear. I'm not saying "we just<br>
> can't know" about her regularity of church attendance. I'm saying "we<br>> just can't know" what's in her heart, what she actually believes deep<br>> down inside. The most regular church attender might be a closet<br>
> Luciferan Satanist, people who never go to church may be extremely<br>> spiritual Christians. We can speculate wildly about what they actually<br>> believe. We can even read what they claim to believe, but we'll never<br>
> know exactly what they actually believe, because we can't get inside<br>> their heads or their hearts.<br>><br>> At the time I wrote it, I didn't know how often she attended church, so<br>> I covered both sides of the spectrum. My point still stands - we can't<br>
> look into her heart so we can't know for certain if she's a "true<br>> believer" or not.<br>><br>> Paul<br>><br>><br>><br></blockquote></div>