Amy Coney Barrett
mtierney said:
systemic racism exists, because human nature is selfish, protecting what they have. Just a thought, perhaps there is a need for more people as educated as Judge Barrett, who was immersed in the Catholic teachings you believe?
none of these far right people, Barrett included, appear to be immersed in the same Catholic teachings that I learned in school.
here's more on the craphole that is originalism
ml1 said:
none of these far right people, Barrett included, appear to be immersed in the same Catholic teachings that I learned in school.
Your Catholic teachers did not believe that life begins at conception? You were not taught the Ten Commandments? You were not taught to love your neighbor as yourself....not to commit adultery...etc?
ml1 said:
mtierney said:
systemic racism exists, because human nature is selfish, protecting what they have. Just a thought, perhaps there is a need for more people as educated as Judge Barrett, who was immersed in the Catholic teachings you believe?
none of these far right people, Barrett included, appear to be immersed in the same Catholic teachings that I learned in school.
I would think a truly selfish person would be selfish toward members of his/her own race as well as those of other races. I believe there are people who are not selfish at all as to their "own people" but are racist.
Further as to the issue of selfishness today's Republican Party follows the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand more than that of Jesus.Former Speaker Paul Ryan said he was a big fan of Ayn Rand.
As we are discussing politics in the midst of a Presidential Election I would think it would be clear to any observer, no matter what his or her opinion is on any other subject, that Biden is not the one who exhibits selfishness.
mtierney said:
Your Catholic teachers did not believe that life begins at conception? You were not taught the Ten Commandments? You were not taught to love your neighbor as yourself....not to commit adultery...etc?
Are you accusing ml1 of committing adultery? 
My religious education did not touch on the subject of conception. My recollection is that we did not talk about sex at all. When I learned about the Ten Commandments I remember some misinformation when I asked what "adultery" meant.
OTOH there was no ambiguity to "Thou Shalt not make any graven images". You Catholics seem to have overlooked that one.
mtierney said:
ml1 said:
none of these far right people, Barrett included, appear to be immersed in the same Catholic teachings that I learned in school.
Your Catholic teachers did not believe that life begins at conception? You were not taught the Ten Commandments? You were not taught to love your neighbor as yourself....not to commit adultery...etc?
The Trumpy way of misrepresenting what other people say, like this response to Mr. ml1, is getting tiresome.l
mtierney said:
ml1 said:
none of these far right people, Barrett included, appear to be immersed in the same Catholic teachings that I learned in school.
Your Catholic teachers did not believe that life begins at conception? You were not taught the Ten Commandments? You were not taught to love your neighbor as yourself....not to commit adultery...etc?
As a Trump supporter, it's pretty clear that you don't care much about those commandments.
PVW, I know we don’t want to go off-topic, however I suspect the Eastern Orthodox Churches might politely disagree with you re your timelines 
StanV (and others) is being most restrained in refraining from commenting that Jesus’ Bible, the Jewish Bible, did indeed exist for quite some time before the Council of Nicea, in fact before the first century BCE. I find I’m always amused when people cite The Ten Commandments, when there are 163 - ethics and honesty in business & consumer law, fairness in town planning, respect and dignity in our interactions with others, with animals and with the natural world are well covered as well as basic health/medicine and sanitation.
There was no need to rewrite ‘The Testaments’, except for the politics of trying to keep the Roman Empire going
StanV, I also don’t ‘get’ the « One Gd » that’s split into 3, even though it’s been carefully explained many times in great detail. If we all carry a drop of the Divine Spark, then why can’t we just recognise that in everyone and treat each other accordingly?
(We can discuss this another time, elsewhere. It was the basis of my Uni studies, plus there’s been so much fascinating archaeology over the past decade)
OK. Back to reading. I’ve been disruptive enough.
mtierney said:
Your Catholic teachers did not believe that life begins at conception? You were not taught the Ten Commandments? You were not taught to love your neighbor as yourself....not to commit adultery...etc?
back in the day our teachers didn't spend a lot of time teaching about "when life begins." And adultery wasn't a big topic for elementary school kids.
But I don't really feel like spending the amount of time it would take to list all the teachings of Jesus regarding how we should treat other people, and how those teachings are routinely trashed by Republicans. Especially Donald J. Trump.
here's an interesting turn
Inbox: The plaintiff AND the defendant in Obergefell v. Hodges, the marriage equality case, are teaming up to oppose Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/RO1TYn03Dd
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 19, 2020
Some explaining for the “devout” .....
mtierney said:
Some explaining for the “devout” .....
That article doesn't "explain" anything. It does misuse scripture and the writings of early Church figures for it's partisan political point.
Unfortunately, some Democratic politicians say stupid things sometimes, because they're uninformed. Taking those statements and then using them as the basis to attack genuine, sincere Christians, such as Joe Biden, as this article does is just more politics (here disguised as a religious discussion).
And that Pelosi cartoon needs explaining, because it doesn't make any sense.
nohero said:
And that Pelosi cartoon needs explaining, because it doesn't make any sense.
Don't hold your breath.
Trump believes in only one branch of Government. He has said that Article 11 gives him the right to do anything he wants.
“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” — James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 51
“In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” — Ibid.
DaveSchmidt said:
“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” — James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 51
“In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” — Ibid.
How has that aged? I feel like the legislative authority has waned while the executive has waxed, and the judiciary has on the whole deferred to the executive. I also feel that this has been mainly due to the legislative branch choosing to cede power to the executive rather than the executive seizing it.
PVW said:
How has that aged? I feel like the legislative authority has waned while the executive has waxed, and the judiciary has on the whole deferred to the executive. I also feel that this has been mainly due to the legislative branch choosing to cede power to the executive rather than the executive seizing it.
I agree. If ambition, as caricatured in the person of Nancy Pelosi, restores some authority to the branch that necessarily predominates, what’s Kirk Walters and mtierney’s beef?
Re: federalist article linked above. Apologies for not reading the article. I'm just going by "your kind aren't welcome in public life" in link.
Let's see, sincerely (and overtly) religious people in top government, last 20 years, though some were, imo, misguided...
Among candidates for president and VP, I'll go with at least:
GW Bush
Kerry
Obama
Biden
Romney
Pence
and probably H Clinton if you count following up on Sunday School lessons re: service, "least of these," etc. without talking about it all the time
By my count, that's 6 or 7 out of11*. Doesn't seem to be much of a handicap.
*excludes VP candidates i don't remember, and people who may be overtly devout but i don't know it. In addition to those named above, the 11 includes Cheney, Gore, McCain, and of course DJT
mjc said:
Re: federalist article linked above. Apologies for not reading the article. I'm just going by "your kind aren't welcome in public life" in link.
Let's see, sincerely (and overtly) religious people in top government, last 20 years, though some were, imo, misguided...
Among candidates for president and VP, I'll go with at least:
GW Bush
Kerry
Obama
Biden
Romney
Pence
and probably H Clinton if you count following up on Sunday School lessons re: service, "least of these," etc. without talking about it all the time
By my count, that's 6 or 7 out of11*. Doesn't seem to be much of a handicap.
*excludes VP candidates i don't remember, and people who may be overtly devout but i don't know it. In addition to those named above, the 11 includes Cheney, Gore, McCain, and of course DJT
Tim Kaine is a Catholic.
DaveSchmidt said:
I agree. If ambition, as caricatured in the person of Nancy Pelosi, restores some authority to the branch that necessarily predominates, what’s Kirk Walters and mtierney’s beef?
Can only speak for myself, of course.
Pelosi’s “Ambition” has, for months now, kept stimulus checks from being distributed to those suffering from job loss, etc. due to the pandemic.
She is first of all “ambitious” for Nancy Pelosi. The extra Trillion she stalling for represents payouts to cover items, unrelated to the lock down of our economy, but urgent in her view to solidify her political position. I really wish we could see a complete list of who and/or what is getting this largess from the taxpayers.
There is another reason floating around, but I would prefer not to believe it, so I won’t mention it here.
mtierney said:
Can only speak for myself, of course.
Pelosi’s “Ambition” has, for months now, kept stimulus checks from being distributed to those suffering from job loss, etc. due to the pandemic.
That's not accurate. The House passed a bill. The Senate also has to vote, and the Senate GOP leader has prevented that.
[Edited to add] And this is the thread about the Supreme Court nominee. For lies about Nancy Pelosi, the "Rose Garden" might be more suitable.
mtierney said:
Pelosi’s “Ambition” has, for months now, kept stimulus checks from being distributed to those suffering from job loss, etc. due to the pandemic.
Another Republican lie, spread by who else, tierney.
The new stimulus payment was passed by Pelosi's house in May. Its Republican leader McConnell who has derided the legislation and has blocked it in the Senate.
And now, McConnell's at it again:
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, told Republican senators privately on Tuesday that he has advised the White House not to strike a deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a new stimulus bill before Election Day, cautioning against reaching an agreement that most in the party cannot accept.
Mr. McConnell’s counsel, confirmed by three Republicans familiar with his remarks, threw cold water on President Trump’s increasingly urgent push to enact a fresh round of pandemic aid before he faces voters on Nov. 3.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/20/business/us-economy-coronavirus
btw- tierney. Keep on supporting those who kick you in the a**. Republicans are blocking financial aid to blue states like NJ. If that continues you can kiss your Senior Freeze and Homestead Rebate goodbye. Whereas, they love throwing billions at farmers (50 billion in subsidies last year), airlines and large corporations.
fwiw - the states' aid in the Pelosi bill is for all states, not just for "blue" states, whatever TF that actually means.
Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, privately told Republican senators on Tuesday that he had warned the White House not to strike a pre-election deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a new round of stimulus, moving to head off an agreement that President Trump has demanded but most in his party oppose.
Mr. McConnell’s remarks, confirmed by four Republicans familiar with them, threw cold water on Mr. Trump’s increasingly urgent push to enact a new round of pandemic aid before Election Day. They came just as Ms. Pelosi offered an upbeat assessment of her negotiations with Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, telling Democrats that their latest conversation had yielded “common ground as we move closer to an agreement.”
Sorry Floyd, I am only seeing your post now and realize I re-posted the same content
drummerboy said:
fwiw - the states' aid in the Pelosi bill is for all states, not just for "blue" states, whatever TF that actually means.
A reason its being blocked because Republicans don't want those "rich wasteful" Blue states to get anything.
You don't know what a blue state is?
basil said:
Sorry Floyd, I am only seeing your post now and realize I re-posted the same content
No need to be.
This happens a lot. We're not proofreaders that are expected to read every comment before we post.
Floyd said:
drummerboy said:
fwiw - the states' aid in the Pelosi bill is for all states, not just for "blue" states, whatever TF that actually means.
A reason its being blocked because Republicans don't want those "rich wasteful" Blue states to get anything.
You don't know what a blue state is?
yeah, but they're implying that only blue states are getting the aid.
and I think that calling states "blue" when you're talking about giving aid is yet another travesty foisted on us by the R's and I don't think we should get in the habit of referring to states that way.
I feel like there's a doctoral thesis in some graduate religious studies program waiting to be written about how conservative Catholic justices take a very fundamentalist protestant approach to Constitutional exegesis.
ETA -- that was a very inside baseball Catholic theology comment. For a more general audience:
The "originalist" judicial philosophy feels similar to me to the way fundamentalist protestants approach the Bible -- claiming to be able to derive the original meaning of the author (and, in the case of the Constitution, thus also elevating the founders to a quasi-divine status), and to be seeking to live according to that intent. It's weird to me to see Catholics taking that approach because that's not the Catholic tradition at all. Catholicism claims its origins back to Jesus and the 12 apostles, before there even was a Bible. The choice of what even is the Bible didn't happen until the 4th century. Textual originalism doesn't even really make sense in that context.
On top of that, there's a whole formal and informal apparatus for defining doctrine that's quite apart from the Biblical text. The "magisterium" -- meaning the teaching authority of the Church -- has equal status with the Biblical texts. This is in contrast to the idea of sola scriptura -- scripture alone -- that the protestant reformers pushed.
Ok, still very inside baseball, feel free to ignore, but at least the comment is hopefully a bit less obscure to folks who aren't church history nerds.