http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9673338/Once again, nobody should be surprised at this revelation that Meirs’ religion was one of the main points that got her nominated. I wanted to make a note that we are now in a place where the President chooses SCOTUS justices using a litmus test that he openly acknowledges — contrary to his campaign promise. If a Jewish president nominated a Jew because they shared the same faith, or if an Atheist nominated an Atheist, we’d have screams of intolerance and bigotry. But this kind of bigotry is OK, and admitted and practiced, in the White House. US Law specifically prohibits religious litmus tests to serve public office.
But it wasn’t a litmus test. It was a religious test. Sheesh!
Some people.
I wonder how many atheists sneaked through confirmation before this. Can’t have that, can we? Next thing you know, they’ll want to enforce the Constitution!
This was all over the local news last night(slow news day here in oregon), and I heard cries of outrage at this statment from democrats AND republicans. Nobody except the ultra-religious right think that Bush is being appropriate. They also showed polls about Bush’s standings. It shows that 58% of the country thinks he’s a boob (this is the highest it’s been in all eight years of the Bush regime). Also 49% of the country wants Democrats to take over as opposed to 38% of the country wanting republicans to keep going. I hope the elections reflect this. True it doesn’t really matter the Bush’s support is slipping, since he can’t get re-elected anyways so he’s probably thinking, “Hey, I can do whatever the hell I want!” Hello World War III.
Left out a little tidbit there. 49% of the country want democrats in charge, and 38% want republicans…this is the biggest gap between the parties in over a decade. The conservative republicans are showing there true colors now. They’re in charge and now and screwing up big time! I’m just glad people are noticing instead of continuing to support Bush because he’s a xtian.
Well, many people cited Bush’s belief in Bob as their reason for re-electing him, and he knows that, so I guess Bush is trying to win some popularity constests here.
Dangerman
I participated in a phone survey the other day about those very stats. I reamed the pres on every question they posed about him. I even had the pollster laughing.
They also asked questions about our preparedness for Katrina and Rita, about future preparedness for such things, plus the avian flu and terrorist attacks.
I usually hang up on surveyors. Glad I took the time to put my nickel’s worth in!
David: ” but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
U.S Constitution. 1789.
I think this qualifies.
But I’ve got a feeling that Bush/Miers will probably provide some wiggle room. A weak premise, perhaps, but I’m sure someone will say, “But that wasn’t a requirement! That was an elective option!” or somesuch nonsense.
Another re-activist judge. Oh goody.
Can you say “Theocracy”, boys and girls?
Maybe Bush meant “litmus test” in the context of the original scientific term and tried to slide one by us assuming we all understood it to be a political term too.
A firm grasp of basic scientific principles and tests (middle school biology and chemistry) would be required of him, though, in order to pull that one off. I think it’s pretty safe to say that this president is completely unaware of the meaning of the scientific term “litmus test” – he clearly doesn’t understand a simpler scientific term “theory” which is at the core of science today.
Was fickt das? Maybe I am a bit biased, but am I off the mark by suggesting any candidate to serve as a ‘justice’ on the highest court in the US have at least served as a lower court judge in one of the 50 States? I think my good buddy, who is an attorney at the Dept. of Transportation, is a good guy too. Or maybe Judge Judy? Maybe ‘W’ thinks she would make a cool judge on Capitol Hill. Did Judge Wapner retire yet?
Isn’t that a requirement? I thought SCOTUS justices HAD to serve as a judge on a lower court in order to move up to the big league. If it is, that’s 2 things Bush is ignoring in the Constitution.
Religion shouldn’t matter when it comes to how qualified someone is for a job. Bush is indeed ignoring the Constitution. This is just another case of how people feel as though they are above the law because of their religious beliefs. Really, Mr. Bush, but when I’m looking for someone to do a job, I’m much more interested in their PAST EXPERIENCE than what church they attend (or if they even attend a church). Luckily, people are having serious doubts about Meirs, so I strongly believe that we have nothing to fear about.
Dangerman, I agree with what you said about the Right really f*****g up. It’s ironic how Bush only won the past election due to the number of religious votes (who, by the way, were told by their preachers that if Kerry/the liberals got in control the name of their god would be forever removed from the country), and now he’s being badmouthed because he’s planning on theocracy. My, what a country this is!
I’m having a hard time getting pissed about this one. The president gets to pick whoever he wants, so it’s his right to choose someone with the same superstitious delusions. It’s not like we could have realistically expected him to pick a non-christian. He should definitely be embarrassed to publicly admit that belief in supernatural nonsense was a factor in his decision process for selecting an official whose primary function is to objectively analyze facts and evidence, but it’s not like openly mocking the constitution has ever come back to haunt him. I’m actually kinda glad that he’s doing what he’s doing, because the result will ultimately be the same, except the Republican party might be weakened during the confirmation process.
Funny comments….I believe Bush said her religion played a part in him choosing her. Call it what you want but it isn’t a test. If that bothers you look up what John Jay said about public office and Christianity.
Are you telling me that Clinton didn’t view Ginsburg’s views on moral issues before choosing her?
Are you claiming that her affiliation with the ACLU (that great defender of NAMBLA and illegal aliens) didn’t play a role in him choosing her? Get over it. It’s the Presidents choice.
The constitution clearly states that the President can nominate ANYONE for the office.
Exactly what part of the constitution is Bush ignoring?
“The constitution clearly states that the President can nominate ANYONE for the office.”
And the senate has the right strike down whomever he nominates, and according to polls, this shouldn’t be too much of stretch.
If government is to keep respecting the state, and religion separation clause, then one must realize that Bush intended to breach this from the start. Had he chosen someone who supported free-market values, without the intention of pushing theocratic government institutions, then maybe what Bush did here would not be so outrageous. Clinton did not pick Ginsberg based on religious affiliation.
Exactly. Also the fact that Bush is going around like “yeah, I pick xtians because I know they’re good people.” Even if it’s not wrong based on the Constitution it still outrages and offends a lot of people. Plus a lot of the problem is that she is inexperienced. Her only experience in a possition of any real power has been…get this…head of the lottery in texas when Bush was the governor. What the CRAP! Then he goes on to say that the fact that she is a super-xtian contributed to his choice, and all the churches accepted her. It’s almost like he’s TRYING to say the religion was his only deciding factor!
phreedm: “her affiliation with the ACLU (that great defender of NAMBLA and illegal aliens)”
Do I detect a note of disaproval here?
BTW, last time I checked, the ACLU goes to bat for EVERYONE, not just the people you dislike, as you seem to infer.
I must say Dangerman. I love your use of the statement, “What the CRAP!”
It’s very cute, and at the same time, very effectively cool. No joking around, What the CRAP!, indeed
lol…thanks Slimmins! Nice to see my writing skills getting appriciated!
Comment from: Slimmins
Had he chosen someone who supported free-market values, without the intention of pushing theocratic government institutions, then maybe what Bush did here would not be so outrageous.
Sounds like your own litmus test and thank you for proving my point. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.
Comment from: reluctantatheist
BTW, last time I checked, the ACLU goes to bat for EVERYONE, not just the people you dislike, as you seem to infer.
Wow, talk about believing in a myth.
Phreedm,
You are completely missing the point. A litmus test isn’t a “test” as you point out, it’s an indicator. In chemistry it’s an indicator of PH, in politics it’s an indicator of support/disapproval of hot-button political issues of the times. In this case, choosing a candidate with consideration of her religion as a key factor is a litmus test. It shows that the president believes all indicators point to her voting from the pulpit rather than the bench.
Dave is only pointing out that it was a campain promise by Bush that he would apply no litmus tests to SCOTUS nominees.
If you disagree, I will point you to Wikipedia for better understanding of the political litmus test. The only reason it’s even called a test at all is because it’s used to “test” PH in chemistry. It’s only an amusing (or not) coincidence that Erythrolitmin will change Blue/Red (political colors) as a result of applying the “test.”
A quick question you may or may not have the answer to. How many times has the ACLU represented a Christian in support of their freedom of speech and religion?
Jnb
It’s not a specific number, but,
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003111.html
Phreedm,
There are these little things called “Civil Rights” in this country. Perhaps you’ve heard of them? The ACLU is the “American Civil Liberties Union” and ONLY looks at supporting cases from a civil rights standpoint. They defend the civil rights of criminals and good citizens alike. They don’t care what religion you are or aren’t.
This country believes that all people (desirable to the majority or otherwise) deserve the right to legal representation. Granted, not everyone appears to believe in this, but it is one of the hallmarks of our legal system. Y’know, innocent until proven guilty and all that good stuff you will take for granted should you ever be hauled off to jail.
Activist Claims ACLU Actions Harms Citizens, Wants Litigious Group Curbed
SO…wait. Maybe I’ve just come out from under my rock, but I think I’m missing something here. Are xtians like, anti-ACLU or something?
It would make sense, since xtians are anti-civil right. It seems like the group in JW’s article is certainly anti-civil rights, but do most xtians have a problem with the ACLU?
You guys should go to the homepage for agapepress. Check out what the xtians are freaking out about. the American Girl dolls have formed a partnership with a pro-choice, pro-lesbian group…GASP!
Are xtians sad that the ACLU is “discriminating” against them by wanting to preserve civil rights? Well tough shit. It’s not like xtians are victims of hate crimes (except from other xtians) and it’s not like they don’t have 1000’s of organizations that support them. Whereas we have 1000’s of organizations (including the White House now) that discriminate against us. I mean, seriously phreedom, have you EVER been made fun of, or had a hate crime against you carried out by a non-xtian? I personally have been kicked out of clubs, been refused service at xtian stores, and had xtians try to get sexual assault charges filed against me, BECAUSE I’M AN ATHEIST! That’s the kind of shit the ACLU gets rid of. They clean up after xtian intolerance and bigotry.
phreedm:
“Wow, talk about believing in a myth.”
Pot.kettle.black, as they say in Usenet circles.
Dangerman:
“I mean, seriously phreedom, have you EVER been made fun of, or had a hate crime against you carried out by a non-xtian?”
I’m going to go out on a limb here, & guess people like Tim & phreedm probably have not been on the receiving end of anything resembling discrimination, seeing as they are in the majority.
Time for an FF quote:
“There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong…. In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right…. – James Madison, letter to James Monroe, October 5, 1786″
Dangerman: truth be told, they (ACLU)clean up after all bigotry & intolerance, not just xtian.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, after all.
Does anyone else remember the recent case where the ACLU defended some chistians who wanted to perform baptisms in a public lake? A park official asked them to leave because of his poor understanding of church/state seperation (christianity is under attack!!), so the ACLU fought for their free excercise rights. I looked briefly, but I couldn’t find a link. I also remember reading recently that a christian group refused the help of the ACLU, because they don’t approve of some of the their other cases. I can’t remember what the context was, but it was pretty funny.
It bugs me how they can be so anti-civil rights. Really, I don’t see what the problem is, even with the bible (except for homosexuals). But if memory serves, I’m pretty sure that the people in charge of keeping segregation legal were xtians. Where in the bible does it say that blacks and mexicans are inferior humans? If it does then ok…I haven’t read all of it so it might. But if it doesn’t they why would they support something like that? Any ideas?
It’s not that they’re anti-civil rights. They’re all for civil rights… their own!
The only time they’re against civil rights is when others want them too.
JustinW,
I remember hearing that, for some reason I think it happened around my area (SW PA).
Dangerman,
Most good BAX’s like Strom Thurmond fought so hard against the civil rights movement in the 50’s. I know a bunch who are not afraid to whine about all the “dirty mexicans, blacks, jews, and sand scratchers”, and tell me I need to be born twice, or else I am no good. They discriminate to keep their place at the top of the totem pole.
Just read a report that 2% (YES THAT’S 2%) of African Americans approve of the shrub, there’s got to be some inclination of him not doing what’s in their best interests huh?
Well he never did didn’t he? There was that whole fiasco down in florida and the issue with his inaugural parade. The African-American population has hated Bush from the get go.
Anecdote: my white catholic cousin in law, ultra macho ex urban cop hates the ACLU because they are ?anti-American?, read, ?anti-xtian?. Nevermind the ACLU has defended many flavors of xtian groups. He has only noticed the secular ones like prayer in school cases.
His type of xtian does not understand the constitution is for everybody. They think, ?pilgrims were some kind of xtians, therefore all America now is supposed to be xtian.?
?America was founded as a xtian nation based on xtian values,? that shit.
The ACLU has openly fought against violations of civil liberties pertaining to religions forcing their way into places the constitution says they aren?t supposed to be. That makes the ACLU the biggest target the RR has in their purpose of coalescing hatred for the secular.
One more litmus test anecdote:
Our cat is gravely ill and in the hospital. The vet says she will pray for her. I?m so relieved by this.
In our small city you can find xtian fish symbols all over the place on business identifiers.
What does anyone suppose would happen if there were an atheist identifier, a public, clearly recognizable equivalent of the xtian fish? I say arson would be the result. Or for the more sophisticated, lawsuits, or just slander.
In other words, I knew my vet was of the xtian affliction but to hear her use it in a professional context is such a sobering letdown. She?s a good doc, I trust her, I think. But obviously her judgement includes voodoo.
I would love to take my cat to an excellent atheist vet if I could find one ! Sheeit, my ophthalmologist has catholic crucified jeezus all over his clinics.
Professional public atheists: it?s not to be. Not here, not now.
Part of that problem, Natasha, is not always that the business is xtian (although that’s probably true in many cases) but that the business has to cater to it’s customers. I don’t care if a dead jesus is hanging in my local hair salon, but xtians sure do. Hell, if I owned a store I might even put one up if it would bring in more customers. That’s the problem, once one person does it, ALL the businesses have to do it or they lose xtian business, which unfortunately, makes up about 75% of their profit.
It’s not a practice that should be legal, but there’s absolutely nothing “wrong” with it. Since they get just as much protection under the constitution as we SHOULD (but don’t always get).
Whoops, pressed send too soon.
My friend’s uncle owns a small business somewhere (???) and he was telling me a story about this very issue. Although he’s not an atheist, he didn’t believe in putting a fish on his store because he was one of the VERY FEW xtians who actually accept and respect other people’s beliefs. However, his competition (trying to remember what they sell…I want to say books…or something like that maybe) had a fish on his window. He asked people why they went into the other store and they told him that the owner had values they could trust. 100 bucks says they’ve never met him before. He lost so many customers that he had to put up a fish too, just to stay in business. sad
Dangerman,
That breaks my heart yet it’s funny in a way because it shows these xtians aren’t so much promoting ethics and brotherly love as much as bringing the marks in.
They’re using their little fishy to sell stuff, in jayzus’ name. Kills me.