<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d3510346\x26blogName\x3dBlogcorner+preacher\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://bcpreacher.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://bcpreacher.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3221463383852579554', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>
RSS feed for Blogcorner Preacher
          CONTACT    |      ABOUT     |      SEARCH     |      RECENT POSTS     |      ARCHIVES     |      RELIGION     |      BoG    |      DECABLOG    |     
7.28.2005    |    Religious test?
The open-mouth-insert-foot senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, is at it again. This time, in his zeal to promote the culture of death in America, he has engaged Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on whether his Catholic faith would interfere with killing unborn babies.

Well, ok, Durbin didn't put it quite like that. What he did do, was sneakier, but this was its underlying message. According to a law professor (via the LA Times), Durbin queried Roberts as to "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral." Now, you need to know the point of view of the writer, an apparent secular liberal. Why the label of "secular liberal?" Consider the following by the writer, Jonathan Turley, a law professor, on the exchange between Durbin and Roberts:
Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

It was the first unscripted answer in the most carefully scripted nomination in history. It was also the wrong answer. In taking office, a justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A judge's personal religious views should have no role in the interpretation of the laws. (emphasis added)
Consider carefully that last part: no role for religious views in interpretation of the law. The faithful man would insist that a judge ground his intepretations of the law of men with the precepts of the Almighty. Only a man who worships the things made by man would insist otherwise.

This, then, is the dilemma for John Roberts and for any other man or woman whose beliefs are grounded in faith. We know that the laws of man must be based on the laws of God, else they have no moral grounding. No, this isn't a "theocracy." It is what the American founders envisioned; it is their faith that inspired our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. A John Adams, a James Madison, a George Washington simply would not have understood the kind of anti-God question posed by the Durbins of this world.

Getting past the legalism that there shall be no "religious test" for any office in the United States (Article VI, Clause 3: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."), it is clear that Dick Durbin and other pro-death Democrats desire a litmus test on abortion. A nominee's Catholic faith, assuming he is faithful to it, is, therefore, sufficient grounds to deny confirmation.

It is hard to see this as anything other than a religious test. Alternately, if a nominee denies a core teaching of his faith in order to gain an office, perhaps he will have sold his soul to Satan for the pride of achieving a wordly good.

Perhaps in the process losing the Kingdom of Heaven.

| technorati tag | |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home






About this site and the author

Welcome. My name is John Luke Rich, (very) struggling Christian. The focus here is Christianity in its many varieties, its fussing and feuding, how it impacts our lives and our society, with detours to consider it with other faiths (or lack thereof).

Call this blog my way of evangelizing on the internet.

Putting it differently, we're only here on this earth a short time. It's the rest of eternity that we should be most concerned about. Call it the care and feeding of our souls.

I was born Jewish, and born again in Christ Jesus over thirty years ago. First as a Roman Catholic; now a Calvinist by persuasion and a Baptist by denomination. But I'm hardly a poster boy for doctrinal rigidity.

I believe that Scripture is the rock on which all Christian churches must stand -- or sink if they are not so grounded. I believe that we are saved by faith, but hardly in a vacuum. That faith is a gift from God, through no agency on our part -- although we sometimes turn a deaf ear and choose to ignore God's knocking on the door.

To be Christian is to evangelize. Those who think it not their part to evangelize perhaps haven't truly understood what our Lord told us in Matthew 28. We must preach the Gospel as best we are able. Using words if necessary.

Though my faith waxes and wanes, it never seems to go away. Sometimes I wish it would, to give me some peace of mind. But then, Jesus never said that walking with Him was going to be easy...

Final note: I also blog as Jack Rich on cultural, political and other things over at Wrong Side of the Tracks

Thanks for stopping by.