Arlen Specter and Dianne Feinstein have crossed the line. In the Roberts confirmation hearings, they have resurrected 40-year old anti-Catholic biases, imposing an unconstitutional religious test on Judge Roberts.

Would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by John Kennedy when he was a candidate, and he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960: 'I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.'
In 1960, there was much debate about President John F. Kennedy's faith and what role Catholicism would play in his administration. At that time, he pledged to address the issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interests, not out of adherence to the dictates of one's religion. . . . My question is: Do you?
First of all, these questions are unconstitutional: Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution is quite clear: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

But on top of that, the anti-Catholic bigotry expressed here is appalling. The feeling here seems to be "if it was good enough for JFK, it's good enough for John Roberts," completely ignoring the fact that asking such questions in a confirmation hearing is both illegal and discriminitory. As this (http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007259) editorial states (more eloquently than I could):
How insulting. How offensive. How invidiously ignorant to question someone like Judge Roberts with such apparent presumption and disdain for the religion he practices. The JFK question is not just the camel's nose of religious intolerance; it is the whole smelly camel.
Jeff Ballabon of the Center for Jewish Values, as quoted from his blog in the editorial:
I mean how grotesque is it that the Left feels free to indulge openly in half-century-old religious prejudice? This is not some crazy person standing outside with a rusty hanger--it is a United States Senator in her official capacity on national television. And this is no off-the-cuff blurt--these questions are excruciatingly researched and drafted and worded and reviewed and approved and choreographed by teams of liberal lawyers and advisors both on her staff and off. She--the senator who keeps harping at this hearing that her concern is the protection of people of faith--thinks an obnoxious question born of religious bigotry is legitimate because it was posed in 1960?

Such questions from US Senators in official confirmation hearings are inexcusable, and action should be taken against them - at the very least, they should be censured.

\rolleyes

First of all, these questions are unconstitutional: Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution is quite clear: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

This is not a religious test. It is not a question on whether or not the interviewed person is committed to a certain faith - it is a question of whether or not the person in question will allow personal, unjustifiable bigotry to unlawfully influence the execution of their duties.

Quite apart from that, the very fact that the Catholic Church is both a religion and a sovereing state makes the question even more relevant indeed. If a government official is under the direct command of a foreign country he would in most countries be considered a spy or traitor.

But what makes me wonder is why the neos are so riled up over those softballs. I mean for anyone within shouting distance of sanity there can be only one answer. If this is the heaviest flak he is taking, then he is having an easy time.

.... Unconstitutional my ass. These questions are asking if he'll allow his religious convictions to effect him doing his job.

Where you see bigotry, I see a job interview.

They aren't asking if he's of a certain religion so that they can exclude him or make their decision of if he'll get his job based upon that. They merely want to find out if he's going to uphold the law as he should, or if he will be influenced strongly by his religion, which would be VERY unconstitutional.

Such questions from US Senators in official confirmation hearings are inexcusable, and action should be taken against them - at the very least, they should be censured.

Something tells me you would fall all over yourself with praise if it were a Democratic President's appointment and Republicans grilling him about what or how he believed.

It wouldn't have been asked had our President not been running the country in a religious way.

Arlen Specter and Dianne Feinstein have crossed the line. In the Roberts confirmation hearings, they have resurrected 40-year old anti-Catholic biases
Bush and his administration has crossed the line. After 9/11, they have resurrected 1000-year old anti-Muslim biases(...)

I mean how grotesque is it that the Left feels free to indulge openly in half-century-old religious prejudice?
How grotesque is it that the Far-Right feels free to indulge openly in millenia-old religious practice to guide their politics? Like a certain President ranting on about how...
I believe God wanted me to become President.

Or his declaration of "crusade" against terrorism (clearly ignorant of what the crusades were - they were not a justifiable series of campaigns against evil, but heartless conquest of innocent nations)?

Neo-cons and softballs
The neo-cons that blow tiny things out of proportion do so, I believe, simply because they're too ignorant to dig up good arguments against Moore and liberals and left-wingers and whatever else. For example, denouncing Moore as a liar (which is the current Neo-con trend) is far easier and more convenient than actually researching him and finding logical reasons to dislike the fool, as I have.

Not to mention that ignorance is bliss:rolleyes:.

Something tells me you would fall all over yourself with praise if it were a Democratic President's appointment and Republicans grilling him about what or how he believed.
Quite. Try to elect a left-wing Muslim and the Christian Far-Right's first question will undoubtably be "but won't his islamic beliefs affect his politics?".

Liberal bigotry Right-wing hypocrites at the highest levels...

At that time, he pledged to address the issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interests, not out of adherence to the dictates of one's religion

Seems entirely sensible of him to me. A politician should represent his people, and what is best for him, not represent his own interests. So should anyone in public office. Infact in several posts in other senate threads I've said exactly the same thing.

Thats why a lot of people have a problem with Bush, he makes decisions based on his religious views, not on what is best for his people. After all, a reasonable proportion of the country isn't christian, and they still need to be represented and treated fairly.

If a muslim was elected (shock horror!) we wouldn't want him to start making laws that forced everyone in the country to abide by muslim religious laws, would we

What exactly is it that you see is wrong with this idea?

I feel that those questions may be reasonable, given the political climate of the senate. Consider that the president has made it fairly clear through various statements that his religious beliefs have effected legislation and policies, such as gay marriage, stem cell research, ect.

Thus, i wouldn't put it past the Senate Judiciary committee to ask these questions.

The legality of the questions has yet to be seen, however, it does indeed seem that they are illegal by constitutional law.

But again, it is a job interview. I would like to ensure my CHief Justice has little or no religious clout when he makes his decisions.

Interesting.

I revel in the irony that the same right-wingers who have been for years pushing (and publicly praying) for someone to be appointed to the Supreme Court who will legislate strictly from his or her religious beliefs and conservative ideology have the nerve to appear shocked and outraged when someone dares ask the candidate they are backing if that is what he plans to do.

I seem to remember that many of the same people who are currently appearing upset over this had no qualms in airing what they believed to be John Kerry's religious convictions (or perceived lack thereof.)

Poor rc... Every time he tries to point a finger against what he percieves as 'liberal bias', he seems to be pointing it squarely at the people he tries to defend... "You should not chuck rocks who live in a house of glass." - Danish proverb.

Personally, I find it a little strange that if an American general voilates every military imperative because of his demented religious beliefs (that - say - the stars are on his side today) with the predictable result that his country looses a battalion of panzer, it's dereliction of duty - but when a Supreme Court judge ignores every legal imperative because of his demented religious beliefs (that - say - condoms are sinful) and thus, predictably, causes his country to loose essencial civil liberties, he is hailed (or - perhaps - heiled) by the extremist rightwing nutjobs on Fux as a great and morally upright man.

What? Now the neo-cons want us to think that religion is being oppressed in this country? Last time I checked, the religious right was in control of our government, not the other way around. Besides, I don't think either senator asked those questions because they were biased against religious people. Rather, as others have said here, they were simply trying to figure out if he would follow and make rulings based on the law and the constitution, or on personal religious beliefs, which would violate the separation of church and state - as Bush has already done by allowing his religious beliefs to influence legislation.