Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Nah, we can ask for more than that.  A lot more.

And we could also get much worse as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

And we could also get much worse as well.

No doubt.  ACB seems like a good person overall.  No qualms there. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

These were the precise concerns with JFK, a known Catholic. How do we know he's not going to take orders from the Pope?

I think the obvious answer in Barrett's case is that those People of Praise folks don't know anything about the work that appellate judges do. On that issue, they'll defer to ACB's expertise rather than the other way around.

What's your basis for this answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

What's your basis for this answer?

I'm vaguely familiar with some charismatic Catholic groups, though not her group in particular. Such groups seem to be composed mostly of people who are, I would venture to say, not experts in constitutional jurisprudence. I have no inside information beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm vaguely familiar with some charismatic Catholic groups, though not her group in particular. Such groups seem to be composed mostly of people who are, I would venture to say, not experts in constitutional jurisprudence. I have no inside information beyond that.

Thanks.  I still don't follow.  Are you saying that because in your experience charismatic Catholic groups have few people who understand constitutional jurisprudence in their ranks that the leaders of these groups would defer to Barrett in all matters of jurisprudence regardless of the group's interest in the outcome of a case? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I believe her husband is an ND Law grad and a member of the same group.  Would she acquiesce to his wishes if he asked her to do so?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'm vaguely familiar with some charismatic Catholic groups, though not her group in particular. Such groups seem to be composed mostly of people who are, I would venture to say, not experts in constitutional jurisprudence. I have no inside information beyond that.

I think you are almost certainly right on this point. However her husband is an attorney. Will he have say in her rulings?

 

Also just because someone is in no way qualified to give an opinion rarely stops them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Thanks.  I still don't follow.  Are you saying that because in your experience charismatic Catholic groups have few people who understand constitutional jurisprudence in their ranks that the leaders of these groups would defer to Barrett in all matters of jurisprudence regardless of the group's interest in the outcome of a case? 

Not just because of that, but yes, I'm saying that I'm pretty confident that a religious group isn't going to be dictating either the legal reasoning or the results of ACB's judicial decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

Not just because of that, but yes, I'm saying that I'm pretty confident that a religious group isn't going to be dictating either the legal reasoning or the results of ACB's judicial opinions.

Right, I'm asking the basis of your confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Also, I believe her husband is an ND Law grad and a member of the same group.  Would she acquiesce to his wishes if he asked her to do so?  

Notre Dame Law grad? I doubt it. Maybe if he were at least Cornell or Northwestern or something.

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Right, I'm asking the basis of your confidence.

It's roughly the same basis as for my confidence that Joe Biden isn't going to be a sock puppet president with AOC calling the shots behind the scenes. It's inherently implausible based on my general understanding of how the world works, and there's no specific evidence I'm aware of that reduces that implausibility.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It's roughly the same basis as my confidence that Joe Biden isn't going to be a sock puppet president with AOC calling the shots behind the scenes. It's inherently implausible based on my general understanding of how the world works, and there's no specific evidence I'm aware of that reduces that implausibility.

I appreciate that this seems like a foolish question to you - why would she defer to a religious body for her rulings? - but it isn't.  Judges and justices are subject to advise and consent clause because of qualification issues, but also to root out undue influences.  Some judges will potentially defer to the wishes of those with financial power over them, or who offer financial opportunity, and some will defer to those with emotional power over them.  If someone believes that another person or entity has power over the disposition of her or her families' immortal souls, I would consider that a fairly strong potential influence if it isn't separated from her work.  

I would say that the builders of youth detention facilities have very little understanding of the work of a court other than outcome-derived understanding.  And yet they certainly influenced two judges in Pennsylvania.  Because those two valued the money they would get from the interaction over their judicial independence.

I'm not sure what part of your understanding about how the world works is in play here, but it appears different from my understanding about how the world works.  Do I think it likely that she would be influenced on every case?  Of course not. But do I think her religious leaders would give her a call if there were an issue they had a particular interest in? Of course I do. The question is how likely she is to pick up the phone and care what they say.  And the farther one gets from mainstream religion, often the closer the bonds between leadership and the rank and file members are - which is an intentionally-created bond when people are supposed to call up a particular leader based on their identity and group and ask for advice (the former "handmaids" in this particular organization.)  I'm not sure why any of that is controversial.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as for Biden being a sock puppet for AOC, I can give better reasons for not believing that than “I know how the world works.”  I’ve met Joe Biden, but beyond that I can see that his actions and statements sharply divide from those of AOC regularly, he’s had a long and followable public life where his positions and statements make sense based on his journey as a human being, and he’s made some great moves and terrible ones in decades of public service. For good or ill, he has a record that makes it pretty clear he isn’t AOC’s sock puppet. 

If you can point to some similar explanation about Barrett and the religious leaders (and to my knowledge we don’t even know who they are) of this 3,000 person sect, I would agree. Otherwise, that’s what years of district court judicial record are for, in part. To find out if a judge is above influence.  She didn’t get those.  Barring that, it’s legitimate to question her regarding the influence any organization she happens to belong to - be it the PTA, the Communist Party of America, the Trial Lawyer’s Association, MENSA, or yes, even her religious organization - has over her.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

... But do I think her religious leaders would give her a call if there were an issue they had a particular interest in? Of course I do. The question is how likely she is to pick up the phone and care what they say.  And the farther one gets from mainstream religion, often the closer the bonds between leadership and the rank and file members are - which is an intentionally-created bond when people are supposed to call up a particular leader based on their identity and group and ask for advice (the former "handmaids" in this particular organization.)  I'm not sure why any of that is controversial.

And this has really nothing to do with Catholicism or the Papacy, but rather the small religious sect that she and her family belong to.  Can she separate the demands / needs / beliefs / desires of her small community to which she has made a covenant from the legal rulings to which she is asked to do from now until her death or departure from the court?

I feel those are valid questions to ask ACB.

I would also like to know about her acceptance of scientific principles, and the conclusions reached by the collaborative and competitive nature of the modern scientific process.  Or does she believe that the world is 6000 years old and the oil was put here by God for us to use as we please.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying not to ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm less concerned with her views on science - judges are often terrible with science generally - but Amy Coney Barrett has also made very clear statements that a judge should recuse herself from a case in which her religious views conflict with the law.  

Consider this statement from her own work:

Quote

The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.

No one put words in her mouth.  This is the abstract from a law review article that she wrote as the first-named author titled "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases."  Does she still believe that? If not, is it because of wanting to change the law?  Are we okay with that?  And what changed her mind?  

By her own rules, if she still believes in them, she would be disqualified from all Supreme Court cases reviewing a case of capital punishment.  Is that an acceptable allowance for one of our nine? Does it extend to abortion?  Separation of church and state? There are a lot of questions that are worth answering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying to not ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.

I haven't referred to this as a cult.  Would you like to frame the discussion as though it definitely is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I haven't referred to this as a cult.  Would you like to frame the discussion as though it definitely is?

I am probably less moved by the distinction than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying not to ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.

I'm not sure where you get .02% from, but the Yale Law Journal review of corruption in the courts ten years ago or so suggests much higher than that.  I would imagine only .02% get caught, if that's a statistic somewhere.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5179&context=ylj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have asked me why I expect someone to have spent time in the lower courts prior to being in the circuits and then the Supreme Court.  This is my number one reason why.  Because years of judicial work will hopefully evidence whether a judge is under undue influence or not.  It is my number one concern with the judiciary, its independence.  That's what ideally leads to fair application of the laws, if not "fair" outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm less concerned with her views on science - judges are often terrible with science generally - but Amy Coney Barrett has also made very clear statements that a judge should recuse herself from a case in which her religious views conflict with the law.  

Consider this statement from her own work:

No one put words in her mouth.  This is the abstract from a law review article that she wrote as the first-named author titled "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases."  Does she still believe that? If not, is it because of wanting to change the law?  Are we okay with that?  And what changed her mind?  

By her own rules, if she still believes in them, she would be disqualified from all Supreme Court cases reviewing a case of capital punishment.  Is that an acceptable allowance for one of our nine? Does it extend to abortion?  Separation of church and state? There are a lot of questions that are worth answering.

If she believes in that...yes, she should recuse from Capital Punishment and Abortion cases...as the Catholic Church is quite clear on those.  If she feels she cannot be unbiased in such a case from a person/belief standpoint...most certainly.  My guess...if questioned, nope, doesn't believe that anymore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There is some non-zero number of judges who will end up doing blatantly improper things like accepting bribes or taking orders from a cult. But the base rate is like 0.02% or whatever, right? And it's the same for everybody a priori, which is what makes it a base rate. To raise concerns about any particular judge, you need specific evidence driving those concerns, IMO.

I'm not saying not to ask her questions about stuff. Ask if she'll take bribes. Ask if she'll let her husband secretly write her opinions. Senators may ask whatever they want. Some of the questions might seem crazy to many people but non-crazy to many others -- exactly like questions about Biden being controlled by AOC.

I'll take a PM.  Asking for a friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think abortion and capital punishment are rather different for purposes of recusal.

With abortion, in a constitutional context, a judge isn't deciding whether abortion is good or bad. She's determining the content and scope of constitutionally protected individual rights, express or implied, and how they interact with a state's inherent police powers.

The same would be true when considering the constitutionality of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment as a general matter.

But actually ordering someone's death seems far different. Recusing in that last situation, but not in the first two, seems reasonable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think abortion and capital punishment are rather different for purposes of recusal.

With abortion, in a constitutional context, a judge isn't deciding whether abortion is good or bad. She's determining the content and scope of constitutionally protected individual rights, express or implied, and how they interact with a state's inherent police powers.

The same would be true when considering the constitutionality of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment as a general matter.

But actually ordering someone's death seems far different. Recusing in that last situation, but not in the first two, seems reasonable to me.

With abortion, in a case or controversy legal system, a justice will be called on to determine if a woman is allowed to get an abortion or whether lots of women will be allowed to get an abortion.  Same with the constitutionality of capital punishment - it will be decided in the context of whether a particular person may be put to death.

Determining constitutionality will decide individuals' rights.  If she doesn't understand that I have much bigger issues with her appointment.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

With abortion, in a case or controversy legal system, a justice will be called on to determine if a woman is allowed to get an abortion or whether lots of women will be allowed to get an abortion.  Same with the constitutionality of capital punishment - it will be decided in the context of whether a particular person may be put to death.

Determining constitutionality will decide individuals' rights.  If she doesn't understand that I have much bigger issues with her appointment.

There's an obvious (to me) difference between the following two questions:

1. Does capital punishment run afoul of the Eighth Amendment under a proper constitutional analysis?

2. Now that this defendant has been convicted by the jury, it is up to me to finally determine the appropriate sentence after weighing the various mitigating and aggravating circumstances -- should it be death or something else?

I don't know whether the second situation was the intended context for ACB's quotation above (and I'm aware it's now mooted by Hurst). But it is quite easy for me to imagine being able to put aside my personal views and decide issue #1 fairly while being unable to do so with issue #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Some of you guys really need to meet some religious people sometime.

I tell my Christian friends frequently they have no idea how much of the country sees us.

And for sure, much of it is earned and we don't do ourselves a lot of favors many times. Shame on us. But I'll also say tons of the negative perception doesn't match the reality of what I've seen and experienced personally. 

However we got there, it breaks my heart to see how many folks see us. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I tell my Christian friends frequently they have no idea how much of the country sees us.

And for sure, much of it is earned and we don't do ourselves a lot of favors many times. Shame on us. But I'll also say tons of the negative perception doesn't match the reality of what I've seen and experienced personally. 

However we got there, it breaks my heart to see how many folks see us. 

Bigotry reaches far beyond skin color.

Edited by Da Guru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

@Henry Ford @Sinn Fein @anyone

 

There's no hope here, right? There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this nomination, correct? 

Which means Obamacare and preexisting conditions dies in approximately 6-7 weeks?

Idaho and two other states had preexisting laws before Obama Care.   It's not an Obama care thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

I tell my Christian friends frequently they have no idea how much of the country sees us.

And for sure, much of it is earned and we don't do ourselves a lot of favors many times. Shame on us. But I'll also say tons of the negative perception doesn't match the reality of what I've seen and experienced personally. 

However we got there, it breaks my heart to see how many folks see us. 

You think Christians are looked at less favorably than other religious groups?

Imagine how folks see Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Bahai, etc. I guarantee that the negative perception of Christians pales in comparison to the treatment of those groups. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

I tell my Christian friends frequently they have no idea how much of the country sees us.

And for sure, much of it is earned and we don't do ourselves a lot of favors many times. Shame on us. But I'll also say tons of the negative perception doesn't match the reality of what I've seen and experienced personally. 

However we got there, it breaks my heart to see how many folks see us. 

Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35)

If only we could get that one thing right.

How do people outside the faith view Christians? As dogmatic, unbending, closed minded, as hypocrites, as charlatans (equating certain televangelists with following Christ), as people who don’t know how to have fun, et al.

Its a complete perversion of what it means to love Jesus and be His follower. But tbh I’m not sure how we achieve altering how others view believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, BobbyLayne said:

Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35)

If only we could get that one thing right.

How do people outside the faith view Christians? As dogmatic, unbending, closed minded, as hypocrites, as charlatans (equating certain televangelists with following Christ), as people who don’t know how to have fun, et al.

Its a complete perversion of what it means to love Jesus and be His follower. But tbh I’m not sure how we achieve altering how others view believers.

The Beatitudes  - 

Matthew 5:3–12

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

The problem is, IMO, that many Christians are more concerned with being Republicans than they are with being Christ followers.  Be humble, be kind, love others.  It’s kind of hard to take someone serious when they claim to believe all of the things above but then will vote for Trump.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AAABatteries said:

The Beatitudes  - 

Matthew 5:3–12

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

The problem is, IMO, that many Christians are more concerned with being Republicans than they are with being Christ followers.  Be humble, be kind, love others.  It’s kind of hard to take someone serious when they claim to believe all of the things above but then will vote for Trump.

Yeah, I received some awesome DMs this summer.

:shrug: 

I stopped trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

The Beatitudes  - 

Matthew 5:3–12

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

The problem is, IMO, that many Christians are more concerned with being Republicans than they are with being Christ followers.  Be humble, be kind, love others.  It’s kind of hard to take someone serious when they claim to believe all of the things above but then will vote for Trump.

They are voting for the party that supports their views.  Don't confuse Christians with diehard Trump supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

They are voting for the party that supports their views.  Don't confuse Christians with diehard Trump supporters.

My position is no one should call themself a Christian and vote for that man.  They shouldn’t be so devoted to a political party that they will sell their soul by casting a vote for him.  I totally understand many don’t share that position. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And make no mistake - there’s a lot of Trump supporters who consider themselves Christians - no clue what the numbers are but my guess is over 50% and probably 70-80%+.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

My position is no one should call themself a Christian and vote for that man.  They shouldn’t be so devoted to a political party that they will sell their soul by casting a vote for him.  I totally understand many don’t share that position. 

That's the second time I've read that Trump supporters have "sold their souls" today.  Amazing.

I have a hard time believing Catholics or Mormons or fundamentalist Christians not voting Republican considering the alternatives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

And make no mistake - there’s a lot of Trump supporters who consider themselves Christians - no clue what the numbers are but my guess is over 50% and probably 70-80%+.  

IDK about that, but back home (West Michigan) it’s a solid block. Far more divided in NYC amongst believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BobbyLayne said:

IDK about that, but back home (West Michigan) it’s a solid block. Far more divided in NYC amongst believers.

I don’t really know either and that’s why I left it as a wide range.  If 50%+ of his voters aren’t self-identifying as Christian then I’ll eat my hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobbyLayne said:

Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35)

If only we could get that one thing right.

How do people outside the faith view Christians? As dogmatic, unbending, closed minded, as hypocrites, as charlatans (equating certain televangelists with following Christ), as people who don’t know how to have fun, et al.

Its a complete perversion of what it means to love Jesus and be His follower. But tbh I’m not sure how we achieve altering how others view believers.

The most frustrating thing about Christians is that they are human.

The words above are easy for humans to nod in agreement with, but very difficult to live by.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I don’t really know either and that’s why I left it as a wide range.  If 50%+ of his voters aren’t self-identifying as Christian then I’ll eat my hat.

It's higher than that. About 70% of adults in the United States identify as Christian, and I think it's pretty obvious that Trump supporters are more likely than others to identify that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

 

4 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

I don’t really know either and that’s why I left it as a wide range.  If 50%+ of his voters aren’t self-identifying as Christian then I’ll eat my hat.

It's higher than that. About 70% of adults in the United States identify as Christian, and I think it's pretty obvious that Trump supporters are more likely than others to identify that way.

Pew Research Center says it’s down to 65% (2018-19 data) and dropping. Of those, 37% attend services a few times a year, another 18% go to church about once a month.

Anyway, interesting data. I live in one of the “least churched” cities in the country and didn’t realize how low the atheist and agnostic numbers are in the U.S.; I would have guessed much higher.

Huge differences amongst millennials, which is again interesting and at odds with my own personal experience. I go to a very large non-denominational church where the demo is predominantly 35 and under.

Edited by BobbyLayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

The problem is, IMO, that many Christians are more concerned with being Republicans than they are with being Christ followers.  

Thanks @AAABatteries For me, the question is defining the bolded. My hope and prayer is it's a lot more like "Some" Christians are more concerned...

That's how I see it among my Christian friends. But I also know some that do appear to put too much emphasis on politics. I know it's not especially satisfying, but I thought the article I posted earlier hits on this pretty well. https://relevantmagazine.com/current/what-is-the-christian-posture-for-the-upcoming-election/

And I do think we over complicate it sometimes. 

As Christians, if we believe scripture, Jesus told us pretty clearly what we're supposed to do. Love God. And just as importantly, love your neighbor. 

Matthew 22:36-40 NLT

Quote

 

36 “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”

37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not to turn this into Sunday School, but there's a bit more that I think is super important. 

The story about Jesus being asked what's the most important commandment is one of those stories that's repeated in another book of the bible. The instance above is from Matthew. The book of Luke also recounts his version of the story. 

Luke 10:25-28 NLT

Quote

 

25 One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

27 The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”[c]

28 “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

 

 

Here's where it's important to us. When Jesus says "Love your neighbor", the obvious question is "Who is your neighbor?" And that's just what the guy asked Jesus. The next verse:

Quote

29 The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

 

Jesus lots of times used an example to give an answer. He did that this time.

Luke 10:30-37 NLT

Parable of the Good Samaritan

Quote

 

30 Jesus replied with a story: “A Jewish man was traveling from Jerusalem down to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road.

31 “By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. 32 A Temple assistant[d] walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.

33 “Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. 34 Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. 35 The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins,[e] telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

36 “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked.

37 The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.”

Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

 

 

It's important to know here that for a Jewish person, a Samaritan was not "on their team". For a Jewish person, a Samaritan was most definitely "the other". 

What Jesus was saying here is he wants his followers to love everyone. Not just the people who think like us, look like us, sound like us.

Jesus was saying in effect, "Everyone is your neighbor". Now he was not saying, "It's all good, everything goes." You can love someone and not agree with them. 

I know people tire of me being critical of the sniping and fighting here and much of that is I hate seeing us demean and not be cool to "the other". 

Sunday School over. Time for juice and graham crackers. ;) 

Edited by Joe Bryant
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35)

If only we could get that one thing right.

How do people outside the faith view Christians? As dogmatic, unbending, closed minded, as hypocrites, as charlatans (equating certain televangelists with following Christ), as people who don’t know how to have fun, et al.

Its a complete perversion of what it means to love Jesus and be His follower. But tbh I’m not sure how we achieve altering how others view believers.

Through our actions...plain and simple.  And even then, that won't work for those who don't WANT to change how they view us.  The challenge in that is being able to go to bed every night and feeling confident that you've done the best you could, that day, to mirror Jesus' actions and teachings.  Reality is, we're probably going to fail a lot more than we succeed in that arena, but on the good days where we're doing it correctly people have no choice but to recognize "hey, there's something different about him/her".  That's where it starts.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Through our actions...plain and simple.  And even then, that won't work for those who don't WANT to change how they view us.  The challenge in that is being able to go to bed every night and feeling confident that you've done the best you could, that day, to mirror Jesus' actions and teachings.  Reality is, we're probably going to fail a lot more than we succeed in that arena, but on the good days where we're doing it correctly people have no choice but to recognize "hey, there's something different about him/her".  That's where it starts.  

:goodposting:Thanks @The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have been told and learned in my life is that there is  a difference between Catholics and Christians.  The Catholics I know never really have talked about their faith very much.  The Christians I have known talked about it much more and actually tried to convert me, but they all associate and mingle.  The Jews and Muslims have never tried to convert me.

 

Edited by Summer Wheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

From what I have been told and learned in my life is that there is  a difference between Catholics and Christians.  The Catholics I know never really have talked about their faith very much.  The Christians I have known talked about it much more and actually tried to convert me.

 

Catholics are Christians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed @sho nuff

The "are Catholics really Christians" is a thread that might be interesting for some to run down. It's not for me as it deflects from the bigger picture discussion on this which I think is important. @Summer Wheat Please start a new thread if you want on that but let's keep this one more on track. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Catholics are Christians

I gotta give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant Catholics and Protestants.  If he didn't then I'm unfortunately going to give him the BAM -> : rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.