# Justice Roberts: Do we need ANOTHER hardcore Catholic on the Supreme Court? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324 "2005-08-02T17:06:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/101 "2005-08-04T02:48:53Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > The record shows that Scalia and Thomas have NOT been basing decisions on their religious beliefs, nor have their decisions been ones that John Paul II or Benedict XVI could have wholeheartedly endorsed. The record shows only that they have not admitted to basing their opinions on their religious beliefs. See my humorous post to Bricker, in which I claim to have every desire to not strike something from the OP, but claim that I had no such power. Pure BS, of course. I’m sure Thomas and Scalia, with a lifetime of writing judicial opinions, are much better at it than me. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/102 "2005-08-04T02:51:23Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > And I’m not going to bash Evil Captor for an anti-Catholic bias. But I’ve certainly pointed it out, as have others. It’s no insult and no pitting to call a spade a spade. I really don’t mind being called a bigot if people honestly think I am posting in a bigoted manner. I only hate it when it’s used as a cheap rhetorical device. It’s such a handy rhetorical device that it’s hard to resist, though. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/103 "2005-08-04T02:55:16Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > That’s how it works around here? Cite? > 😉 yes. If 1. You don’t believe your opponents statements are backed up by any evidence, you askd for a cite or 1. If you don’t have an argument but disagree with your opponent’s ideas, you ask for a cite, whether it’s warranted or not. Then if it’s provided, you dismiss it as coming from an inadequate source. (For the record, not a lot of that has happened on this thread, but it happens a lot in GD). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/104 "2005-08-04T03:05:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does anyone in this thread, bigot or otherwise, feel that there is a realistic chance Roberts will not be confirmed? More relevantly, does anyone think our opinions will have any bearing on whether or not Roberts in confirmed? Bricker, we’re just practicing having opinions against the distant day when they might conceivably matter to those in power. We’re citizens in a democracy debating the issues of the day, even if we have no direct power over those issues. This is kinda the point of that whole First Amendment thingie. If relevance in the real world were key to GD, we might as well fold up the tent now. Perhaps you have experience of other message boards where things are different? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/105 "2005-08-04T03:13:03Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Tomndebb, I am disappointed with you. You call this a “rather bigoted thread” because I ask if the guy’s Catholicism could be a problem. Devout Catholicism, in fact. Is it INNATELY bigoted to ask if a guy’s adherence to a particular set of religious beliefs (Catholicism) which are associated with conservative issues: anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-freedom of speech on sexual issues – is gonna be a problem for those not far to the right of the political spectrum? Especially given that the two most Neanderthal right members of the Supreme Court are Thomas and Scalia, Catholics both? In a time when Catholic leadership is widely considered to be heading to the right? You think it’s bigoted to notice these things? Is it prejudice to connect the dots? What are you doing moderating a board devoted to fighting ignorance, if that is true? You want to connect some dots? How about the almost total lack of support you’re getting in this thread, even from liberals and atheists? What does that tell you about the tenebility of your position? > [@](#): > > Here’s some links for you that have raised my alarm: > > Forgive me dopers, for I have sinned: > > [In my rabid bigotry, I noted this move by some Catholics to excommunicate John Kerry for his tolerance of abortion.](http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32830) Has Kerry changed his position as a result of this movement? And has he been excommunicated? No? Then what does this prove, exactly? > [@](#): > > [In my blind prejudice, I noticed that the Vatican has become increasingly politically conservative, quashing progressive voices within the church with Republican-like fervor. I was particularly sinful in noting the new Pope has personally done a lot of the quashing and excommunicating and such.](http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0420/p01s04-wogi.html) Is Judge Roberts a part of the Vatican? No? Then what does this prove, exactly? > [@](#): > > [In my overweening pride, I noticed how conservatives are on the one hand expressing hope that Robert’s religious beliefs will affect his judgements, and catigating Dems and progressives that they must not make an issue of his religious beliefs. Taking note of such hypocrisy is surely arrogant.](http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/OPINION/508030356/1002/OPINION) Well, Republicans do suck, I’ll give you that, but most Republicans are not Catholics. So, once again, what does this prove, exactly? > [@](#): > > [In my thoughtless heedlessness, I have noticed that Catholic justices Scalia and Thomas are not just conservative, but conservative in a cruel and indifferent manner.](http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/play/IfBushChoseTheSupremeCourt.html) > > (And yes, Kennedy’s a Catholic with something resembling a heart under his robes, but all the indication are, Roberts a Scalia kinda guy, not a Kennedy kinda guy.) Maybe it’s not their Catholicism that makes Scalia and Thomas such scum, but in my unnatural observativeness, I have to wonder if there is a breed of “Catholic Conservative” that Scalia and Thomas and maybe Roberts belong to that make this kind of ugliness common. But that’s bigoted thinking, isn’t it? Yes, that is precisely what bigoted thinking is! Scalia and Thomas are scum _because they’re scum_! Not because they’re Catholic! Imputing their poor moral character to their religion is bigotry! That’s what the word means! > [@](#): > > You’re right, apparently the pope has personally not excommunicated any politicians for being in favor of abortions or even threatened to do so … yet. But apparently, some of his subordinates have. But I’m not supposed to notice this or I’m a bigot, right. Sure! Notice it all you want. Noticing doesn’t make you a bigot. It’s the conclusions you’re drawing that make you a bigot. > [@](#): > > Look, if I were a bigot I’d think ALL Catholics were conservative scum like Scalia. Why, I bet some of your best friends are Catholics! > [@](#): > > But I know that’s not true – there are many American Catholics who are at loggerheads with their church leadership on issues like abortion, birth control, women as preists and whatnot. And there are many who are not. And by all accounts, Roberts is one of the many who are not. So, I’m not supposed to notice this, or be concerned about it, or I’m a bigot. Yeah, there are a bunch of Catholics who are very liberal. And there are a bunch of Catholics who are very conservative. What does that tell us about the effects of Catholicism on a person’s politics? It indicates to me that it doesn’t have much fucking meaning at all. To think otherwise is, once again, bigotry. What’s so innately stupid about all this is the fact that Robert’s Catholicism has nothing to do with his nomination. He got the post _because_ of those conservative views. If he had the opposite views, Bush would’ve nominated someone else. So why the fuck are you harping on about his _religion_, when what you clearly have an issue with are his _politics_? If Roberts were an atheist with exactly the same political views, would you be moaning about the influence of atheism on the SC? If he were a Jew, would you be muttering dark warnings about “the three Jews in the SCotUS?” No? So why do Catholics get a double standard? And don’t give me that hierarchical religion bullshit, as it’s trivially easy to prove that Catholics are under no particular aegis to agree with Rome. > [@](#): > > I really don’t mind being called a bigot if people honestly think I am posting in a bigoted manner. I only hate it when it’s used as a cheap rhetorical device. It’s such a handy rhetorical device that it’s hard to resist, though. Please believe I am being entirely sincere when I tell you that this is the most nakedly bigoted thread I’ve seen since the last St_rmfr_nt invasion. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/106 "2005-08-04T03:16:18Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > By my count, both **Bricker** and **Miller** have each made a similar request for proof of the assertions in the OP… > > and > > Does **Evil Captor** have any interest in backing up his OP by answering these? Some of the cites that I’ve provided address those issues in part. I don’t accept the notion that I have to provide cites for whatever you think I do to make my point. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/107 "2005-08-04T03:39:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You want to connect some dots? How about the almost total lack of support you’re getting in this thread, even from liberals and atheists? What does that tell you about the tenebility of your position? So no one wants to join me in the current pile-on. Can’t say I blame them. > [@](#): > > Has Kerry changed his position as a result of this movement? And has he been excommunicated? No? Then what does this prove, exactly? That their are people in leadership positions in the Catholic church who want to influence politicians (and judges in important positons like the SC, presumably) and who are actively trying to do so. > [@](#): > > Is Judge Roberts a part of the Vatican? No? Then what does this prove, exactly? My preview screen isn’t pulling up this quote for some reason, so I can’t respond to it at present. > [@](#): > > Well, Republicans do suck, I’ll give you that, but most Republicans are not Catholics. So, once again, what does this prove, exactly? Goes directly to what has become the topic of much of this thread: People are using the “bigot” card to discourage an examination of Roberts’ religious beliefs … all over the place … it seems. Kinda thought provoking, eh? > [@](#): > > Yes, that is precisely what bigoted thinking is! Scalia and Thomas are scum _because they’re scum_! Not because they’re Catholic! Imputing their poor moral character to their religion is bigotry! That’s what the word means! No, Scalia and Thomas are scum because they’ve disappointed me in so many of their decisions over the years. Read that third quite about them that I cited … they think it’s OK for guards to beat a shackled man so badly that it breaks his bones. They’re scum. Maybe you’re OK with that. I’m not. > [@](#): > > Sure! Notice it all you want. Noticing doesn’t make you a bigot. It’s the conclusions you’re drawing that make you a bigot. > > Why, I bet some of your best friends are Catholics! > > Yeah, there are a bunch of Catholics who are very liberal. And there are a bunch of Catholics who are very conservative. What does that tell us about the effects of Catholicism on a person’s politics? It indicates to me that it doesn’t have much fucking meaning at all. To think otherwise is, once again, bigotry. Play the bigot card much? > [@](#): > > What’s so innately stupid about all this is the fact that Robert’s Catholicism has nothing to do with his nomination. He got the post _because_ of those conservative views. If he had the opposite views, Bush would’ve nominated someone else. So why the fuck are you harping on about his _religion_, when what you clearly have an issue with are his _politics_? If Roberts were an atheist with exactly the same political views, would you be moaning about the influence of atheism on the SC? If he were a Jew, would you be muttering dark warnings about “the three Jews in the SCotUS?” No? So why do Catholics get a double standard? And don’t give me that hierarchical religion bullshit, as it’s trivially easy to prove that Catholics are under no particular aegis to agree with Rome. Because I think his religion, or rather, his specific brand of Catholicism, is what has in part made him the kind of conservative he is, and that Scalia and Thomas are the same kind of Catholic conservatives, and they are scum. > [@](#): > > Please believe I am being entirely sincere when I tell you that this is the most nakedly bigoted thread I’ve seen since the last St_rmfr_nt invasion. And a nice close with the bigot card. Well, you’re consistent, I’ll give you that. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/108 "2005-08-04T03:39:34Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The record shows only that they have not admitted to basing their opinions on their religious beliefs. See my humorous post to Bricker, in which I claim to have every desire to not strike something from the OP, but claim that I had no such power. Pure BS, of course. I’m sure Thomas and Scalia, with a lifetime of writing judicial opinions, are much better at it than me. JP2: “Well, Clarence, Nino, now that I have you on conference phone, did you get the decisions I faxed you?” Scalia: “Yes, Your Holiness. But are your aure about this? I mean,m why can’t I just declare that a fetus has rights at conception?” THomas: “Yes, Holiness, and why does the decision you wrote for me say I should call sodomy laws silly? I was all set to write a fire and brimstone denunciation of the homosexuals. I was all set to say they’d burn in Hell forever.” JP2: “No, no, no, you fools! Don’t you realize how essential it is to have plausible deniability? You MUST distance yourselves from me, or pretend to at least. You must PRETEND that your decisions have nothing to do with me- even though, of course, I am your Lord and master.” Thomas: “Brilliant, Holiness! Why, it’s no wonder they call you infallible!” Scalia: “You’re a genius! No one will ever see through our little ruse.” Except Evil Captor. He’s so clever! Only HE would see through such as fiendish plot! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/109 "2005-08-04T03:44:46Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > JP2: "Well, Clarence > > … drivel elided … > > Except Evil Captor. He’s so clever! Only HE would see through such as fiendish plot! Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/110 "2005-08-04T04:20:28Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > So no one wants to join me in the current pile-on. Can’t say I blame them. Right, because there’s a huge shortage of ouspoken posters with martyr complexes on this board. C’mon, don’t give me that “silent majority” crap. You’re all alone on this one because most people can see what your saying for what it is, and want no part of it. > [@](#): > > That their are people in leadership positions in the Catholic church who want to influence politicians (and judges in important positons like the SC, presumably) and who are actively trying to do so. And who are not succeeding, and who have no history of success, and who never _will_ succeed. But that doesn’t stop you from using them to tar an entire creed. > [@](#): > > Goes directly to what has become the topic of much of this thread: People are using the “bigot” card to discourage an examination of Roberts’ religious beliefs … all over the place … it seems. Kinda thought provoking, eh? Maybe if you’re new to the practice, it is. > [@](#): > > No, Scalia and Thomas are scum because they’ve disappointed me in so many of their decisions over the years. Read that third quite about them that I cited … they think it’s OK for guards to beat a shackled man so badly that it breaks his bones. They’re scum. Maybe you’re OK with that. I’m not. Yeah, I’m okay with Scalia and Thomas. When I call them “scum,” I mean it affectionatly. > [@](#): > > Play the bigot card much? I play 'em as I see 'em. > [@](#): > > Because I think his religion, or rather, his specific brand of Catholicism, is what has in part made him the kind of conservative he is, and that Scalia and Thomas are the same kind of Catholic conservatives, and they are scum. What is his specific brand of Catholicism? Try to be… y’know… specific. > [@](#): > > And a nice close with the bigot card. Well, you’re consistent, I’ll give you that. Apparently, I can’t say the same for you. ---
**Author:** ![SemperFi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@SemperFi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SemperFi)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/111 "2005-08-04T05:16:11Z")
> [@The Highwayman](#): > > Well then, what about its opposition to capital punishment? See you are going to have a harder time trying to jibe your conservative beliefs with our faith than I will. Keep talking, we’ll make it a game. You just don’t know what you’re talking about, is the only problem. The Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion is absolute. It’s official position that capital punishment is unwarranted in most circumstances is not an absolute declaration that the death penalty is morally unacceptable in all circumstances. And, you still haven’t established your initial premise that “above all” the Church is about “social justice” as opposed to the greater glory of its Creator and the salvation of its members. And, you haven’t established that a member or clergyman has to trumpet every element of what you trendily conceive of as “social justice” in order to believe that he is doing the good works to which the faithful are called. > [@](#): > > You call BS, so I suppose this completely refutes me? Well, I’m not saying that this preaching from the pulpit has occurred everywhere but I can directly, **from experience** , tell you that a priest in my diocese gave a politically slanted harangue against “liberals.” This is not only shocking to me but very very off-putting _AND_ it did happen. Aha. So one instance is reduced to “Now when we go for Sunday Mass we hear homilies . . .” Hmm. Homilies having remotely political content amount to . . . at most 10 out of the 300 homilies I have heard in Catholic churches in the U.S., Europe, and Asia in the past five years. Of these, a good four were liberally slanted (e.g., talking about the need for debt relief or African famine aid). One or two were about the civic obligation to vote. Another three, maybe, were about the Respect Life theme. What’s your sample size? If it’s as minimally anecdotal as I suspect, perhaps you shouldn’t melodramatically have implied that there was a plague upon the land of fulminating right-wing sermons being given across the board (“Now when we go for Sunday Mass we hear” certainly implies a routine, indeed inevitable, trial that the larger body of Catholics are suffering – melodramatic, often?). > [@](#): > > Also, around election time, priests were directing their flocks to vote for the candidate that was pro-life. You saw this, or Michael Moore told you? Because your track record of distinguishing anecdote and folklore from facts on the ground is limited. > [@](#): > > Next time, try and keep up. Oh, I was keeping up quite well – I noted when you were attempting to raise the spectre of a nationwide phenomenon of “Republican”-rhetoric spouting priests. We’ve whittled that down to one guy you claim you saw. So, a productive effort on our part. > [@](#): > > I think that our Church is something worth preserving and if it thinks that it can pair itself with such a loathsome and, at its heart, xenophobic institution as the Republican Party, I will surely sound the alarm. We belong to the Universal Church. We incorporate rather than exclude. We are the largest religion on earth because we are inclusive. Your kind seem to run counter to this spirit and that is why I believe that what I have stated struck such a nerve with you. What you stated caught my interest because it was melodramatic, factually erroneous, and silly. The Catholic Church has not “paired itself” with the Republican Party. Your name-calling toward the Church and Party say a lot about where you’re coming from (the Republican Party “xenophobic?” Bush is trying to legalize 8 million criminal aliens, for God’s sake). The Church and the Party are uneasy bedfellows, at best, on a couple of issues. The Republican Party has far longer-standing and better relationships with the evangelicals and the pro-Israel Jews (both of whom in turn don’t share the entire agenda of the Catholic Church). So, it’s politics as well as religion that you’re not really so acquainted with the details of. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/112 "2005-08-04T05:28:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Tomndebb, I am disappointed with you. You call this a “rather bigoted thread” because I ask if the guy’s Catholicism could be a problem. Your disappointment is misplaced. You should be disappointed in your own method of argumentation. I did not claim that the thread was “rather bigoted” because you “ask[ed]if the guy’s Catholicism could be a problem.” I noted that it was a rather bigoted thread because you opened you OP with the same bigoted rhetoric that was used to attack Al Smith in 1928 was was used, again, (with less success) to attack John Kennedy in 1960. In particular, you posted the following which is such a distortion of Catholic practice as to have been written by Ian Paisley or Bob Jones: > [@](#): > > be aware that the Catholic Church has always claimed the right to tell its members what’s moral and what’s not – the line comes directly from God to the Pope – and to excommuicate them if they don’t conform. The Catholic Church is NOT like other religions, which put a much higher premium on the individual, who is presumed to have the ability to communicate directly with God through prayer. The Catholic Church is a hierarchy, and it’s fair to ask of any devout Catholic at the highest level of government … can you serve two masters when they conflict? Which master gets the upper hand in that situation? This is not to say that the statement is a clear lie, but it is the sort of distortion that has been used by the extreme Religious Right for years to attack Catholics–particularly by some Protestant groups attacking Catholic politicians in the U.S. You continue to distort your “evidence” when you cite some nutcase trying to “sue” for Senator Kerry’s excommunication while ignoring the well-publicized fact that the [Vatican denies it responded to lawyer seeking Kerry’s excommunication](http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405749.htm). You made much of the fact that a handful of bishops suggested the Kerry be denied communion, ignoring the fact that the bishops presiding over the rest of the 220 Catholic diocese in the U.S. made no similar claims and that the the actual declaration from the National Council of Catholic Bishops regarding the election addresses many different issues, but makes no statement supporting Bishop Bruskewitz or his like-minded episcopal brethren. In order to post your OP, you have to begin with a false premise regarding Catholicism and American Catholics–a false premise that has been addressed and debunked on this board in the past. Had it truly been a _question_, I would not view it as bigoted, _per se_. However, as a rhetorical question based on a declaration couched in the language of past bigots, proceeding from a foundation of long-disproven error, I do tend to view it as bigoted. If you wish to attack Roberts on the basis of his conservative views or on some aspect of his judicial philosophy, you are in good company. You might have even gotten away with a thread examining the appropriateness of seating a justice from a _particular Catholic tradition_. As soon as you start off with the old “puppet of Rome” canard, (as you did) you step into the realm of silliness and bigotry. In order to demonstrate that your OP has any basis in reality, you should be able to point to some event in history in which - a Catholic politician in the U.S. was ordered to make a particular judgment (and was punished by the church if he failed) - the excommunication of Justices Brennan and/or Kennedy - points in the opinions of Justices Scalia or Thomas that rely on arguments from the _Summa Theologica_ or a papal bull or encyclical instead of precedent in case law or Constitutional law - or some similar damning event. If you do not wish your threads to be deemed bigoted, do not rely on the language of bigots to make your case. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Highwayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@The\_Highwayman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Highwayman)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/113 "2005-08-04T09:37:37Z")
> [@SemperFi](#): > > It’s official position that capital punishment is unwarranted in most circumstances is not an absolute declaration that the death penalty is morally unacceptable in all circumstances. That’s funny because this is how his Holiness Pope John Paul II came down on the issue. > [@Pope John Paul II: Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)](#): > > The nature and extent of the punishment ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender, except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent. Emphasis is mine but you can see that your statement is almost true, just skewed to prove your incorrect point. > [@SemperFi](#): > > And, you still haven’t established your initial premise that “above all” the Church is about “social justice” as opposed to the greater glory of its Creator and the salvation of its members. You are wrong. What I said was: > [@The Highwayman](#): > > I thought my Church strove for social justice in society but it **seems** that American Catholics have turned a blind eye to this aspect of the faith and would rather focus most myopically on the abortion issue alone. What I said was as plain as day. What I wrote in my original post was punctuated with enough “seems” or “I believe” to give you a clue as to this being an opinion piece. Give me a break. > [@SemperFi](#): > > And, you haven’t established that a member or clergyman has to trumpet every element of what you trendily conceive of as “social justice” in order to believe that he is doing the good works to which the faithful are called. I can’t really decode this. Read some of what our Church has to say about society and social justice. And thank you for necessitating that I look into this because I have discovered what I have known to be right all along. > [@Pope Paul VI: Octogesima Adveniens (A Call to Action)](#): > > The Church directs her attention to these new poor - the handicapped and the maladjusted, the old, different groups of those on the fringe of society, in order to recognize them, help them, defend their place and dignity in a society hardened by competition and the attraction of success. > [@Synod of Bishops](#): > > Unless combated and overcome by social and political action, the influence of the new industrial and technological order favors the concentration of wealth, power and decision-making in the hands of a small public or private controlling group. Economic injustice and lack of social participation keep people from attaining their basic human ant civil rights. Again, our late Holy Father, > [@Pope John Paul II: Laborem Exercens (On Human Work)](#): > > Catholic social teaching does not see unions as reflecting only a “class”’ structure, and even less as engaged in a “class” struggle. They are indeed engaged in the struggle for social justice, but this is a struggle for the common good, and not against others. Its aim is social justice and not the elimination of opponents. > [@Pope John Paul II:Solicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern)](#): > > Solidarity… is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all… > [@Pope John Paul II:Centesimus Annus (The Hundredth Year)](#): > > There are needs and common goods that cannot be satisfied by the market system. it is the task of the state and of all society to defend them. An idolatry of the market alone cannot do all that should be done. > > AND > > A change of mentality is needed, no longer seeing the poor as a burden, or as intruders trying to profit from others, but as people seeking to share the goods of the world so that we can create a just and prosperous world for all. And finally, > [@Catechism of the Catholic Church](#): > > The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole person, and of the entire human community. > [@SemperFi](#): > > Aha. So one instance is reduced to “Now when we go for Sunday Mass we hear homilies . . .” Hmm. Homilies having remotely political content amount to . . . at most 10 out of the 300 homilies I have heard in Catholic churches in the U.S., Europe, and Asia in the past five years. Of these, a good four were liberally slanted (e.g., talking about the need for debt relief or African famine aid). One or two were about the civic obligation to vote. Another three, maybe, were about the Respect Life theme. What’s your sample size? If it’s as minimally anecdotal as I suspect, perhaps you shouldn’t melodramatically have implied that there was a plague upon the land of fulminating right-wing sermons being given across the board (“Now when we go for Sunday Mass we hear” certainly implies a routine, indeed inevitable, trial that the larger body of Catholics are suffering – melodramatic, often?). **Once again** , I merely shared my experiences. I cannot speak for others and was merely expressing concern over the fact that priests shouldn’t mention politics in homilies. As you can see, our Church affords a great difference in political views. As much as I dislike what you have to say, you are still my brother in Christ. I want you to realize this. Melodramatic I know, but it’s the way I feel. > [@SemperFi](#): > > You saw this, or Michael Moore told you? Because your track record of distinguishing anecdote and folklore from facts on the ground is limited. Michael Moore, another Catholic, isn’t that amazing? > [@SemperFi](#): > > What you stated caught my interest because it was melodramatic, factually erroneous, and silly. The Catholic Church has not “paired itself” with the Republican Party. Your name-calling toward the Church and Party say a lot about where you’re coming from (the Republican Party “xenophobic?” Bush is trying to legalize 8 million criminal aliens, for God’s sake). I wonder what party those “patriots” at the border carrying guns are? Republicans or Democrats? Which do you think? > [@SemperFi](#): > > The Church and the Party are uneasy bedfellows, at best, on a couple of issues. The Republican Party has far longer-standing and better relationships with the evangelicals and the pro-Israel Jews (both of whom in turn don’t share the entire agenda of the Catholic Church). So, it’s politics as well as religion that you’re not really so acquainted with the details of. Do we need this? I mean, I’m not acquainted with the details? I hope you have learned a little about my views. I just hope that you are defending our Church from a perceived attack and not defending that Party. However, I will have you know, I’m not attacking our Church, I’m attacking those who would use it against what I believe to be its spirit. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/114 "2005-08-04T13:01:05Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Especially given that the two most Neanderthal right members of the Supreme Court are Thomas and Scalia, Catholics both? Sure, they’re right-leaning. But not because they’re Catholic. We’ve been over this, and many posters, some more articulate than me, have quite concisely pointed out that their decisions have been both incongruent with Catholic teaching, AND with each other’s positions, not to mention very firmly based on a certain reading of the Constitution. It may not be a reading you like, but it’s not Vatican-influenced. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > In a time when Catholic leadership is widely considered to be heading to the right? Widely considered? Considered by whom? The Church hasn’t significantly changed its position on ANYTHING in the last forty years. Let’s see a cite on this. I dare you. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > You’re right, apparently the pope has personally not excommunicated any politicians for being in favor of abortions or even threatened to do so … yet. But apparently, some of his subordinates have. Cite? Oh, and let me remind you that a bishop refusing to give a congregant Communion is not excommunication, since that congregant is perfectly free to seek Communion at another Mass. So let’s see a cite. Let’s see you provide one instance of the excommunication of a United States politician for supporting abortion. > [@](#): > > Maybe it’s not their Catholicism that makes Scalia and Thomas such scum, but in my unnatural observativeness, I have to wonder if there is a breed of “Catholic Conservative” that Scalia and Thomas and maybe Roberts belong to that make this kind of ugliness common. But that’s bigoted thinking, isn’t it? No, it’s not their Catholicism, it’s their views. So you see another person who holds their views and think, “Must be the religion!” Your problem is, since the other two don’t have very many congruent views, you pick the religion as the common factor. And yes, that’s bigoted thinking. > [@](#): > > Check out the third cite in my response to TomnDebb. Seems a lot of things make other people think they’re peas in a pod. Perhaps you’re thinking they’re dissimilar at the molecular level or something? I’ll give you that! Just because a lot of people think something, that doesn’t make it correct. This is the best refutation you can come up with? “Other people think so/insert unfunny joke here?” It is to rolleyes. > [@](#): > > I don’t accept the notion that I have to provide cites for whatever you think I do to make my point. Then be prepared to accept the notion that people who wish to engage in actual discourse will quickly tire of you. Oh, and about this… > [@](#): > > Well, at least I don’t have to worry about YOU being all that impressed by Catholic leaders’ pronouncements, HSHP … I’m not sure what it means, or if I should be insulted, but it’s not a road down which you should be walking. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/115 "2005-08-04T13:27:30Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Some of the cites that I’ve provided address those issues in part. I don’t accept the notion that I have to provide cites for whatever you think I do to make my point. BWAHAHAHA!! I never knew it was so easy!! Attention: prayer works to cure all known disease. Also, most diseases may be cured by aligning the appropriate crystals in such a way as to straighten your aura. Of course, don’t accept the notion that I have to provide cites for whatever you think I do to make that point, either. My goodness, life in GD just got a lot easier. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/116 "2005-08-04T13:31:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Attention: prayer works to cure all known disease. Blasphemer!!! He is God of all things seen and unseen, known and unknown! Prayer therefore cures all unkown disease as well!!! You should be excommunicated!!!11!!!twenty-five!!! ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/117 "2005-08-04T14:40:41Z")
Yeah big surprise that **Evil Captor** chose not to back up his OP with meaningful evidence. Oh well…at least he has an company [in his little corner of bigotry](http://slate.msn.com/id/2123780/). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/118 "2005-08-04T15:03:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > BWAHAHAHA!! > > I never knew it was so easy!! > > Attention: prayer works to cure all known disease. Also, most diseases may be cured by aligning the appropriate crystals in such a way as to straighten your aura. > > Of course, don’t accept the notion that I have to provide cites for whatever you think I do to make that point, either. > > My goodness, life in GD just got a lot easier. Oh, come now. ONe of the oldest tricks in GD is to ask your opponent to spend half his day Googling for cites, then call him wrong because he or she can’t or won’t. Sometimes it’s true that they’re just being lazy, sometimes it isn’t. It’s a matter for the disinterested observer to decide whether or not the request is sound. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/119 "2005-08-04T15:15:09Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Oh, come now. ONe of the oldest tricks in GD is to ask your opponent to spend half his day Googling for cites, then call him wrong because he or she can’t or won’t. Cite? :wally ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324/120 "2005-08-04T15:25:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh, come now. ONe of the oldest tricks in GD is to ask your opponent to spend half his day Googling for cites, then call him wrong because he or she can’t or won’t. But only a couple of the requests for citations have been in regards to tangential issues that have arisen. You have been asked for citations to support the core of your assertion–the stuff that you should have had readily available before you even opened such a thread. In response, you have presented the opinions of a tiny number of people who either believe as you do or believe the things that you oppose without ever showing that the people you oppose have actually performed the actions you fear. Nowhere have you provided evidence that the RCC systematically acts in the ways that you have claimed or that the RCC has ever acted in the ways that you fear. (I will stipulate that you _can_ find such actions–but they will be 200 years old and older and have not occurred in the U.S.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justice-roberts-do-we-need-another-hardcore-catholic-on-the-supreme-court/315324.md?page=7)