https://stream.org/nominees-religious-faith-dominates-senate-judicial-confirmation-hearing/
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/so-should-we-ban-catholics-from-public-life/20301#.WbvwP8iGPIX
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/september/catholics-need-not-apply-senators-accused-of-anti-catholic-bias-at-hearing-for-judicial-nominee
What should we make of this situation? Are you angry? Whose side are you on? What is the crux of the argument here?
The anti-Catholic and anti-Christian sentiments expressed by many in the media and within the United States government have clearly continued to gain prevalence over the course of many years. This situation at hand is clearly a further display of the corruption, ignorance, and disregard for the law and past legal precedents set. These sentiments have clearly carried over into the case of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, an appeals court nominee. This example is not only angering but bitterly disappointing, as the process of providing a fair hearing has become so politicized. Instead of seeking out the nominee's legal philosophy, senators, especially California Senator Dianne Feinstein, condemned and made irrelevant Judge Barrett's Catholic beliefs, stating, "When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma [Catholicism] lives loudly within you." Feinstein, an individual whose duty and aim should be to respect the law, essentially expresses her contempt for and violates the First Amendment and the Constitution religious test clause, which effectively prohibits imposing religious questioning against public officials. This is not only dangerous due to its legal implications, but it also further inflames the already inflammatory political and religious discourse within our nation. Instead of coming to understand why one thinks in a different way and discussing differences, we are too quick to condemn another's belief system, leading to a widening in the ever-present divide. It also poses the question of whether one can or cannot separate one's beliefs from his or her job. If Senator Feinstein applies this same logic to some of her fellow colleagues in the Senate, would they be able to hold their past jobs? Take, for example, Senator Elizabeth Warren, a senator with an extreme liberal background. She previously worked in academia as a law professor, instructing future attorneys. Because of her liberal background, could her opinion have polluted the truth behind law? Should every left-leaning judge on every court be removed because they hold dearly to them a certain set of beliefs, and these beliefs may impact their interpretation of the law? Behind these questions lie the crux of the argument. Is one, especially a judge, able to carry out his or her job to his or her fullest capacity despite the opinions they hold? According to Senator Feinstein, the answer is yes and no. It simply depends on whether or not the individual conforms to her ideology of hatred for the law and Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your discussion of Senator Warren. Oftentimes, Catholicism is seen as an "easy target". People seem to stand up for anything and everything else because they've simply stopped caring, it seems. If you look back to one of the videos, it mentioned how other religions such as Islam are defended, but I suppose this is on the rare occasion that someone of power has the gall to say something offensive about such a "fragile" subject. I'm sorry, but what the number one book sold worldwide? When did Catholicism stop mattering?
DeleteI really like how you brought up Mrs. Feinstein's comment on Mrs. Barrett's faith because I did not know it goes against the Constitution religious test clause, very interesting. Also, I'm right with you when you stated that nowadays, you only get the job and opportunity if your religion or faith is liked by the people deciding your future.
DeleteYour last sentence hit the ball out of the park. Our country is currently being pulled in a direction of political correctness that somehow, despite the fact that the principles of political correctness include governing and acting in a way that is supposed to offend as few people as possible, excludes feelings of bitterness and hatred toward people with strong, old-fashioned Christian beliefs. Conforming to the ideology of the populace is the only way to guarantee your place in society, which is complete crap.
DeleteThe United Nations, in its article on fundamental human rights, wrote, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as… religion… or other status.” Later on, it is written that, “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country.” The United States wrote in Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution that, “All executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The treatment of Professor Barrett during her hearing, despite seeming uncalled for, is ultimately not in violation of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteDuring the hearing, Durbin asked about Professor Barrett’s religious views, and whether they would interfere with her work as a judge. Durbin believed that Professor Barrett’s published religious views would interfere with her ability to judge impartially, which is ultimately a good question to ask. The purpose of a judicial confirmation hearing is to make sure the candidate has no predisposition that would prevent them from acting impartially in a trial. Ultimately, the determining factor of this dispute is whether one half of Article VI Section 3 of the Constitution takes precedence over the other, but even with the distinction being in favor of Professor Barrett, it still does not violate the article. The first half of the section refers to an oath in support of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, while the second half states that government office will undergo a religious test. The right to a fair trial entails a judge that is free of bias, something that the outspoken beliefs of Professor Barrett calls into question. The questions directed at Professor Barrett were not religious tests, they were tests of partiality. Even if the questions were determined to be religious tests, it would not matter. By answering the questions without challenge, Professor Barrett conceded that the questions were legitimate. In any given case, the questions posed by Durbin were either legitimate or permitted by Professor Barrett. The situation itself is not what angers me, it is the reaction from news networks such as CBN. CBN used quotes to spread a message that the whole world hates the Catholic faith, and that members of the faith are the victims, which is not true in the slightest, as can be attested to by the over one billion Catholics who live unhampered by their faith. CBN specifically referred to this “everyone hates us” attitude when it was said, “Drawing on some of these materials, Feinstein launched a thinly veiled attack on Barrett's Catholic faith,” and later, when they said, “The California Democrat also called Barrett 'controversial.'” This fearmongering preformed by the news network is the exact kind of fake news the citizens of the United States said they wanted to avoid when they elected Donald Trump as president.
While I do understand your argument that it is important to ensure that a judge will remain impartial in cases of religious liberties despite his or her religious affiliation, I disagree when you begin to say that Senators Durbin and Feinstein are simply posing questions regarding this topic. When you stated that "Durbin believed that Professor Barrett's published religious views would interfere with her ability to judge impartially," this implies that Durbin formed a strong opinion about her abilities to judge effectively prior to the hearing, leaving little room for an unbiased hearing, which the Senate committees are intended to conduct. Senator Durbin used this simply as a political ploy to advance his agenda. Also, in Senator Feinstein's statements, she echoes these same sentiments, having already formed an opinion of the professor prior to the hearing. I will say, also, "fake news" as it is used now, is really based solely on perspective. While some may see this as simply a case by case basis, others may see that there is a double standard present where Catholics are consistently discriminated against, whereas if these same questions were asked or statements made of a potential judge of other faiths (many of whom share similar values), the individual asking or stating would be labeled a "bigot."
DeleteWhile I do agree with you that it is important for these sorts of questions to be brought up, I do not think that these questions should be asked officially in the court room. Not only because you literally can't do that due to the First amendment and Constitution, but because there should be things that are way more important than what religion someone is in situations like this.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Catholics need not apply." Really? Is this what the law system of this great nation has come to? The whole basis of America's foundation was religious freedom. It wasn't, "You can believe whatever you want, but nobody will respect you or take you seriously." The separation of church and state seems like something that wouldn't need to be discussed at such a high level in such a socially and politically advances society, but it seems that some people believe, because they hold a singular place in office, that they can interpret the Constitution however they choose to best suit themselves. "One nation, under God" is not up for discussion. Individual state's environmental laws even limit laws based that they must uphold the values of the constitution. The authority and judgment of a person in a field of law should never be tainted by their religious views, which is exactly what these judges are afraid of. However, these individuals have clearly expressed that their beliefs would never affect their official rulings. When being sworn in for a testimony, a witness places one hand on the Bible and the other up to God. What could be more Catholic than the Bible? Has the justice system honestly gotten to the point that they can allude directly to Christianity, but holds a clear bias against the people who live it? While this debate clearly is supported by at least a few people of authority,, it is a complete and total disgrace to the name of law to deface the complete basis on which it was founded: unbiased justice. It's 2017, and problems like this are still occurring. Society needs to find a way to resolve these social biases and treat everyone as God intended: equal.
ReplyDeleteYes, Emma! I 100% agree with the statement you include abou how the separation of church is state should a basic rule at this high level of justice.
DeleteAlso, thank you so much for including how before a testimony we put our hand on the Bible. That is such a good point!
This entire case over Amy Barret is a typical case of let's find out who has different beliefs and shut them down. I don't understand why her faith makes her “controversial.” Using faith to decide if someone is the right person for the job is similar to choosing a person for a team because their favorite color is blue! You cannot choose someone because they believe what they believe. Yes, the views of the church are not the popular opinion, but that does not mean Amy isn't more than qualified for the job. Mr. Durbin spent too much time asking about her faith and not enough about her self overall. We need judges who are not racist, sexist, and bias towards certain people. Amy expressed this before the hearing started by saying, “it is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions, whether it derives from faith or personal conviction.” I think the worst part is that Mr. Durbin is, too, a Catholic. I want to know if he would appreciate being singled out because of his faith. Amy, being a good Catholic, stands up for her faith and loudly explains it will not interfere with her work. First with Islamophobia, and now this, where is the justice in our justice systems? We are the land of the free of religious beliefs. As I mentioned before, choosing people over personal beliefs goes against common sense of equality. The world says we are moving towards equality, but are we really? People are afraid of those with different ideas and that's the reason Amy is not being looked at for her qualifications. This makes zero sense to me because faith is not a box that is checked when you become a doctor or a nurse. People go into careers that help others to simply do that; not to use their beliefs to make their own decisions, but to use facts and reason to decide. For example, would a Catholic doctor deny giving birth control to someone who needs it for a totally different reason other than actual birth control? I would hope not. Similarly, would a Catholic judge go against the jury's decision if it goes against their faith? Again, I would hope not. Faith has little to nothing to do with how a person is able to successfully work for justice and equality.
ReplyDeleteI agree fully with your argument! I definitely think that a line needs to be drawn between one's personal beliefs and their ability to carry out their job. While one's personal beliefs may influence how one feels about certain issues, this should not get in the way of objectivity, which you also clearly state in your argument. Great job!
DeleteI very much enjoyed the comparison between religious beliefs and colors. It really shows just how trivial this kind of bias is. I'd actually like to bring up another point about doctors. I'm not sure if you know this, but certain religions are against receiving blood or medical procedures because they believe that their god will save them if they're meant to live. It is difficult for doctors to comply, but they respect the religion. And, ultimately, it comes to be a matter of respect.
DeleteI totally agree that we need people who are not racist, sexist, and bias. Sadly there aren't many people out there like that. I also enjoy how you stated that just because believes in Catholicism doesn't mean she can't do her job succssfully. Good job!
DeleteI fully agree with you on this. Someone's faith should have little to no meaning when applying for a job, as long as they agree to do their job and are qualified to do so it shouldn't matter.
DeleteWhile I do agree with you on a few of your opinions, particularly the need for unbiased judges in America, I must dispute some of your main points. The reason her faith is considered so controversial is because, during her years in college, Barrett wrote on judging while having a Catholic faith. In the article, Barrett stressed that a Catholic judge must recuse themselves if the law requires they do something that goes against the Bible, something a federal appellate judge cannot do in some situations, as there are a limited number of these judges in each of the twelve regional circuits. The questions were posed because the Senate Judiciary Committee needed to know if her beliefs would interfere with her work. They had to make sure she would be able to do all parts of her job. Instead of not picking her for their team because of her favorite color being blue, the committee was under the impression that she would refuse to play on their team because they had green uniforms.
DeleteDominic, while it is fair to ask questions to ensure impartiality on the courts, it is not okay to continue to disparage a nominee simply for his or her own beliefs. Professor Barrett clearly explained that she wrote this paper in conjunction with a professor about twenty years ago. She further stated that she now believes a judge’s responsibility is not to inject his or her opinion into an argument, but to rule based on already established law/legislation. At this point in the hearing, this line of questioning should have ended, as Professor Barrett stated what you and most others thought she should have stated in response to these questions: that she will act as a fair, law-abiding judge. But instead, similar questions were directed toward Professor Barrett, which became increasingly hostile. So, no, Senator Feinstein’s and Senator Durbin’s behavior was not acceptable; it was morally repugnant and audacious, showing a clear lack of respect for Professor Barrett’s personal creed.
DeleteI really like how you organized your comment. It was well written and I agreed with everything you said. I especially liked your closing statement about faith having nothing to do with qualification.
DeleteI originally planned on reading one of the sources for this topic, writing my comment, and moving on with my day. However upon writing my comment about how I really didn't think Senator Durbin was persecuting Professor Barret all that much, something compelled me to dive deeper. I thought to myself that there had to be more and that I had to be missing something. And boy was I right. Upon seeing the way Senetor Feinstein attacked Proffessor Barret I went from not really caring, to being actually very angry. Are you serious? For Feinstein to say that Barret's passion for her beliefs in a bad thing is utterly wrong and ignorant. And don't even get me started on how Feinstein believes that Barret wouldn't uphold the views that so many people have "fought" for (Even though she is on record saying that she would). The way I took this statement is that Feinstein was clearly talking about the push to keep abortion legal. To go so far as to idolize these individuals actually makes me sick. You want to know what else people in this country actually fought for and gave their lives for? Religious Freedom. People have gave up their lives to protect that, and for Feinstein to even say that people who "fight" for pro abortion are even in the same boat as our soldiers is disgusting. This country was built upon the fact that no man or woman would be persecuted for their beliefs, NO MATTER WHAT. For Feinstein to go against everything that this great country was founded upon should not go unpunished.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your statement! I find it really interesting how much more you got into it after seeing Feinstein's attack at Barrett. And I definitely agree that Durbin didn't really persecute her, he rather just questioned her partiality. Good job!
DeleteI entirely agree! Although I didn't delve deeper as you did, from what I gathered, Feinstein seems to be putting himself on a moral pedestal and belittling Barrett. If he thinks he's level with soldiers, just ship him to the front lines
DeleteI found myself feeling the same way you did in the beginning. I love how passionate you got towards this subject and how I progressed in your writing. I loved your statement about pro-abortion "fighters" and our countries soldiers.
DeleteAfter reading this I realized that just because someone is devout in their faith, it doesn't mean that they are incapable on doing their job. Amy Barret didn't just become a judge so she could be bias towards Catholics and rule in favor of them. No, she became a judge to do her job rightfully and give justice to those that deserve it. Almost everyone in this country knows that there is a huge line drawn between religion and state. I feel it is unnecessary that Senator Durbin questioned Barrett about her faith, especially because he is also a Catholic and can do his job just as well as the rest of them. This makes me think that it could be something about her being a woman. If he as a man had no trouble becoming who he is regardless of his faith then why does it matter that Barrett is a Catholic? She even said her statements that she separates her personal beliefs from those that could possibly interfere with her job duties. Aren't we all supposed to be free to practice whatever religion we choose? Amy Barret has proved over and over that her religion has never interfered with her public work. We cannot have people in the law that are judging people for what they believe in. Our political system will never work if we have people who are that way. There is definitely a fine line between questioning ones partiality in the court and attacking them because of their beliefs. Feinstein pretty much attacked Barrett by saying "the dogma lives loudly within you." So what? What does that have to do with her ability to do her job successful? Also others are saying, "Catholics need not apply." Is that a joke? Everyone on this earth believes in something whether it's Atheism, Islam, or Judaism. Would they be persecuted as well? I don't think this case is fair at all for Amy Barrett. Faith cannot determine how well someone can perform. Everyone has a right to their faith and no one should ever try to bring them down for it. I hope that someday people will separate religion and state and work towards equality for those that believe.
ReplyDeleteI believe you said it best yourself, “We cannot have people in the law that are judging people for what they believe in. Our political system will never work if we have people who are that way.” One of the points of the Committee asking these questions was to make sure she would not be one of the people you described. Her writings in college suggested that she may hold a certain bias when she is judging. Granted, her college years were long behind her, and she holds a different opinion now, but the question of whether she still lets her faith affect her judging must still be posed. The accused must always have the right to a fair trial, and her previously published opinions cast doubt on whether she could effectively judge fairly. It was not just because she was a Catholic, it was not because she is a woman, it was because her previously expressed opinions diverged from what a judge must do.
DeleteI completely agree that this occurrence is saddening and disappointing in the extreme. A major point of America is freedom from such things, and this clearly contradicts everything the founding fathers effectively worked for
DeleteThis article is moderately disturbing to me. I can somewhat understand the concern, as they do not want any bias coming into the judicial system, but to nearly entirely write off a candidate based on religion is ludicrous. It's what the country was built on, religious freedom. It'd be no different than if an atheist became judge, or a Buddhist. But for some reason, it's an issue that this judge is catholic. Put any other denomination (or lack thereof) in that situation and it'd be deemed "discrimination" and the person would nearly be guaranteed a seat because of what they went through. Christianity and Catholicism in particular though seem to be especially targeted at times, rather unnecessarily in my opinion. Overall, I hope the candidate's faith plays no part in the decision in the end, and that those asking the questions either don't get to vote (they're clearly incompetent) or realize it doesn't matter what religion you follow.
ReplyDelete(P.s. Sorry Mrs. Messineo I'll get it on time next time I promise)
I haven't really thought about religion in our justice system. I always just believed that the judge or lawyer would not be criticized for using his or his faith as means to settle the dispute in court. If I were a judge, I would certainly let my faith and beliefs guide me in decided who the guilty party is. After reading the “‘Catholics Need not Apply?’ Senators accused of Anti-Catholic Bias at Hearing for Judicial Nominee” article, I felt angry about the fact that Feinstein attacked Barret for her opinion based on her faith. I believe it is absolutely absurd was she did to Barret. Amy Barret said that she would not let her faith interfere in her work. I say let it. Faith
ReplyDeleteshould be part of our everyday lives. I felt like Amy was being questioned on her faith more than her qualifications and such. I also disliked the article about banning Catholics from public life. It got into topics that are very close to me, like abortion. I agreed with Rees-Mogg on what he said in this article. Abortion, no matter what the circumstance is wrong in my book. Rape, unfortunately, is a leading cause of abortion, but it doesn't mean that the life should be ended. No one gets too choose when to end a life but God. I also believe that Catholics can be in charge of political events or anything for that matter. We should not be discriminated for our beliefs. That is exactly what most other religions stress. We are told by the government to not discriminate in the workplace of gender, sexual orientation, religion, or race. I felt that this type of discrimination was used against Amy Barret. As far as I can tell, Amy is definitely qualified for her position. It shouldn't matter if she is catholic or not. My hope is that someday, our nation will realize how to separate church and state., if it even needs to be. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. They can believe in whatever they want. I think that people should not be discriminated or bullied for what they believe in.
It's not like me to make a comment like this, but I'm angry enough to remove my filter, so here goes. That politicians would go out of their own way to shut a judge down for her devout Catholicism in her PERSONAL life is a complete crock of sh**! This is ludicrous! To deny Amy Barrett, who seems to have done her job well up to this point, a lucrative position in government simply for her strong Catholic faith is a major infringement of her rights as an American citizen. Our forefathers established that we are free to believe whatever we want, and while the separation of church and state stands as a means of preventing religious belief from being the driving force behind governmental rule, there is nothing out there that says one can be denied a place in government out of fear that they might inject some of their religious beliefs into the mix. This right here tells me that our country is headed in the wrong direction because of bigots like Dianne Feinstein. How and why are we electing such intolerant people like this? These same people are the ones who parade around and say that we, as a country, are being discriminatory and intolerant, yet they are so hypocritical when it comes to someone with different opinions than they have themselves. It's truly sickening, and it shows that we, as a nation, have a lot of work to do as far as respecting the views and opinions of others go. Ugh! This made my blood boil!
ReplyDeleteJarret, I feel the same way as you do. People do not have the right to just judge someone for what they believe in. Yes, we might not all believe in the same thing, but this is just outrageous.
DeleteI personally think this whole entire thing is just crazy. I am so angry that people are this upset over the whole situation. I can not believe people are literally acting like children because a judge believes in Catholism. As a judge, yes, your faith should be apart of your life. This is how you will decide if a person is found guilty or not. Amy is using her faith to make GOOD choices. Honestly, I would not be very upset over a situation like this, however, Amy may actually lose her job because she's being "biased." All judges are going to consider what they have been taught through their faith. That is how the system works and always has worked since the beginning of time.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more when you say people are acting like children. It is so frustrating to see all of this happen, and sadly, it is becoming more prevalent.
DeleteI agree with your terms on how she may lose her job. Many others in the work force may lose their jobs now too because of the corrupt society of the matter. If someone believes they are using their faith for good, let them. If Amy made good decisions until this point in time, leave her alone! She is doing well with her job just like she should be.
DeleteMany of those who are being persecuted are having difficult times throughout life, and not in just this era. I believe that people don't learn from their mistakes. Hitler persecuted the Jews into a point of destroying their life. Will these modern day Hitler's destroy these Catholics over their views? Without Catholics apart of the government, all catholic views would be judged incorrectly and biased. Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin are very wrong in my opinion for their slight bias against Barrett. Having someone that is open to their faith should not allow the person to be viewed any differently than someone who is not open about their faith. The government was created by Catholics, believing in God strongly. For someone to say that it will make them unfair at their judging is completely inappropriate and wrong. Also with that, the constitution says we have our right to religious belief and that is included within jobs. Jacob Rees- Mob also was persecuted for his beliefs. Although I do not know Britain’s law with religious freedom and personal belief, I believe it is incorrect to judge a person on his/ her stance on a topic. I am very upset as a practicing Catholic because I am freely open to my faith and do not agree that judgement is necessary. For anyone else who is open about their faith, I believe that they would also agree with me on the fact that they wouldn't enjoy being persecuted for something that they believe in.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that no one should be persecuted for what they believe in. If someone states their beliefs, the next logical step is not to just attack and persecute them, which seems to be something not a lot of people can understand.
DeletePersonally, this angers me a lot. I do not understand why people feel the need to persecute others so much for their beliefs, especially religious ones. For Feinstein and Durbin to attack Barrett like that is ridiculous. We are supposed to have the freedom to believe in whatever we please, but in today's world, it seems that is no longer possible. Almost any time you voice your opinion online, there are people calling you names and attacking your point of view. It is not in any way wrong to keep God and your faith a part of your life, and people just cannot seem to grasp this.
ReplyDeleteThe whole part about voicing your opinion to the media is so true. People can not just do or say what they want anymore with more completely getting shamed for it. It is such a disgrace that the world is coming to this.
DeleteI agree with you and Bethany about how your opinion in media is persecuted. Everyone in this country has their own right to their own opinion, that does not mean other may judge you or shame you fro that opinion. I think everyone needs a reality check with what they are doing in the media.
Delete