Muslim Supreme Court Nominee?

Just because they may have been in the wrong about a case or two, does not mean they were stuped. Do you disagree that this Nation is overwhelimingly infulenced by Christianity over any and all other religions? Do you disagree with their assesment that when all things are considered, one can come to no other conclusion?

rsr, where have you been? You just went to sleep one night and never came back.

 

It was the opinion of one of the judges, Breyer, who concurred with the ruling to that allowing a foreign employee entry into the country did not violate a specific law in this case. His phrase "christian nation" was written in the context of supportins the decision that a foreign-born minister is allowed access to this country and does not violate the Act in question.

Because they did not "rule" that we are a Christian nation. That wasn't even at issue here.

On the contrary. <personal attack deleted - LE >

<Go back and read the thread - I said to go google the case. Any further personal attacks on me or any other member will continue to be deleted without notice - LE>

[ October 04, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

You have no way of knowing that. It's strictly your personal opinion, and not factual.

In fact, two cases before mine, the plaintiff was a woman, and the defendant was a man. The plaintiff was suing to recover her security deposit. The plaintiff won. There were several cases that morning in which the winning side was a female and the losing side was a male.

That blows a wide gaping hole in your contention.

 

The fact remains that you have made baseless claims about judges based solely on religion.

Federal, State, and Municipal courts do not collect religious affiliation information on their employees as a matter of employment. However, the occaisional apppointment sometimes makes the local news, such as was Bahir Kamil's appointment to the Newark judiciary:

Edited to shorten link

My coworker, who is from Indianapolis, informed me that there is a well respectred judge there by the name of Hon David Shaheed, and he is a Superior Court judge in Marion County, appointed in 1999 and elected to a six year term in November 2002. The reason he's well respected is because he is also a member of the Religious Alliance Against Pornography, a local interfaith organization.

My local Orange County has a handful of Municipal judges and comissioners who happen to be Muslim, as does the nearby San Diego county. There's been nothing to suggest that any of these peoples'religion sways their judicial decision making process.

[ October 04, 2005, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

Whoa, there. You snipped my post, and then attempted to defend yourself in my post. Is that not an abuse of mod privileges? If you want to snip my post, fine. But I suggest that since you're the topic, you allow another moderator to do it. This will avoid any impression of impropriety.

Looks like I struck a nerve. I never said that "you" quoted David Barton. David Barton has, however, cited this case to falsely claim that SCOTUS "ruled" that the US is a Christian nation. That claim is a lie.

However, you did say that SCOTUS ruled that the US is a Christian nation. <personal attack snipped - LE>

[ October 04, 2005, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

Kindly inform another moderator to referee. I did not once attack you personally, and by you saying I did, you are in fact falsely accusing me. Now, in regards to the previous posts, y You made a false statement, and you are refusing to acknowlege it. If you consider this a personal attack, then I suggest getting another moderator involved to be an objective third party.

You said that SCOTUS "ruled" that the US is a Christian nation. It is an objective fact that this statement was made by you. It is also an objective fact that this statement is false.

I never usurped your opinion, But I did refute the facts you posted. Muslims in this country have the same rights as you do, and that includes being judges without being subjected to a religious test.

I am grateful that this great country of ours is not beholden to your opinions. None of the Muslims on the bench are Muslims judges. They're US judges, who happen to be Muslim, and you may not like it, but you have to permit it, and as a Christian, you're obligated to support their right to be such.

[ October 04, 2005, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

"Because they did not "rule" that we are a Christian nation. That wasn't even at issue here."
---------------------------------------------

But the point the judge made and I am making is that when one honestly looks at our history, documents and art, one can come to no other conclusion than the judge did. "We are a Christians nation." By that I mean we were through our setteling, founding as a nation, and growth into a super power, wholey influenced by Christ and his word to the vertual exclusion of all other religions. This cannot be down played or denied. We are not claiming that this is a therocracy, but this was once a Christian Nation.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that our culture is influenced by Christian themes, but neither are those Christian themes exclusve, nor are they molopolistic.

But that's not the point the judge was making. The point the judge was making is that a foreigner can enter the country as a Christian minister and not violate the statute in question.

 

Scripture instructs you to obey the governing authorities, and that is true of judges as well, regardless of that judge's gender, religion, etc.

The government doesn't forbid a person from being in governmental authority based on their religion. Therefore you must live by that.

 

"But that's not the point the judge was making. The point the judge was making is that a foreigner can enter the country as a Christian minister and not violate the statute in question"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No that is the issue he was dealing with, but in dealing with that issue he said that based on our documents and history one could come to no other conclusion then that this is a Christian nation. To say that the country was simply influenced by "christian themes" is wrong at best and suspecious at worst.

 

??? Did you read the whole opinion? Because that's not what he was saying at all. In fact, in the opinion as a whole, the "Christian nation" reference is a blip on the radar. Bartonites have made a religion out of that one phrase.

You mean, we weren't influenced by Christian themes? I think we were. But if you look at the history, it was individual religious freedom that drove the early colonists. Interestingly, manyof the early colonists came here to flee persecuation, but then persecuted their neighbors. The early Puritans, Dutch Reformists, and Anglicans didn't exactly get along. They often gto along better with the heathen natives than their white settler neighbors.

 

"You mean, we weren't influenced by Christian themes?"

No ,I meant, to say we were simply influenced by themes is such an understatement as to make it suspecious.