https://stream.org/nominees-religious-faith-dominates-senate-judicial-confirmation-hearing/
So, Should We Ban Catholics from Public Life?
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?
A man is merely the sum of his ideals. His entire character is the manifestation of his own thoughts. So what happens when his thoughts are contrary to the system he serves? The simplification of human existence nullifies the beauty of what it means to be a free thinking person in a position of moral authority. This is made clear in the instance of Professor Amy Coney Barrett. Within the past week, Barrett’s ability to serve in the courts has been questioned due to her Catholic faith. This, however, seems to be in direct opposition to both legal and logical reasonings. To understand this fully, one must take a took at the purpose of separation between church and state. The reason that the two are separate is not necessarily a protection of government, but the protection of the Constitutional freedom of religion. All should be free to practice their faith without fear of persecution, oppression, or microaggression. ‘Should’ is the key word in this phrase, as it can now be seen quite clearly that no one is truly safe from any of these forms of torment. This raises the question: why protect religion from government, but not government from religion? Each can potentially be equally poisonous to the other, so why not sanitize either one of the other? The reason, quite simply, seems to be that without faithful people, the judicial system would fall short. That is to say, that conviction guides each and every person towards informed judgement. Because Barrett’s moral convictions are in line with her Catholic faith, she is, in a sense, even more qualified to serve in the courts than if she had no moral standard. Faith is not synonymous with bias, and therefore cannot be treated as such in the case of Amy Coney Barrett. But then there is another matter to consider. Will her Catholic faith distort what is moral and what is legal? The answer to this question, as Barrett herself affirms, is no. When her own orthodoxy was brought into question, she retorted that her church affiliation could and would in no way affect her ability to serve in the court of justice. Even so, popular opinion still claims otherwise with a single Google search yielding dozens of articles in opposition to her and to her faith. It is disturbing to think of the law as flawed or even immoral, but it is the modern dilemma.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts Anna, in my opinion the law is immoral. I think there is a point though when it is necessary for the law to do things that seem immoral and flawed.
DeleteWow Anna, I really like your out look on this situation. I agree that the judicial system would fall short without faithful people. But I think that the law can sometimes be flawed as well.
DeleteAnna I really liked when you talked about how the two "should" be separated but obviously aren't. Barrett shouldn't have to defend herself from the government because of her religion just because they think she will let her religious beliefs cloud her judgment.
DeleteI think nothing should be made of the situation, it is one of those things that are wrong but just needs to be brushed off. Controversy of law and one's faith has been in issue since the beginning of humanity. There will always be someone who has different thoughts in religion and may be bias to someone else's. I am not angry with the situation but I think it was unjust for the man to put her on the spot about her faith in the situation. People have the right to ask about faith but faith cannot be compared with law. Ultimately faith is what one believes in but if one is put in a position of law they should follow the law first. It is unfair to those of other religions to be effected by a judges descions if they are based on the judge's faith. So if someone is in the position of a judge the law should come before faith. One's faith should not effect how they enact with the law and punishing those who do not follow the law. I am on the side of Mrs. Barrett who stated that her beliefs would not effect how she acts with law. The main point of the argument was that the man asked Barret unnecessary questions and stated thoughts that were not needed. Barret obviously understands that faith should not be combined with law and understands that she must make lawfully correct decisions rather than decisions based on her faith on the job.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree, I thing this situation is very angering. Barrett stated that although she was catholic, she could do her job well. I agree that it was unnecessary for him to ask the question, but it was rude for him to even think her faith would affect her job preformmance.
DeleteI personally disagree with you Nick and agree with Rena. I find it angering because he continues to bring her ability to separate her faith from her professional life even after she states that it can be done. I find the question once is okay, but to keep asking it in different ways is unnecessary.
DeleteNick, I have read your comment and both of your replies, and while I agree that a judge must remain unbiased, the point of the judicial system as a whole is to make informed moral decisions based on the possible crimes of another. The accused already finalized that her faith would not affect her ability to serve in the court of law. The issue that I take with your comment, and even with your reply directed at me, is that laws do not always have to be just. Laws should be put in place to protect the rights of individuals and keep people safe, so how could immoral laws ever be applicable?
DeleteI disagree with you Nick I don't think that this should just be brushed off. I think things kind of thing needs to be addressed. Barrett didn't pay thousands of dollars to go to law school and years of hard work just to be rudely questioned about her faith. I do think however she should be careful about how she goes about certain situations since she is Catholic.
DeleteThis article really allows us to see what the world has come to. It disgusts me that someone can be so good at what they do and be discriminated against because of what they believe in. Amy Barnett is a law school professor at Notre Dame. How do you think she could have got that job if she was changing laws because of her faith, and teaching others to do the same. I feel as though being a catholic can ,and most likely does, help judges to be great. The four Cardinal virtues, for example, are all examples of beliefs and practices that make you a good catholic and also help you to make good decisions. The first virtue is prudence. Prudence allows us to judge right from wrong in any given situation. That is exactly what a judge does. Justice is also an important cardinal virtue, it is believe that people should get what they deserve. This is why she is a judge, because she believes that people need to be responsible for there actions and misconduct. Fortitude is the next virtue which would allow a judge to overcome fear and stay steady in their decisions when they get difficult. The last one is temperance which is the restraint of our desires and passions. People were saying that she would be bias as a catholic judge, but really as a catholic we are taught to be true and good in every decision we make. I don't know how non-catholic judges even judge cases without God on their side. I believe that if Barnett is living by good catholic morals, she is more than capable of doing her job well.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree Rena. I really like how you brought in the cardinal virtues to help justify why you find this would help her in some ways. That was a very good thought.
DeleteRena, I agree with you on your thoughts about the catholic faith being a great base for making decisions as a judge. However, many other people would not because there are other beliefs in the world that would cause disagreement with a judge if the judge makes descisions based on their own faith.
DeleteI agree with most of what you said, especially that a Catholic would be true and good in every decision they make. I believe that a Catholic would be more likely to be less biased than a non-catholic which is where I think you were going with that.
DeletePersonally I have always heard people say that sometimes fairness is different for some people. Different levels of fair depends on different people. I however think that it really only applies in certain situations. These people are verbally attacking Barret is wrong and they shouldn't think she is unfit for a position due to her religion. One issue brought up during the hearing is the fact that since she is Catholic she may push harder to make abortion illegal and let her Catholic views and beliefs cloud herjudgment. I however want you to think of one thing. Technically if someone is not Catholic and believes that abortion is all right then they would push harder for it to be kept legal so wouldn't that make them biased to their own beliefs? The people who think she is unfit for the position think that she would also let her beliefs get in the way. Technically speaking both are unfit for the position, both have their own beliefs and could eventually let those beliefs get the best of them. So why question her beliefs and religion while trying to get this job when if you really think about it no one is fit. If we let this happen in any other position we would eventually have to only let people who were neutral or who really didn't care take these positions. Also you need to realize that if this woman were any other religion this entire situation would blow up and become a huge crazy event in our country, but since she's Catholic people question her religion. It is much like the black lives matter issue. If a black male is shot by a cop people start rioting but if a white man was shot in the same situation than people wouldn't care as much, I feel the same thing happens for Catholics. In a situation however you should stay out of it u less you a crucial part of the situation. Things like this can get very heated and complicated very quickly it is best to stay neutral. When asked the question "does this situation make you angry" I guess I could honestly answer yes. I believe that no matter what you are male or female, black or white, Catholic or Protestant you shouldn't be questioned and attacked verbally. Words can cut deep even if you don't think that they can. I am personally on Barret's side, I think she should be able to pursue a career no matter what her religious beliefs are. For all anyone could know she could be the best person out of everyone else for this job but without giving her a chance to prove herself will we ever really know?
ReplyDeleteOur faith makes us part of who we are, and it will obviously be an effect in our every day lives. I find the fact that this women is being discriminated against because of her personal life and her beliefs is very wrong. She clearly states that although she is a practicing, faithful Catholic she knows that it cannot affect her judgement in office. Just like Barret, many of us may sometimes be called to question because of our faith. But this faith is what helps us stand firm in morals, make good decisions, and pass a proper judgment when necessary. And is this not exactly what her job entails? Sure, being Catholic may try affect some things, like the death penalty, but she clearly acknowledges this when brought into question. Throughout her questioning she continues to assure her faith does not mix with her judicial life, but it continues to be seen as an issue. This sitiuation makes me does actually make me angry. Separation of church and state has already once been an issue, and now is being made one again. Although Barret defends her faith, she also reassures that she understand it is separate from her professional life. But this does not satisfy those questioning her, they continue to call this topic to into being the main subject. She answers their question about it truthfully. Seeing how she is not afraid to defend her fait, I also think she would not be afraid to admit if her faith would affect her decisions as a judge. They almost don't seem to believe her. Is this because of her faith? Is it because they don't find her fit and are just using that as an excuse? We do not know the answer to this, but either way I am on Barrett's side in this situation. She is just doing her job, faith set aside from it all. Our faith has become a huge part of all of our lives, and it seems hers too. But she knows where the line has to be drawn and people should respect that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Madison. There is no reason for them to keep questioning her after she answers the first time. This makes me angry as well
DeleteMadison, you are absolutely correct in that faith will affect all aspects of a person's life. In most cases outlook is informed in part by faith, so that honestly is inescapable. But to say that she cannot separate her beliefs from her duty is really both sickening and saddening.
DeleteI agree Madison, although it's very important to set your faith aside to do your job most effectively, it's also important to do this while keeping your faith with the Catholic Church.
DeleteThis article can be very angering to many, which is understandable, but the United States has had many successful Catholic judges. John T. Noonan Jr. who was a judge for thirty years, wrote 18 books, and had little to no problems with his Catholic faith biasing his decisions. I am not angry at all with this situation, because I have faith that Barrett will be just as successful as Noonan. Who's to say that Barrett won't be just as successful? She stated that she won't let her Catholic views bias her judicial career whatsoever, including precedents that legalized abortion. I guess I am on Barrett's side, mainly because of the questions that were asked of her were very inappropriate. Even Benjamin Sasse who is a member of the United States senate admitted that many of the questions asked to her were of no relation to Barrett’s judicial career, “I think some of the questioning that you have been subjected to today seems to miss some of these fundamental constitutional protections we all have.” (Benjamin Sasse) The most important point in this situation is that no matter your faith, Catholic or not, you are capable of being a member of the Judicial Court, or anything for that matter.
ReplyDelete