Thread: 1/3 of OUR Government ARE 100% Registered as NON-CRISTIAN? How IS THAT POSSIBLE?

EVERY person who reads this knows and can feel "Something IS Wrong". The most powerful Branch of OUR Government has been SUBVERTED. WE HAVE "ACQUIESCED" TO THIS. THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG.

Isaiah 33:22King James Version (KJV)

²² For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

Supreme Court's Lack of Religious Diversity

Posted: 06/30/2014 9:01 pm EDT Updated: 08/30/2014 5:59 am EDT

• Share
• Tweet
• Comment

The makeup of the current Supreme Court can be seen, in one way, as a big success story for certain minorities. It is a triumph, in fact, for two groups which have historically had to put up with a lot of discrimination and lack of political representation in America. These two groups are not defined by gender or race, but rather by religion. Broken down on religious lines, today's Supreme Court has members from just two religions, both of which had been historically underrepresented on the highest court: Roman Catholics and Jews. There are six Roman Catholics currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen). This is undoubtedly a story of rising up from underrepresentation. But, bearing in mind that America is a country with almost too many religions to count, have we actually moved into a problem of overrepresentation or lack of diversity? The question is on my mind today, obviously, as a result of the decision today in the Hobby Lobby contraception case. Three Jewish Justices and one Roman Catholic voted against five other Roman Catholics in a case defining the dividing line between religion and government -- a decision which affects us all.
Even bringing such questions up is a delicate matter. The United States Constitution states quite plainly that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Even if Article VI, paragraph 3 didn't exist, it brings into question the concept of "affirmative action" and the concept of "quotas." All of which have their own long history, pro and con, in America. So allow me to state from the beginning that I am not advocating religious quotas on the Supreme Court in any way. I don't think we should revert to the days when people openly spoke of there being a "Jewish seat" or a "Catholic seat" (note that both are singular) on the Supreme Court. But I still have to wonder, with all the top-notch lawyers in the country, why the current court has such a stunning lack of diversity in the religious realm. I propose no concrete solutions, though, I merely raise the question.
The change in the Supreme Court's makeup is undoubtedly a story of triumph over previous discrimination. Roman Catholics in particular have faced enormous discrimination in American history. There was even briefly a political party (the "Know Nothings" or the "American Party") whose entire agenda was based on being anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic. No other religion has that dubious historical distinction (with the possible exception of the Mormons, who faced equally virulent political discrimination in America's past).
The first Roman Catholic was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1836, but the second and third had to wait until 1894 and 1898. The first Jewish appointment was made in 1916. Since the Constitution was ratified, there have been a grand total of 112 Supreme Court Justices. A full 91 of these (81 percent) have been one flavor of Protestant Christian or another. Only 12 have been Roman Catholic (11 percent), and only 8 have been Jewish (7 percent). Seen in this light, it is pretty stunning that of only 20 Jewish and Roman Catholic Justices in all American history, almost half are now currently serving on the Supreme Court. This, as I mentioned, is a real triumph of minorities who faced a lot of previous discrimination. The equivalent today might be a future Supreme Court composed entirely of women and Latinos (in terms of the political hurdles they have overcome -- I'm not trying to equate religion and either gender or ethnicity, mind you, in any other way than on the scale of struggles faced).
As recently as the 1980s, there was a clear de facto religious quota on the Supreme Court, with one Jew and one Roman Catholic sitting in what was called the "Jewish seat" and the "Catholic seat." There was no law which compelled this, but it was a strong 20th-century political tradition -- one eventually expanded to also include an "African-American seat" and then a "woman's seat." But by the 1990s, even such unacknowledged quotas crumbled, as court members were nominated which fell outside the traditional concept of such minority seats (such as having a conservative African-American on the court, or having more than one woman). Soon the court's age-old Protestant majority shrank as well, until (in 1994) Stephen Breyer's nomination led to the first-ever Protestant minority on the court. By 2010, the last remaining Protestant retired, and the Supreme Court became exclusively Jewish and Roman Catholic.
This brings us up to date. One-third of the Supreme Court is now Jewish, and two-thirds are Roman Catholic. By population, about one-fourth of the American public is Catholic and less than two percent is Jewish. This means that, in terms of religious demographics, 27 percent of the country has 100 percent representation on the Supreme Court. The 50 percent of the country who identify as Protestant have precisely zero representation -- to say nothing of other various religious minorities.
The Supreme Court has had a large degree of success in moving towards greater diversity in the past half-century. Women, in particular, have made great strides. We now have a Latina on the high court as well. In not-so-obvious areas, however, the Supreme Court seems to be regressing noticeably. There is not a single Supreme Court member who didn't attend either Harvard or Yale, for instance. There is not a single member who has ever run for any public office -- which might go a long way to explain their obtuseness when it comes to rulings on campaign finance laws. Both these improvements and these regressions have to be laid at the feet of the presidents making the appointments. Supreme Court Justices are not elected, therefore the makeup of the court is entirely up to the president, who is free to chose any candidate for any reason they wish -- taking into account whether such a person improves diversity on the court in some ways, and removes diversity on the court in other ways.
This is also a result of the "no religious test" idea, enshrined in the Constitution. This concept cuts both ways. It means that even if 90 percent of the people are of one religion, a member of the 10 percent shouldn't be barred from office. But it also means that there is nothing to stop the 10 percent from holding all the available positions, either. If there is really no religious test (instead of de facto religiously-based individual "seats"), then sooner or later, randomly, we should face the situation we now face. If the best candidate for the job is weighed on legal knowledge and judicial temperament alone, and if religion isn't part of that equation whatsoever, then sooner or later we'll have an all-Protestant Supreme Court again (or a court made up of Mormons and Muslims, perhaps). By the laws of chance, the religious makeup of the Supreme Court should fluctuate over time.
But the makeup of the Supreme Court doesn't actually change all that often, so it might be a long time indeed before we see an all-Mormon/Muslim court. Consider that the following religions have never had a single member named to the highest court in the land: Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs (this should only be read as a partial list -- there are many other religions which have also never been represented). No Supreme Court Justice has ever publicly claimed to be an atheist, either.
The claim cannot be made that co-religionists on the Supreme Court vote identically (political position is a much better indicator). The fear when John F. Kennedy ran for president that "he would take orders from the Pope" cannot now be proven by the voting patterns of the current court (while five Roman Catholics voted in Hobby Lobby's favor, one dissented, just to give the most obvious example). There is not a true "Catholic bloc" of votes on the Supreme Court, even when it comes to questions of religion and law -- not in the way that there are reliably conservative and liberal blocs of votes (both currently balanced at four each). So I am not suggesting that the five in the majority voted the way they did because their own religion has strict views on contraception.
Presidents select Supreme Court Justices in order to further their own legal, political, and constitutional philosophies. Ultimately, if the voters want a different makeup on the Court, they will indicate this by the presidents they elect (to put this another way). America has moved beyond forming political parties whose purpose is nothing short of religious bigotry, and we've also moved beyond the undeclared tradition that "this is your religion's single seat on the Supreme Court, so just be happy with one out of nine." This is all to the good. But diversity for diversity's sake is a valid goal as well, because it brings to the table different life experiences, different viewpoints, and different ways of viewing the real-world effects of judicial decisions. Two religions who have historically been in the minority on the Supreme Court (20 out of 112, remember) now not just dominate the court, they exclusively dominate the court. Since religion is a big part of the worldview of any adherent, it doesn't seem too much to ask that future presidents at least consider a wider range of religious diversity when considering equally-acceptable candidates to the highest court in the land.

Exhibit A:

Well, the answer to that is simple. Recent Republican Presidents broke stride by appointing Catholics on the belief that they would put their version of God above good government and discriminate against gays and women. The damage done to our country because of the religious right's influence in the Republican Party over the two issues of gay rights and women's rights is sickening. That's why Bush appointed John Roberts, and what a disaster he has proven himself to be. The Kelo Decision for one. Two Obama Care rulings for 2 and 3. And his vote against gay marriage for number 4.

It should be noted however that Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy, the lead Justice on the most recent gay rights ruling on gay marriage Good for Kennedy and good for Reagan and good for America.

I mean Roberts actually believes that the violation of liberty and freedom concerning one's most private and personal liberties of health care is trumped by the 16th Amendment and that the right to tax citizen' income entitles the government to trample on that citizen's liberty, privacy, health and life.

Judy wrote:

It should be noted however that Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy, the lead Justice on the most recent gay rights ruling on gay marriage Good for Kennedy and good for Reagan and good for America.

That is a matter of opinion that many in this country don't share with you.

Overthrow the Judicial Dictatorship

By Cliff Kincaid June 27, 2015 6:55 am
Text Size: A A A

Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia’sdissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial “Putsch,” an attempt to overthrow a form of government—ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was written “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”
His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.
Scalia understands the power and meaning of words and he chose the word “putsch” for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government…” Another definition is “a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.”
Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.
In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about “marriage equality” and “equal rights” for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.

Special Headline: Guess Who’s About To Go Bankrupt in America will Shock you

Scalia’s dissent cannot be understood by listening to summaries made by commentators who probably didn’t read it. Although I may be accused of exaggerating the import of his dissent, my conclusion is that he is calling for nothing less than the American people to understand that a judicial dictatorship has emerged in this country and that its power must be addressed, checked, and overruled.
The implication of his dissent is that we, the American people, have to neutralize this panel, perhaps by removing the offenders from the court, and put in place a group of thinkers who are answerable to the Constitution and the people whose rights the Court is supposed to protect.
He says the majority on the court undermined the main principle of the American Revolution—“the freedom to govern themselves”—by sabotaging the right of the people to decide these matters. The Court destroyed the definition of marriage as one man and one woman “in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.” In other words, the Court acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally.
Scalia called the decision “a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”
Justice Scalia goes on, however, to attempt to explain why this is happening. He basically says, in so many words, that the majority of the Court is un-American, completely out of touch with American traditions and the views of ordinary Americans. He rips the Federal Judiciary as “hardly a cross-section of America,” people from elite law schools, with not a single person from middle-America, and not a single evangelical Christian or even a Protestant of any denomination. He calls the Court, on which he serves, a “highly unrepresentative panel of nine,” that has engaged in “social transformation” of the United States.
More than that, after examining the elite views and backgrounds of the “notorious nine,” he declares that while the American Revolution was a rejection of “taxation without representation,” we have in the gay marriage case, “social transformation without representation.”
One cannot help but think that Scalia wants readers to recall Obama’s promise of the “fundamental transformation” of America, except that in this case Obama has been assisted by five judges who did not represent, or even care about, the views of America as a whole.
While Scalia zeroed in on his colleagues on the Court, we can easily apply his analysis to the unelected members of the liberal media who pretend to offer the American people an objective and sensible interpretation of the decision.
On CNN, for example, anchor Brooke Baldwin “moderated” a discussion between lesbian liberal Sally Kohn and liberal pro-gay “Republican” Margaret Hoover. The only issue was when the Republican Party would accept gay rights and sell out conservative Christians. Baldwin herself is a member, or at least a supporter, of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.
Conservatives watching Fox News and hoping for a pro-traditional values perspective are likely to be seriously disappointed as well. The new Fox star, Megyn Kelly, is getting rave reviews from the liberals for defending homosexual and transgender rights. A special reportby Peter LaBarbera examines how Fox has been almost as biased on this issue as other media, calling the channel “unfair, unbalanced and afraid.” The word “afraid” describes the general failure to challenge the homosexual movement, into which Fox News has been pouring a significant amount of money for many years. Indeed, some “conservatives” have gone way over to the other side, with Greg Gutfeld, another rising Fox star, insisting that gay marriage is a conservative concept.
The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop. That fight must continue because our form of democratic self-government is in grave jeopardy, and has in fact suffered a major blow. A federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage is one obvious course of action. But that won’t solve the basic problem of an emerging judicial dictatorship willing to redefine historical institutions, make up rights, and defy common sense.
The court’s reputation for “clear thinking and sober analysis” is in danger because of this terribly misguided decision, Scalia writes. In other words, the Court is drunk with power and cannot see or think straight.
The same can be said about the major media, which cover this decision as just another controversial ruling that people will disagree on.
In fact, as the Scalia dissent notes, this decision will live in infamy. It is as if a Pearl Harbor-type attack has been achieved on America’s moral fabric and constitutional foundations.
In this context, Scalia talks about the Court overreaching its authority and moving “one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.” In my view, this is an open invitation for responsible elected officials to take power away from this Court and return it to the people.
But how will the Republican Party respond? Some big money players are demanding the white flag of surrender, so the GOP can “move on.” This is what the British “Conservative” Party has done, and we see the consequences there, as Christians are now being arrested by police or fired from their jobs for expressing views in favor of traditional values and traditional marriage.
Scalia’s discussion of “social transformation” of the United States without the voluntary input or approval of the people captures the essence of the coup that has been carried out. This process now has to be explained in terms that most people understand. It is, in fact, the phenomenon of cultural Marxism, an insidious process explained so forcefully in Professor Paul Kengor’s new book, Takedown.
As Kengor notes, gay marriage is only the beginning of this cultural transformation. By redefining the historical institution, the Court has opened the door to multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.
A country that descends to the bottom of the barrel morally and culturally will not be able to defend itself against its foreign adversaries and enemies. Indeed, we have the evidence all around us that, as the culture has degenerated, our ability to defend ourselves has simultaneously been weakened. The recent Pentagon gay pride event featured a male General introducing his husband, as a transgender Pentagon civilian employee looked on.
The next step, from the point of view of those objecting to this fundamental transformation of America, has to be to find those elected leaders willing to act. The presidential campaign of 2016 is an opportunity to find out who understands the crisis and whether they have a way out.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

So your "simple" tribalistic answer is "Its the OTHER TEAMS FAULT."? My point was 1/3 and most powerful Branch(Final Say) of OUR Government ARE ALL of a Different Religion(Core Belief) THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. WE are Responsible for that.

"Get Involved with Democracy or loose it."

JMO, but I am sticking to it. In 1770's there was very good reason to accept religion as a reality to be acknowledged. There was also a very good reason to separate church and state. Religious wars have been a very large part of history, thus accepting without qualification or prejudice all religions was right, but setting them aside as a non-governing activity was even more right. Purpose, whether known at the time of Constitution construction or not, it was a good omen that religious wars in USA were not encouraged not tolerated.

Today, we have something called the Christian right, which because it strongly implies superiority of Christian religions. That will cause religious frictions, undoubtedly. Many would not grasp that it is referring to political leaning. Today we have religious organizations providing services for government for monetary profit. As a non-profit organization, that is blasphemy.

In business when things go wrong we sometimes say "Get back to the basics." That is intended to remind us to do again what made us successful. I am telling America that it is time for the USA to return to the basics! The two major parties are who and what have taken us away from the basics. Both being so full of false pride, with a belief that they and only they are right (Christian right), that is not likely or evident to happen. Who is the basis of our nation and Constitution, "We, the people." Yes, to hell with party and religion aside again, "WE, the people must" return to the basics without party intrusion.

Originally Posted by MW

Judy wrote:



That is a matter of opinion that many in this country don't share with you.

Overthrow the Judicial Dictatorship

By Cliff Kincaid June 27, 2015 6:55 am
Text Size: A A A

Commentators have missed the real significance of Justice Antonin Scalia’sdissent in the gay marriage case. He calls the decision a judicial “Putsch,” an attempt to overthrow a form of government—ours. His dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, was written “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”
His comment about the Court using the kind of reasoning we find in a fortune cookie is a funny line. But there is much of the Scalia dissent that is not funny and which serves as a warning to the American people about what the Court has done to us.
Scalia understands the power and meaning of words and he chose the word “putsch” for a specific purpose. One definition of the term means “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government…” Another definition is “a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.”
Hence, Scalia is saying this was not only a blatant power grab and the creation of a “right” that does not exist, but a decision that depends on public ignorance about what is really taking place. It is our system of checks and balances and self-rule that has been undermined, he says.
In that sense, he is warning us that we need to understand the real significance of this decision, and go beyond all the commentators talking about “marriage equality” and “equal rights” for homosexuals. In effect, he is saying that the decision is really not about gay rights, but about the future of our constitutional republic, and the ability of the people to govern themselves rather than be governed by an elite panel making up laws and rights as they go.

Special Headline: Guess Who’s About To Go Bankrupt in America will Shock you

Scalia’s dissent cannot be understood by listening to summaries made by commentators who probably didn’t read it. Although I may be accused of exaggerating the import of his dissent, my conclusion is that he is calling for nothing less than the American people to understand that a judicial dictatorship has emerged in this country and that its power must be addressed, checked, and overruled.
The implication of his dissent is that we, the American people, have to neutralize this panel, perhaps by removing the offenders from the court, and put in place a group of thinkers who are answerable to the Constitution and the people whose rights the Court is supposed to protect.
He says the majority on the court undermined the main principle of the American Revolution—“the freedom to govern themselves”—by sabotaging the right of the people to decide these matters. The Court destroyed the definition of marriage as one man and one woman “in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.” In other words, the Court acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally.
Scalia called the decision “a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”
Justice Scalia goes on, however, to attempt to explain why this is happening. He basically says, in so many words, that the majority of the Court is un-American, completely out of touch with American traditions and the views of ordinary Americans. He rips the Federal Judiciary as “hardly a cross-section of America,” people from elite law schools, with not a single person from middle-America, and not a single evangelical Christian or even a Protestant of any denomination. He calls the Court, on which he serves, a “highly unrepresentative panel of nine,” that has engaged in “social transformation” of the United States.
More than that, after examining the elite views and backgrounds of the “notorious nine,” he declares that while the American Revolution was a rejection of “taxation without representation,” we have in the gay marriage case, “social transformation without representation.”
One cannot help but think that Scalia wants readers to recall Obama’s promise of the “fundamental transformation” of America, except that in this case Obama has been assisted by five judges who did not represent, or even care about, the views of America as a whole.
While Scalia zeroed in on his colleagues on the Court, we can easily apply his analysis to the unelected members of the liberal media who pretend to offer the American people an objective and sensible interpretation of the decision.
On CNN, for example, anchor Brooke Baldwin “moderated” a discussion between lesbian liberal Sally Kohn and liberal pro-gay “Republican” Margaret Hoover. The only issue was when the Republican Party would accept gay rights and sell out conservative Christians. Baldwin herself is a member, or at least a supporter, of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.
Conservatives watching Fox News and hoping for a pro-traditional values perspective are likely to be seriously disappointed as well. The new Fox star, Megyn Kelly, is getting rave reviews from the liberals for defending homosexual and transgender rights. A special reportby Peter LaBarbera examines how Fox has been almost as biased on this issue as other media, calling the channel “unfair, unbalanced and afraid.” The word “afraid” describes the general failure to challenge the homosexual movement, into which Fox News has been pouring a significant amount of money for many years. Indeed, some “conservatives” have gone way over to the other side, with Greg Gutfeld, another rising Fox star, insisting that gay marriage is a conservative concept.
The Scalia dissent demonstrates why the fight for traditional values cannot and must not stop. That fight must continue because our form of democratic self-government is in grave jeopardy, and has in fact suffered a major blow. A federal constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage is one obvious course of action. But that won’t solve the basic problem of an emerging judicial dictatorship willing to redefine historical institutions, make up rights, and defy common sense.
The court’s reputation for “clear thinking and sober analysis” is in danger because of this terribly misguided decision, Scalia writes. In other words, the Court is drunk with power and cannot see or think straight.
The same can be said about the major media, which cover this decision as just another controversial ruling that people will disagree on.
In fact, as the Scalia dissent notes, this decision will live in infamy. It is as if a Pearl Harbor-type attack has been achieved on America’s moral fabric and constitutional foundations.
In this context, Scalia talks about the Court overreaching its authority and moving “one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.” In my view, this is an open invitation for responsible elected officials to take power away from this Court and return it to the people.
But how will the Republican Party respond? Some big money players are demanding the white flag of surrender, so the GOP can “move on.” This is what the British “Conservative” Party has done, and we see the consequences there, as Christians are now being arrested by police or fired from their jobs for expressing views in favor of traditional values and traditional marriage.
Scalia’s discussion of “social transformation” of the United States without the voluntary input or approval of the people captures the essence of the coup that has been carried out. This process now has to be explained in terms that most people understand. It is, in fact, the phenomenon of cultural Marxism, an insidious process explained so forcefully in Professor Paul Kengor’s new book, Takedown.
As Kengor notes, gay marriage is only the beginning of this cultural transformation. By redefining the historical institution, the Court has opened the door to multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.
A country that descends to the bottom of the barrel morally and culturally will not be able to defend itself against its foreign adversaries and enemies. Indeed, we have the evidence all around us that, as the culture has degenerated, our ability to defend ourselves has simultaneously been weakened. The recent Pentagon gay pride event featured a male General introducing his husband, as a transgender Pentagon civilian employee looked on.
The next step, from the point of view of those objecting to this fundamental transformation of America, has to be to find those elected leaders willing to act. The presidential campaign of 2016 is an opportunity to find out who understands the crisis and whether they have a way out.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

Oh sure, there's a lot of people who don't share my opinion on a lot of matters. There's a lot of people who don't agree with me on immigration, the FairTax, free trade treason, the War on Drugs, women's rights, equal rights, gay rights, Obama Care, and a host of issues.

Just as I don't share their opinion.

Take Kincaid's article for example. He says this:

As Kengor notes, gay marriage is only the beginning of this cultural transformation. By redefining the historical institution, the Court has opened the door to multiple wives, group marriages, sibling marriages, fathers and stepfathers marrying daughters and stepdaughters, and uncles marrying nieces.

These are the words of ignorant people who don't even understand marriage laws to begin with and have no grasp at all of the US Constitution. Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, bigamy, age of consent, or blood lines. Gay marriage is subject to the same governing laws as any other marriage. Bans on gay marriage were over-ruled by the Court under the 14th Amendment, because it was discrimination and violated the equal protection clause.

Originally Posted by WalkerStephens

So your "simple" tribalistic answer is "Its the OTHER TEAMS FAULT."? My point was 1/3 and most powerful Branch(Final Say) of OUR Government ARE ALL of a Different Religion(Core Belief) THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. WE are Responsible for that.

"Get Involved with Democracy or loose it."

Who are you talking to? I certainly hope you didn't think you were talking to me. I'm a dyed in the wool Republican from a family of Republicans who have been Republican since there were Republicans. So, there is no "it's the other teams fault" here. I'm disgruntled with the direction if not obsession in recent years of the Republican Party with personal, private and social issues. That's been a recent thing with the party and I hope they realize that to be effective in governance, government needs to stay out of the way of the liberty of its citizens.

"I certainly hope you didn't think you were talking to me." lol
I will just re-post "My point was 1/3 and most powerful Branch(Final Say) of OUR Government ARE ALL of a Different Religion(Core Belief) THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. WE are Responsible for that."(Context: WE have the Government WE deserve.)

"Get Involved with Democracy or loose it."

R and L play for the same Corp. Team and now its obvious that The Supreme Court Dose too.

Originally Posted by WalkerStephens

"I certainly hope you didn't think you were talking to me." lol
I will just re-post "My point was 1/3 and most powerful Branch(Final Say) of OUR Government ARE ALL of a Different Religion(Core Belief) THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. WE are Responsible for that."(Context: WE have the Government WE deserve.)

"Get Involved with Democracy or loose it."

R and L play for the same Corp. Team and now its obvious that The Supreme Court Dose too.

Your point is well taken, it's incredibly bizarre that Catholics and Jews comprise the entire US Supreme Court. 6 Catholics or 66% of the Court when Catholics only comprise less than 24% of the US population and 33% of the Court by Jews when Jews comprise only 1.7% of our population. I have no problem with their religion unless they are so biased by it that they mistreat others with difference views. But the way the protestant religion has moved into politics, immigration and social issues, I seriously doubt their "core beliefs" would be any more advantageous to the people of the United States. Most protestant organizations are promoting amnesty, some are promoting civil disobedience against gay people, some still refuse to allow blacks in their church or at least won't let them marry in them, many are part of the Pro-Life nonsense against girls and women, and most from what I can tell prefer a black market illegal drug trade enriching foreign criminals and bombarding our nation with illegal aliens to do the running over a regulated legal domestic drug trade, so I honestly don't see where someone's religion is an advantage at all.

Fortunately, most Americans are free-thinkers and arrive at their "core beliefs" through a variety of ways, religion may have been a part of it at least early in their lives, or late if they're recent religionists, but truly most people's belief structure is based on a combination of their own brain, reason, emotions, instincts, information, society, education, family, friends, experiences, and perhaps to some degree religion. For those who try to make their religion their core beliefs, they or others actually shape the platform of the religion, which is a man-made institution to recognize and worship God, and the church doctrines, platforms and desired behavior of the members were all established by church leaders and members.

Christianity at least, was supposed to be a personal, private, spiritual relationship with God and Jesus, not a substitute for government, not an authoritarian dictatorship over other people, and most certainly never a religion that would hurt, harm, diminish, embarrass, exclude, condemn, confine, mistreat or abuse someone else. But wow, have major parts of that group gone off the grid doing the exact opposite of what Jesus taught us. And no, this does not mean Christians should be nice to illegal aliens. We are supposed to protect our own citizens, not harm them by being nice to people who invaded our country in violation of US immigration law. It means we hand the illegal aliens a Happy Meal and wish them Happy Trails, because they can't work here, they can't sign up for benefits here, they can't do anything here except .... leave.