Who is Matthew Whitaker? Does he have a right to serve as AG? Should he recuse?

I would bet that 99% of them were deeply religious.
Like I said, no one says the laws are the commandments word for word. Our forefathers, where did they get their moral code, their principles? I know you'll leap through a lot of hoop to avoid the brutally obvious answer.

For example, why was infidelity illegal? Why did our forefathers write that law? Was it something they just came up with? Or (leading you here) were there some other influences that instilled this moral code?

I would assume they were raised christian, but in their education were exposed to the enlightenment, which was hitting a new phase in the 18th century.

I would concede that many laws, specifically vice laws, are a reprise to biblical morality, yes. Luckily, advances in our legal code have luckily remedied some of these poverties.
 
He’s a trump yes man being put into a position of power he doesn’t deserve so he can shill for the president.

Just know if obama did something like this you people would shit a kitten
 
What's wrong with a Christian view of justice? After all, the United States was founded on Judeo Christian principles. Perhaps TS prefers the promotion of Sharia Law style justice. No thank you.

I don't think a lot of people actually get that.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and 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.[1]

- U.S Constitution


Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

- U.S Constitution

But Whitaker said that using belief in natural law as a criterion for appointing U.S. federal judgeships did not go far enough.

“As someone that’s interacted with the federal judiciary a time or two, I will tell you that I have a unique perspective on federal judges,” he said.

“And while I agree that I want to understand their judicial philosophy and whether they understand natural law and natural rights and then the founding documents and how they fit together...I don’t think that gets us far enough because natural law oftentfimes is used from the eye of the beholder," he continued. "What I’d like to see is things like their worldview.… Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? I think that is very important.”

If judges have a “secular worldview,” said Whitaker, “where this is all we have here on Earth? Then I’m going to be very concerned about how they judge.”

- Matthew Whitaker





Come again?
 
Last edited:
Then look up the actions of the men who framed the founding documents, along with their writings, and the laws and treaties they enacted which explicitly made clear this is a secular republic founded upon no religion.
I think you are confused by the fact that we are not a Christian nation here in the U.S., but we were still founded on Biblical Christian Principles.
 
I don't even know where to begin with this. Sorry bro, you don't know about our founding history.

I dont think he is talking about how or why Murka broke off from GB. Just that the men who are thought of as the leaders come from a particular school of thought, is all I think he is trying to state.
 
I think you are confused by the fact that we are not a Christian nation here in the U.S., but we were still founded on Biblical Christian Principles.

First explain what a biblical principle is, and how these principles are unique and derived from christianity or the bible.

Then explain as to why pious christians created an explicitly secular consitution barring the promotion or discrimination towards any and all religions.

I think James Madison, christian and framer put it quite eloquently, and clearly:

t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others. [James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238]
 
Christian principles were clearly a part of our founding, but you have the right to your own religious freedom. Look up George Washington's prayer journals along with him leading prayer meetings with the founders as a start.

Washington was not involved in the drafting of our constitution.

I would call that a swing and a miss, but it's more apt to say you got lost on the way to the ballpark.
 
He’s a trump yes man being put into a position of power he doesn’t deserve so he can shill for the president.

Just know if obama did something like this you people would shit a kitten

He did. His name was Eric holder. Who proudly stated he was "obamas man" and who Obama had to use executive privilege to shield the attorney Fucking general from prosecution for his cover up for the fast and furious gun smuggling scandal.

Jeff sessions actually did a good job not being a presidential stooge. Left still hated him though.
 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
Here is a little primer on the establishment clause.

The whole point of the Secular Republic is that there is no promotion or discouragement of any religion. That way, we don't see a situation like we saw before the constitution, with Jews and Catholics denied civic status in certain states, and credulous people falling victim to religious craze after religious craze in what later became known as the Burned over District.

And the fuckers who wrote the constitution think you're a palatine boor.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

[Letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803]”
― James Madison

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Adams submitted and signed the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797]

“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

[Letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822 - Writings 9:100--103]

“Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.”

If you picked up more than a single book every day, you might learn about the history of your nation, and what the men who founded it did so in service of. Then you would avoid sounding a fool in the 21st century, when, unlike them, you have instant access to all of their writings, along with the works of the giants they toddled upon.

It is more so to keep out the power Church, or whatever official body for whatever religion and to curb their influence. You can have religion, and beliefs without a good ole boy club running everything. You can still value the principles of the religion and include in government.

I think that is the disconnect you guys are having. YOu can have religion without the Church, or a ruling body. Our founders just wanted to keep out the ruling body of religion, not the religion or the values itself.
 
He did. His name was Eric holder. Who proudly stated he was "obamas man" and who Obama had to use executive privilege to shield the attorney Fucking general from prosecution for his cover up for the fast and furious gun smuggling scandal.

Jeff sessions actually did a good job not being a presidential stooge. Left still hated him though.

This is such a dishonest rewriting of history you should go kill yourself.
 
It is more so to keep out the power Church, or whatever official body for whatever religion and to curb their influence. You can have religion, and beliefs without a good ole boy club running everything. You can still value the principles of the religion and include in government.

I think that is the disconnect you guys are having. YOu can have religion without the Church, or a ruling body. Our founders just wanted to keep out the ruling body of religion, not the religion or the values itself.

And yet, you cannot promote religion in the civic sphere. Matthew Whitaker proposed an explicit religious test for higher office. He is clearly disqualified.

Madison, the framer of the first amendment, lays it out clear, in multiple.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions66.html

Madison did not want any religious ceremony even, but conceded that since there became an undue precedent, one must then pivot towards protecting against enforcement of any kind. And again, Whitaker is violating a bedrock principle of our Republic.
 
Washington was not involved in the drafting of our constitution.

I would call that a swing and a miss, but it's more apt to say you got lost on the way to the ballpark.

You must be referring to yourself? I never mentioned the Constitution.

Time to go back to the Video Game Forum where you spend most of your time.
 
And yet, you cannot promote religion in the civic sphere. Matthew Whitaker proposed an explicit religious test for higher office. He is clearly disqualified.
Obviously, nothing rustles more liberal jimmies than the Bible.
tenor.gif
 
I think you are confused by the fact that we are not a Christian nation here in the U.S., but we were still founded on Biblical Christian Principles.
You keep ignoring the point.

Yes if most of the founders were Christian then there is no way that there Christianity did not inform their views, and decisions. and that is ok.

That is DIFFERENT then saying that going forward Christian values must underpin our laws and/or institutions as it was not REQUIRED that they be Christian at founding, it was just how it was. As participation in latter gov't changes and more jews, muslims, atheists and others are involved they should not be prevented because they are not Christian as the first ones were not included based on being Christian (they just were). We also expect that the morals and values of the jews, Muslims, atheists and others now in gov't will also inform their views and that is ok too.

You are assuming WRONGLY that somehow that early involvement sets a precedent (Christian) as opposed to just being how it was and subject to change as American society changes. What Matt is saying is others who are not Christian should be barred from serving which is reidiculous and wrong and anti-constitution.
 
We also expect that the morals and values of the jews, Muslims, atheists and others now in gov't will also inform their views and that is ok too.

You are assuming WRONGLY that somehow that early involvement sets a precedent (Christian) as opposed to just being how it was and subject to change as American society changes. What Matt is saying is others who are not Christian should be barred from serving which is reidiculous and wrong and anti-constitution.

Matt Whittaker never said nonChristians should be barred from serving. LOL
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,991
Messages
55,459,699
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556
Back
Top