Family Research Council "chilled" by Durbin's "Unconstitutional" leanings

[Bluebear]

Contact: Amber Hildebrand, Family Research Council, 202-393-2100

WASHINGTON, July 27 /Christian Wire Service/-- Over the last several days, media reports have called into question Senator Richard Durbin's (D-IL) willingness to uphold the Constitutional requirement that no religious test ever be imposed on a judicial nominee. Connie Mackey, Family Research Council's Vice President for Government Affairs, sent a letter yesterday to Senator Durbin expressing her concerns that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts may be subjected to an unconstitutional litmus test.

"Jonathan Turley reported in an op-ed that you had asked Judge Roberts during a meeting with him, 'what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral?' Your appearance on 'Meet the Press' seemed to confirm your line of thinking when you offered that a pro-life stance, similar to the stance held by those who follow Catholic teachings, would 'disqualify' that nominee for the Supreme Court in your opinion. It is within our collective memory that when you first came to Washington you, yourself, proclaimed adherence to the Catholic Church's pro-life stance.

"We seek your correction if we are wrong. It has been our concern over the past few years that one who is orthodox in their religion, whether it is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or any other denomination, will be discouraged from seeking a position on the court or for that matter that a chilling effect is being placed upon anyone seeking public office who is devout.

"It is the intention of the Family Research Council to encourage legislators not to pit nominees' faith against their fitness for public office. We will continue to remind citizens that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Your reported line of questioning, and criteria on eliminating any jurist who takes a moral stance on the sanctity of human life, effectively imposes a religious litmus test that would exclude a wide spectrum of people of strong religious beliefs."



http://www.earnedmedia.org/frc0727.htm

[nickinSTL]

1. Yeah, well, I'm CHILLED by the "right's" willingness

to support nominees that will completely disregard the Constitution if it conflicts with their political beliefs.

[donco6]

3. Why don't more people find that scary? eom

[HockeyMom]

6. Catholic Church considers ALL methods of "artificial" birth control

to be immoral and sinful. By that line of thinking, should the United Sates of America legislate to ban condoms and vasectomies because one religious group thinks they are "immoral and sinful"?

I will not even get into the Divorce aspect here.

[ibegurpard]

2. Would they react this way if he was an atheist? a pagan?

thought not.

[jobycom]

4. They're right

So Bush should stop choosing candidates based on their religious beliefs.

Funny how even right-wing nutjubs can understand why religion and government are supposed to separated when it goes against them.

[shoelace414]

5. that would make more sense if

there was anyone high ranking in the government at any time in US history that wasn't Christian.

[orthogonal]

7. The FRC doesn't understand the language

The FRC isn't understanding the meaning of "Test" as it's used in Article VI.

It clearly refers to the various English "Test Acts", notably the Test Act of 1673 which required public officials to declare specific religious beliefs; the Test Acts were designed to establish a state religion and to prevent Catholics and Nonconformists from holding office.

Roberts isn't being asked to declare an oath of fealty to any religion -- he's being asked if he'd uphold the separation of his personal religious beliefs and his acts as a public official.

[ibegurpard]

9. They understand perfectly well

They're just trying to hide their support of religious extremism on the bench behind the shield of constitutional religious freedom protections.

[Justitia]

8. Hey, guess what? Fuck the Family Research Council! Who are they

to start demanding answers from an elected US Senator?

Send all the ltrs you want! Are you a constituent? No? Well, get to the back of the line with all the other complainers.

The US Congress does not bow down in deference to the religiously insane run amok!

Tell ya what, when the actual White House Administration gets around to answering OFFICIAL ltrs from an actual equal branch of gov't (this being John Conyers multitude of requests), or handing over documents on judicial nominees or UN ambassador candidates, then maybe our esteemed US Senator will consider sending you a fucking form letter.

Then again, maybe not! Fuck off!

**Sorry for all that, I'm sick of these assholes thinking that gov't should be at their beck and call!

[Bluebear]

12. "The religiously insane run amok"

Sounds like a title of a horror show. Which it is.

[murielm99]

10. They only care about religious tests if it affects one of theirs.

If an atheist was nominated, they would scream bloody murder.

If a pro-choice judge were nominated, they would yell about being discriminated against.

Screw them. They need to raise their own families, and leave the rest of us alone.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. ayuh, you