Judge Otila for Supreme Court: yea or nay?

[bar Jonah]

[Although I was originally told I could put Christian-only threads in Poli-Sci, that's been reversed, and I've been told to post such things here, instead. Not complaining, just letting anyone know who wonders why this is posted here. My heart in this is concern over the hearts of Christian voters, so that's why I limit this discussion to Christians only. Note: vote once each for blue and green!]

Judge Otila has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Although he has almost flawlessly given rulings you support in regard to everything else during his career, he has ruled -- according to the rule of law and/or precedent -- that a man has a right to own blacks, and to terminate them for the sake of convenience. He has ruled in favor of taxpayer-funded government assistance in helping people purchase their first Black slaves if they are economically disadvantaged. However, he has ruled in favor of "restrictions," including for example that a person must sign a piece of paper claiming that they have allegedly informed their spouse of the termination, and also one cannot hang a Black, as with a rope, because this would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Or, alternately:

Judge Otila has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Although he has almost flawlessly given rulings you support in regard to everything else during his career, he has ruled -- according to the rule of law and/or precedent -- that the government may kill Jews indiscriminately. He has overturned a ban on making household items and clothing from the corpses of Jews, such as lampshades, buttons, bone handgrips for revolvers, etc. However, he has placed "restrictions," such that they must exercise a "24-hour waiting period" before terminating a Jew, and also ruling that killing Jews in ovens is against the law because it would violate EPA standards.

Judge Otila's mother assures us all that he is actually not racist at all, that he hates racism and is very pro-life. On the other hand, during his congressional hearings, he's told Congress that he would never let his personal beliefs stand in the way of upholding the laws and precedent of slavery/genocide. In the 1980s, he once wrote a memo to superiors saying that he disagrees with slavery/genocide, but all rulings as a circuit court judge involving the above issues have been according to the above patterns described. Most Christian leaders across America defend Otila as a pro-life judge who is opposed to racism and genocide.

Do you advocate for the nomination of Otila to the Supreme Court of the United States? Do you defend him as a non-racist, pro-life judge? Do you celebrate if he passes Congress?

Please vote in regards to both hypotheticals. By all means expound on your votes.

[furay]

Hmm... whomever could you be referring to... :lol:

[seer]

This should be on the Political Board...

[Sheepdog]

i think you meant to put this in Christianity 201

[bar Jonah]

It can't be. Not allowed to put "Christian only" threads there, anymore, because the atheists here at Tweb can't behave themselves anymore. They've repeatedly violated that recently, so I was instructed to put threads like this here, instead. (As I mentioned in the OP.)

[Ryokan]

It's seems we are gonna fight this thread all over again. Well, nay. jews and African Americans are clearly persons in our constitution.

[Sheepdog]

not to get back on topic, but ... :noid:

[bar Jonah]

It's seems we are gonna fight this thread all over again. Well, nay. jews and African Americans are clearly persons in our constitution.
Completely off topic. I didn't ask you about the Constitution. I gave a clear pair of hypotheticals. And in the case of slavery, the hypothetical is historical in America, no less. Excepting certain minor details, we did have numerous judges of that kind for over a third of our nation's history. Whether one human being or another is considered a so-called "person" according to the constitution is irrelevant to this discussion.

Besides which, I states in the hypotheticals that Otila made these rulings according to the rule of law and precedent. That comes part and parcel with the rest. So, if that were the law today, and Otila ruled that way, would you celebrate him? Do you honor and advocate the judges in the early 19th century who ruled in that way, as well? The judges in Germany who knowingly sent innocent men to horrific deaths under the rule of law? There is a clear dichotomy, here. One person after another here has agreed that such judges in those situations were wrong and were unfit for their office. And yet many of the same people support Alito. I am begging the question -- what's the difference? Why does Alito get a free pass? Because he's a Republican?



Justin, I have never and will never intentionally post in "Non-Christian-only" threads, and that should be no secret. I was never aware of even such a thing at a Christian community like this, and additionally, I find even the existence of such things here downright offensive and inappropriate. And yes, I've discussed it with the leadership here prior to posting this, so this won't come as a surprise to them. Nevertheless, despite my strong disagreement with such a backward policy, I have no intention of violating it, nor have I ever.

The other posters' recent behavior, on the other hand, was openly intentional as they flaunted the direction of the mods repeatedly, without any consequence, publicly stating that they "just don't care" about the rules. But me, I'm the one who people wag their finger at. The unbelievers get a free pass, it seems.

I hear this inappropriate policy was in effect the last time I was briefly here. But I was only here for a few days then, and was not aware of such a thing at that time, and had no idea in the few days I'd been here recently, either. I apologize for not rereading the forum guidelines of every forum at Tweb to check for any bizarre changes to policy, such as banning Christians from posting in their own community. As I said, I have never and will never intentionally post in a forum I'm prohibited from participating in.

[Ryokan]

Completely off topic. I didn't ask you about the Constitution. I gave a clear pair of hypotheticals. And in the case of slavery, the hypothetical is historical in America, no less. Excepting certain minor details, we did have numerous judges of that kind for over a third of our nation's history. Whether one human being or another is considered a so-called "person" according to the constitution is irrelevant to this discussion.
Why? A judge interprets law, based on other laws an msot importantly the constitution.
Besides which, I states in the hypotheticals that Otila made these rulings according to the rule of law and precedent. That comes part and parcel with the rest. So, if that were the law today, and Otila ruled that way, would you celebrate him? Do you honor and advocate the judges in the early 19th century who ruled in that way, as well? The judges in Germany who knowingly sent innocent men to horrific deaths under the rule of law? There is a clear dichotomy, here. One person after another here has agreed that such judges in those situations were wrong and were unfit for their office. And yet many of the same people support Alito. I am begging the question -- what's the difference? Why does Alito get a free pass? Because he's a Republican? Basically, at heart, that it is clear, upon cursory examination, that Jews, or Africans, are human. Their thought processes are similiar in every way to us. They function in every way like people. Unborn babies aren't like that. People in good faith, I think, can disagree about this issue (well, for the first few months). Not so about the aforementioned racism anti-semitism. if this makes me a murder, or a compromiser to you, fine. But I having been struggling to crystallize my thoughts about this, and that is where I am.



Justin, I have never and will never intentionally post in "Non-Christian-only" threads, and that should be no secret. I was never aware of even such a thing at a Christian community like this, and additionally, I find even the existence of such things here downright offensive and inappropriate. And yes, I've discussed it with the leadership here prior to posting this, so this won't come as a surprise to them. Nevertheless, despite my strong disagreement with such a backward policy, I have no intention of violating it, nor have I ever. I don't see why you think its inappropriate. It is a show of TWEB's owners even handedness. Unlike the site that will not be named, or internet infidels, or thousands of smaller sites, TWEB tries to play fair.

[bar Jonah]

Basically, at heart, that it is clear, upon cursory examination, that Jews, or Africans, are human. Their thought processes are similiar in every way to us. They function in every way like people. Unborn babies aren't like that. People in good faith, I think, can disagree about this issue (well, for the first few months). Not so about the aforementioned racism anti-semitism. if this makes me a murder, or a compromiser to you, fine. But I having been struggling to crystallize my thoughts about this, and that is where I am.
So, if someone has a thought process different from yours, such as the mentally handicapped, then by the definition you just gave, they're not a person? If someone is comatose at the moment. Granted, they can't think like you right now, but they may have the potential to do so.

But, again, my hypothetical states that in these situations, it is the rule of law that such things are upheld. Forget America. Say it's in the nation of Acirema, of which you're a citizen. And that nation's laws are as described in those hypotheticals.

Do you cheer the judges who rule according to that? Do you thank God for them, glad that they are not "activist judges" who would rule that black men cannot be enslaved and murdered? Lord knows we don't want "activist judges." That would be wrong. No, for them to uphold a man's right to execute his black slave... such a ruling from the bench is a "moral decision" (to quote some conservative Christian leaders).

So, yet again, what's the difference?

[Amazing Rando]

Hmm... whomever could you be referring to... :lol:

:lmbo: I wonder...

[Ryokan]

So, if someone has a thought process different from yours, such as the mentally handicapped, then by the definition you just gave, they're not a person? If someone is comatose at the moment. Granted, they can't think like you right now, but they may have the potential to do so.

But, again, my hypothetical states that in these situations, it is the rule of law that such things are upheld. Forget America. Say it's in the nation of Acirema, of which you're a citizen. And that nation's laws are as described in those hypotheticals.

Do you cheer the judges who rule according to that? Do you thank God for them, glad that they are not "activist judges" who would rule that black men cannot be enslaved and murdered? Lord knows we don't want "activist judges." That would be wrong. No, for them to uphold a man's right to execute his black slave... such a ruling from the bench is a "moral decision" (to quote some conservative Christian leaders).

So, yet again, what's the difference?Look, I posted unclearly. I had a migraine, and percoceted it to death. I was groggy. At heart, my feeling is that their is legitimate confusion as to what the status of a early pregnancy is. I think it is a person. Others might feel it not. While I disagree, I don't deem their difference the only thing they ought to be judged upon, or justification for the death penalty.

[themuzicman]

Completely off topic. I didn't ask you about the Constitution. I gave a clear pair of hypotheticals. And in the case of slavery, the hypothetical is historical in America, no less. Excepting certain minor details, we did have numerous judges of that kind for over a third of our nation's history. Whether one human being or another is considered a so-called "person" according to the constitution is irrelevant to this discussion.

Besides which, I states in the hypotheticals that Otila made these rulings according to the rule of law and precedent. That comes part and parcel with the rest. So, if that were the law today, and Otila ruled that way, would you celebrate him? Do you honor and advocate the judges in the early 19th century who ruled in that way, as well? The judges in Germany who knowingly sent innocent men to horrific deaths under the rule of law? There is a clear dichotomy, here. One person after another here has agreed that such judges in those situations were wrong and were unfit for their office. And yet many of the same people support Alito. I am begging the question -- what's the difference? Why does Alito get a free pass? Because he's a Republican?



Justin, I have never and will never intentionally post in "Non-Christian-only" threads, and that should be no secret. I was never aware of even such a thing at a Christian community like this, and additionally, I find even the existence of such things here downright offensive and inappropriate. And yes, I've discussed it with the leadership here prior to posting this, so this won't come as a surprise to them. Nevertheless, despite my strong disagreement with such a backward policy, I have no intention of violating it, nor have I ever.

The other posters' recent behavior, on the other hand, was openly intentional as they flaunted the direction of the mods repeatedly, without any consequence, publicly stating that they "just don't care" about the rules. But me, I'm the one who people wag their finger at. The unbelievers get a free pass, it seems.

I hear this inappropriate policy was in effect the last time I was briefly here. But I was only here for a few days then, and was not aware of such a thing at that time, and had no idea in the few days I'd been here recently, either. I apologize for not rereading the forum guidelines of every forum at Tweb to check for any bizarre changes to policy, such as banning Christians from posting in their own community. As I said, I have never and will never intentionally post in a forum I'm prohibited from participating in.


I hate to burst your bubble, but it's not the job of the court to legslate from the bench. One thing that conservatives have long lamented is liberal judges who do just that. If conservatives are now going to demand that conservative judges legislate from the bench, there's going to be a big slap of hypocrisy placed upon them.

Slavery wasn't prohibited by the courts. It was stamped out first by requiring that all new territories not engage in slavery, and then via the war of southern agression, aka the US civil war, and then via two constitutional amendments both passed by the congress and 3/4s of the states (13 and 14).

Granted that Roe v. Wade is legislating from the bench, and I don't think Alito would have a problem reversing that, if there was a case before them that mandated doing so. However, reversing Roe (actually, I think Casey is the controlling case, now) doesn't outlaw abortion. That would simply return the matter to the states.

IMHO, the best option for making abortion illegal isn't overturning Roe/Casey at all, but establishing a new precident that the unborn are human beings that ought to receive at least the most basic of rights extended to all human beings. Then, a woman may have an abortion, but may not harm the child in the process. :hehe:

Michael

[technomage]

I hate to burst your bubble, but it's not the job of the court to legslate from the bench. One thing that conservatives have long lamented is liberal judges who do just that. If conservatives are now going to demand that conservative judges legislate from the bench, there's going to be a big slap of hypocrisy placed upon them.

Jim's not a conservative.

[Ryokan]

Jim's not a conservative.
I think that is the root of his disagreement with the Republicans.

[Amazing Rando]

Jim's not a conservative.

If his "theonomic" views are anything like Enyart's Shadowgov.com (http://www.shadowgov.com/Constitution/ConstitutionOfAmerica.html), then I may have to distance myself from him even more than I thought.

[technomage]

If his "theonomic" views are anything like Enyart's Shadowgov.com (http://www.shadowgov.com/Constitution/ConstitutionOfAmerica.html), then I may have to distance myself from him even more than I thought.
*shrug* Rando, is it possible to "love your enemies" by distancing yourself from them?

[Ryokan]

If his "theonomic" views are anything like Enyart's Shadowgov.com (http://www.shadowgov.com/Constitution/ConstitutionOfAmerica.html), then I may have to distance myself from him even more than I thought.
Enyart is goofy.

[Amazing Rando]

*shrug* Rando, is it possible to "love your enemies" by distancing yourself from them?

Perhaps not, and you give good food for thought. :smile:

[technomage]

Jim, you are not our enemy. You are our brother ... and while I bitterly oppose your wrong-headed and anti-Biblical political ideas, I would not even bother opposing your views if I did not love you.

But it's time to have this out. You've yet to respond to the basketball court thread (http://theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=70087) I started for us to discuss this. Please do so.

[Teallaura]

*shrug* Rando, is it possible to "love your enemies" by distancing yourself from them?


Yes, sometimes it is. When your presence is doing more harm than good, distance is the answer.

Incidentally, political distancing doesn't necessarily imply personal distancing.

[technomage]

Yes, sometimes it is. When your presence is doing more harm than good, distance is the answer.

Incidentally, political distancing doesn't necessarily imply personal distancing.

Don't quibble, you goon. :rasberry:

Seriously, I feel it would be disastrous for Christians who disagree with Enyartian pseudo-theonomy to distance themselves from those who adhere to it. I feel it must be confronted and demonstrated as the error that it is.

[Ryokan]

Don't quibble, you goon. :rasberry:

Seriously, I feel it would be disastrous for Christians who disagree with Enyartian pseudo-theonomy to distance themselves from those who adhere to it. I feel it must be confronted and demonstrated as the error that it is.
Good luck with that. its an emotional, not rational, position.

[Teallaura]

Don't quibble, you goon. :rasberry:
It's what I do second best! (Being cute being first! :teeth:) :tongue:

Seriously, I feel it would be disastrous for Christians who disagree with Enyartian pseudo-theonomy to distance themselves from those who adhere to it. I feel it must be confronted and demonstrated as the error that it is.
I concur in principle (I'm not going to pretend I understood the rest of that :dizzy: Cain't you talk like normal people? :grin:), but Rando's implication was that distancing was of a political nature - indicating non-agreement.

[themuzicman]

Don't quibble, you goon. :rasberry:

Seriously, I feel it would be disastrous for Christians who disagree with Enyartian pseudo-theonomy to distance themselves from those who adhere to it. I feel it must be confronted and demonstrated as the error that it is.
Good luck.

[technomage]

Good luck.

Oh, demonstrating it as an error is no problem. The problem is getting those who adhere to the doctrine to listen to the demonstration! :dizzy:

[themuzicman]

Oh, demonstrating it as an error is no problem. The problem is getting those who adhere to the doctrine to listen to the demonstration! :dizzy:
:yes: 'zactly.

[technomage]

It's what I do second best! (Being cute being first! :teeth:) :tongue:

You're mah-velous, dahling. Simply mah-velous!

As for Enyart--he wants to rewrite the Constitution (http://www.shadowgov.com/Constitution/ConstitutionOfAmerica.html) according to his personal interpretation of Mosaic law and his own political theories. Jim supports this idea to the best of my understanding. Politically, it's wrong-headed: Biblically, if it's not heretical, it's pretty darn close.

[RumTumTugger]

You're mah-velous, dahling. Simply mah-velous!

As for Enyart--he wants to rewrite the Constitution (http://www.shadowgov.com/Constitution/ConstitutionOfAmerica.html) according to his personal interpretation of Mosaic law and his own political theories. Jim supports this idea to the best of my understanding. Politically, it's wrong-headed: Biblically, if it's not heretical, it's pretty darn close.

That's what Enyart is advocating? :eek:

[bar Jonah]

You're mah-velous, dahling. Simply mah-velous!

As for Enyart--he wants to rewrite the Constitution (http://www.shadowgov.com/Constitution/ConstitutionOfAmerica.html) according to his personal interpretation of Mosaic law and his own political theories. Jim supports this idea to the best of my understanding. Politically, it's wrong-headed: Biblically, if it's not heretical, it's pretty darn close.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to post lately. However, when I saw this in my inbox, I thought I should definitely respond to at least this...

Justin, I have never advocated such a thing, nor have I agreed with him on the issue of monarchy, and I have stated that I disagree with him on some important issues, including these. I have even said that I believe this is exactly where he is directly inconsistent with his own doctrine, as those views are (as far as I can tell) blatantly post-millenial dominionist in nature, and are therefore contradictory to any dispensational view, the Mid-Acts view most of all.

On the other hand, if Enyart is heretical on this, then so are a number of other national Christian leaders who are dominionist in their views on theonomy. Some (including I think Robertson but if I'm wrong, let me know) have unapologetically said that the end will not come until the world is ruled by a Christian government. While I don't believe that's heresy, I do agree it is a very wrong view.

As for me, however, by far my primary concern at this time is the well-being of Christians in America who have been severely misled to blindly support a secular institution (the Republican party) which has compromised time and again to a severe degree, to the point where Christians can't even tell the difference between a pro-lifer and an extreme pro-abort. It is the hearts and minds of individual Christians I am deeply and sincerely concerned for. I have no designs on changing the political system, itself. To heck with it. Unlike Enyart's well-intentioned but I believe misguided view in this specific area, I recognize that America is just another sub-division in Satan's kingdom, and cannot and will not ever be a "holy nation" or a "Christian nation." If any specific victories are to be won in the political arena (and the defeat of slavery proves they can be), it will be only after there is a major change in the hearts and minds of many Christians, first. In the meantime, any individual Christian private citizen should stand on God's righteousness, even if it costs us all political gain, because we must never do evil so that good may come, and if the two conflict, we must always obey God rather than men. It is never right to choose the lesser of two evils. That's where my heart is, as I have repeatedly said here at Tweb. I don't know how many times I have to say it to get that through to people's minds, but apparently that number is "a lot."

I'll try to respond to some other things when I'm able, hopefully soon. Now that I finally got a job, I've been working as many hours as possible in addition to church, girlfriend Laura, family, broken van, etc. etc.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Well, nay. jews and African Americans are clearly persons in our constitution.This is of great interest to me. Can you show us where in the constitution Jews and Blacks are said to be persons? Or are you talking about what people in the twentieth century said the constitution means?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Good luck with that. its an emotional, not rational, position.Take care with this tactic, it can easily backfire. For example I know of some people who reject Theonomy because it horrifies them, regardless of their knowledge of Scripture. Shall I then conclude that opposition to Theonomy "is an emotional, not rational, position"? Or should I tackle the opposition on its merits?

[Ryokan]

Take care with this tactic, it can easily backfire. For example I know of some people who reject Theonomy because it horrifies them, regardless of their knowledge of Scripture. Shall I then conclude that opposition to Theonomy "is an emotional, not rational, position"? Or should I tackle the opposition on its merits?
In that case, yes. If they oppose it on an emotional level, good luck arguing it. I need to repond to our other discussion. I'll try to do that today. :teeth: