quote:Nevertheless, a Supreme Court with five Catholic members, which is what we will have if Alito is confirmed, is an historic first, and an interesting demonstration of how American society has changed. This would have been unthinkable a generation ago.
Even if Alito isn't confirmed, 4 Supreme Court Catholics would have been unthinkable a generation ago. America has a come a long way from the Know Nothings and the anti-Catholic focus of the Klan in states with few blacks. Even in the South, the Klan managed to reserve some time for Catholic intimidation, although the civil rights movement distracted them from such efforts fairly effectively.
Catholics have had an easier ride than many other groups in the U.S. have, but there has been vicious discrimination against us. And it's heartening to see this concrete example of how attitudes have changed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sheesh, a majority of Catholics on the court. Why don't they just ask the Pope to decide all our cases?
Seriously though, I was kind of struck by how John Kerry could be openly Catholic without all of the broohaha the other JFK had to go through. Yay for us. We're no longer strongly discriminating against certain sects of our majority religion. It's a heady time I tell you.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
All them Mexicans are swelling your US population size. If someone can get them to the polls reliably, they may end being THE swing population in the US.
I seem to recall a couple of talking heads on TV taking half-hearted stabs at Kerry's religion. I could be wrong though. But hey, progress!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Apparantly, I'm ignorant and naive. Until I read this thread, I thought that anti-Catholic sentiment on a large scale was something limited to Europe in the 17th century, not something that was alive and well in America in the 20th century. How bizarre.
Hooray for progress! It's sad that we even had to make progress on such an issue but hooray none the less.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's because the focus has always been on racial discrimination. The history of Catholic prejudice and discrimination in America is long but widely unknown.
It should be included automatically right next to the history of the civil rights movement in America. (adjusted for timeline differences of course)
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I may be ignorant in most aspects of this subject, but as far as anti-Catholicism in respects to government officials, the fear is that we are electing/appointing proxies to the Pope, rather than an individual with his/her own moral/political/judicial/legisltage views.
...And the other thing I'm sure of is that the first paragraph, nay, sentence has WAY to many /s.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's been one of the historical bases of the prejudice, but it's neither proven to be accurate (the Popes couldn't exercise the sort of control when Catholicism rules Europe, let alone in America during the 20th century) nor been anywhere near the extent of anti-Catholic bigotry.
And frankly, I'd feel more comfortable with an elected official who listens to advice from the Pope (even the current Pope, whom I'm not the biggest fan of) than one who gives private meetings to Pat Robertson, like our current president has.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:All them Mexicans are swelling your US population size. If someone can get them to the polls reliably, they may end being THE swing population in the US.
Horale!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lalo, When your people come to power, I just hope you remember all the kindness aryan looking white people with blond hair and blue eyes like myself have shown you...or...errr...how about, our intentions were good?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
So long as you pick enough strawberries per day, I'll be sure we keep your daily whippings light.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Mmmm, strawberries and lite whipped cream every day?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And frankly, I'd feel more comfortable with an elected official who listens to advice from the Pope (even the current Pope, whom I'm not the biggest fan of) than one who gives private meetings to Pat Robertson, like our current president has.
Does it have to option A or option B? Why is it that we seem to demand religious cues from political leaders? I for one would like to see LESS policy decisions being based on religious values, and more on common consensus. If the common belief is the same as the prevalent religious view (and it is likely to be so) then fine, but why name the beast a "question of religion."
As for the supreme court, I agree, its been long enough in this country for us all to realize Catholics are as good as anybody else at being fairmined arbiters of the law, however I stress "the law." Luckily (despite popular opinion), the supreme court doesn't make decisions based on their own personal beleifs, but on the interpretation of our laws. Thus we protect ourselves from the inevitable tyranny of any system which places control with a group governed by an overriding principle (like religion or athiesm, or racism, etc.) So I say yay to the catholic supreme court, and nay to it really mattering what religion a justice subscibes to.
dag: don't cut me to ribons, I'm a mental hemopheliac! I know I don't know much about this, but I am pretty sure how I feel about it. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Luckily (despite popular opinion), the supreme court doesn't make decisions based on their own personal beleifs, but on the interpretation of our laws.
Interpretation, which is not immune to personal proclivities.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I know I don't know much about this, but I am pretty sure how I feel about it. ![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)