Christian fundamentalists are not qualified to be judges

The founding Fathers were politicians. Politicians lie all the time. It makes perfect sense that they wanted people to think they were Christians, because at that time this country was pretty much solely Christian.

Saltyone you should know that not everyone who says they are a Christian is. The era of this nations birth was at a time with the aristocracy was publicly Christian but was privately Diest or athiest.

Also to whomever siad Google is liberal...thanks I needed a laugh. A search enigine is only as good as the key words of the user.

 

It also make perfect sense that people today don't want others to believe that the founding fathers were Christian. It is not my place to judge the hearts of others. If someone says they are Christian and are not, that is for God to decide.

Your line about them being privately Diest or athiest is pure bull crap. It is not based in fact and cannot be substantiated. If it makes you feel better by saying it, along with many others, then by all means continue doing so. Just don't piss down my back and say it is raining.

It is a proven fact that google is liberal biased. Many on here would support my statement. I am not a search engine expert. All I know is that when you do a search with anything dealing with religion or politics, the first results are always liberal sites.

 

No, it's not a proven fact. Some right-wing watchdog grouped complained because Google wouldn't run an ad that they plagerized and that attacked a Democrat. I've got screenshots at the house, however, of pro-conservative sponsored Google links appearing on sites that I have visited. You neo-cons perpetually whining about evey media outlet in existence being out to get you is absurd.

Below are the first page of results for the term 'religion.' Please note that 'Bad Religion' is a band. I can't believe the anti-religious liberal jargon Google is cramming down my throat!

[/size]

Oh, well, I guess that makes it so.:hihi:

 

I said many, not all. Obviously, I knew you would deny it. :hihi:

 

Check the edit. Or better yet, go try it yourself. Don't be so quick to believe everything a 'watchdog' group throws at you.

 

It is my understanding that the results recieved are based on words keyed on by the web masters request. I believe I'm right about this. I find it funny that the first results, so often, are left wing.

 

Then again, history documents the fact that the Pilgrims weren't Sunnis breaking away from Shias, and so on and so forth. Some things can be inferred from the historical facts that surround them.

 

I must quote myself.

 

It seems to me that the point of this thread was that somehow her religious beliefs make her incapable of rendering sound decisions. Who is the arbiter of her qualifications, Rex, Chaos? Why fear her belief system?...The Judeo-Christian belief system is, in fact the basis of many of our laws. So what? Ignorant people fear for irrational reasons. To say she is unqualified because she is a "fundamentalist" (a ludicrous label at best used to invoke "fear") is to say that only YOU get to decide. She believes Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Does that mean she's right? Maybe not, I believe so. Does that mean she can't determine whether assisted suicide should be banned or not? No. Everyone brings his or her experiences to any decision making proccess. That's diversity. It seems the problem here is that it's not the RIGHT kind of diversity. If the nominee were a ACLU counsel advocating that birth control be passed out in the third grade then that pick would be applauded for the "progressive" way he or she would impact the court. Certainly Mrs. Meirs should be afforded the same rights you and I enjoy. One of those is the freedom to practice her faith, as long as it doesn't get in the way of established law. Jesus said, "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's". Scripture teaches that civil authority is to respected and adhered to... I think the unspoken concern of Rex and others is that they lose the opportunity to appont an activist judge, someone who'll write new law from the bench. So, in summation, why do you guys think that there's only room for your prototypical nominee? Based on some of the posts i've read here I'm not ready to hand the ball over to y'all just yet.