The Amy Coney Barrett hearing
You can find many posts covering it at Legal Insurrectoin, for example this, this, and this.
Barrett seems like a remarkable person, a worthy candidate for the Court. Of course, if the Democrats manage to get the big victories they are predicting, they are likely to set about destroying the Court because the right had finally achieved a majority of SCOTUS judges, and the voice of Barrett would be drowned out by those of the new leftist judges joined with the old leftist judges.
ACB is a remarkable candidate. It will be very interesting to watch the other side and their approach to her. I, being a conservative of course, was really put off by Senator Feinstein and her demonizing ACB’s Catholic faith as dogmatic. Wondering if she approached RGB’s Jewish faith as ‘dogmatic’.
Wondering if she approached RGB’s Jewish faith as ‘dogmatic’.
No indication that RGB was anything but an adherent to what GK Chesterton called ‘the religion of the household gods’.
Roofer Dude:
I am almost 100% sure that RBG was a secular, nonobservant Jew and so there was no dogma involved. What’s more, compared to most other religions, Judaism doesn’t have much dogma; it concentrates more on ritual.
Via Mollie Hemingway on Twitter, this interesting letter from a retired law professor about the practical impact of the Barrett confirmation, or non-confirmation, on the ACA, about which the Democrats are hyperventilating. In short, her participation or absence is likely to make no difference in the case. As it stands, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the District Court and ruled that since the tax aspect of the ACA has been repealed, the law is unconstitutional on any other grounds. This is what Roberts said in the SC case. As the Court stands, even in Roberts voted, against logic, to uphold the law anyhow, the decision would be 4-4, and the Appeals Court is affirmed. If Barrett were there, and voted to affirm, the same result, but 5-4.
https://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/BarrettNominationLetter(1).pdf
Just out of curiosity, is “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One” dogma or ritual?
OK, thanks!
Now, what about “Love your fellow as yourself”? AKA “Do not do to your fellow that which is hateful to you”? (Just wondering….)
Note: While Judaism may have less dogma than other religions, it is a stretch to say that “it doesn’t have much dogma”.
Unless one’s definition of dogma is “catechism” or being redeemed by faith alone….
Barry Meislin:
As I said, observant Judaism doesn’t have much dogma compared to other religions. To answer your question as best I can (and rest assured that I’m not the world’s best expert on this), for Reform Jews there is hardly any dogma or ritual at all. And even Orthodox Jews don’t have all that much dogma per se. Judaism is generally less about belief and more about practice.
That said, one of the most stable beliefs of Judaism is that the deity is unitary. That’s what that prayer is about, and the prayer is supposed to be said regularly and at certain times (although as I previously indicated, Reform Jews do very little of that). So the belief in God as unitary is central and you could say it is the one basic dogma in Judaism, but the prayer is a form of ritual.
As far as “Do not do unto your fellow that which is hateful to you” – that’s a suggested basic practice for living, but I would not regard it as dogma. “Dogma” is the set of beliefs required in order to be part of the religion. Various people have set forth dogma for Judaism, but that was a later development and isn’t part of most Jews’ belief system today (such as belief in the Messiah, which has very much fallen off except in the very observant).
See this.
I agree with you, Barry Meislin. “Dogma” is defined in my online dictionary as “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” This means, dogma is the set of essential truth statements upon which any set of religious, or other, practices, are based. Believing Christians, even those who are not Roman Catholic, accept certain dogmatic statements as being true, and so do Jews who are observant not merely out of habit but because they recognize God’s authority and their call to obey God’s commandments.
In this sense, and thinking of Neo’s next post about “walking away” from progressivism, what people face is the realization the the political dogma they have always accepted isn’t true. The change can be every bit as wrenching as leaving one’s religion.
Hear ye, hear ye!
The Amy Coney Barrett Coney CHARACTER ASSASSINATION games begin!
Democrats, start yer engines!!
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/10/democrats-attack-judge-barrett-with-bogus-talking-point.php
Kate:
Please read this, particularly the link at the end.
Note that Justice Sotomayer is Catholic. To the best of my recollection, this was a total non-issue during her confirmation hearings.
I still await the demokrats bringing out a “witness” claiming that Barrett is a child molester, was a prostitute and drug pusher, appeared in XXX adult “films,” cheated on her bar exam, is having an affair with Trump, beats her kids until they bleed and places them in closets, handcuffed, every night; is the mistress of Putin and engaged in drunken orgies starting when she was in kindergarten. .
Did see an excerpt of the Vietnam vet and war hero, Senator Blumenthal of CT., toss criticisms at Barrett during the hearing.. Blumenthal, that phony, deceitful, lying , piece of snake excrement must, like many polticians has zero morals. He must hate himself for being such a fraud.
Then again to be a demokrat, it really helps to hate yourself.
The Dems seems to put forward contradictory claims: (Big surprise, huh). On the one hand, they say they fear a believing Catholic would let her personal morality overrule the rule of law. One the other hand, they demand a personal morality/emotional reaction to Vermonters fearing the loss of healthcare, irrespective the rule of law.
Yes, Neo, I saw your comment. I think, essentially, we’re discussing Sen. Feinstein’s misuse of the word “dogma.” The entire contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not the “dogma” of the faith, nor are the detailed requirements in observance of the various branches of Judaism. “Dogma” should mean the essential truth statements upon which all the other practices are founded.
“…a total non-issue…”
But isn’t it obvious that the “wise Latina” is one of “our Catholics”?
(As is Joe Biden, of course.)
(One could say, as well, that the “wise Latina” is one “our Women”, which is certainly NOT the case with ACB—just as it wasn’t the case with Sarah Palin).
What this means—simply, obviously, madly—is that it will be “open season” on ACB just as it was on Palin.
File under: Feminism for me, but not for thee (you Fascist)!
Kate:
But I was discussing something else, something that has little to do with the hearings or Feinstein – the question of how much dogma each religion has that is labeled as basic belief, as opposed to ritual and practice. The link I posted in that other comment explains/describes the relative lack of dogma in Judaism.
That’s a very interesting article upon Jewish dogma. Thanks for the link, Neo. I visited, when I lived in Cairo, the synagogue where Maimonides probably worshipped after he left Spain. (It’s no longer in use, among other reasons because there are very few Jews left in Egypt.)
As to Christian dogma, the essentials which most Christians believe are contained in the Nicene Creed, three paragraphs:
https://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm
Except for the line about the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church,” which is where Christian organizations begin to splinter, and also the line about whether the Holy Spirit “proceeds from” the Father and the Son, most Christian groups accept these statements about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, whether or not they use formal creeds.
Not really a lot longer than Maimonides’s Thirteen Principles; in fact, a bit shorter.
I guess the actual fireworks in the Barrett hearing will be later this week. It was all posturing in opening statements today.
I’m waiting for them to drag out stories from her college days…
The projection is pathological;
I tuned in briefly. Feinstein was asking Barrett to confirm a statement contained in one of her dissenting opinions, to the effect that the government had a legitimate interest in preventing dangerous people, like lunatics, from obtaining firearms. A little puzzled, Barrett did confirm this view. Feinstein immediately followed up with: “Well, where does that leave you on Roe?”
Say what?
“Because,” Feinstein continued, “Roe is very important to a lot of people.”
Is that supposed to be a reasoning process?
“Because,” Feinstein continued, “Roe is very important to a lot of people.”
Is that supposed to be a reasoning process?
She’s three years younger than Sandra Day O’Connor, who moved to an assisted living center three years ago and announced two years ago that she would not be making public speeches anymore.
I’m waiting for them to drag out stories from her college days…
Brett Kavanaugh and Ted Cruz crossed paths with characters willing to make jack-asses of themselves trashing an old acquaintance (30-odd years after the fact) for banal shortcomings (or fabricated shortcomings?). Their trashers were (1) a design consultant from the Bay Area who appears to have never gotten that architect’s license and (2) a screenwriter from LA. If Amy Coney Barrett is fortunate, she didn’t know anyone who hied off to the west coast to work as a word and image merchant.
Criticize him all you want, but one can ALWAYS rely on Cory Booker:
https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1316130481537253377
And another “ole reliable”!
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/10/sen-sheldon-whitehouse-is-a-conspiracy-nutter/
Bonus – Classic (“frumious”) Pelosi (waving around her “vorpal sword” like the lunatic she is. (No doubt that’s why she accuses Trump of being one…)
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/10/pelosi-accuses-cnn-yes-cnn-of-defending-the-administration-on-trumps-stimulus-offer/
Oh, and in case anyone was really wondering…
https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/10/14/the-morning-briefing-so-much-for-hoping-that-democrats-wouldnt-be-awful-filth-during-the-acb-hearings-n1045482
The Democrats’ Orwellian insanity continues to flow unabated:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/10/speech-police-alert-judge-barrett-said-sexual-preference-but-so-did-biden-and-ginsburg.php
One hopes they can keep the taps open until Election Day.
“Note that Justice Sotomayer is Catholic. To the best of my recollection, this was a total non-issue during her confirmation hearings.” – JohnTyler
To paraphrase what Benjamin Franklin said about rebellions, a religion is always acceptable in the first person – OUR religion. It is only in the third person – THEIR religion – that it is unacceptable.