Home > News > God & Country > Why the White House Will Promote Sotomayor's Religious Liberty Record

Why the White House Will Promote Sotomayor's Religious Liberty Record

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Churches are on TV ceaselessly, begging for money, supposedly to feed abandoned unwanted children of all races. They spend lots of that money on ban-abortion propaganda. Churches have taken the word "adoption" and turned it into something like a big basket. Just dump unaborted, unwanted kids there and some poor sucker will dip in and take them out. But remember stories of adopted children being kept as sex slaves or as hidden household drudges. Genesis says parenthood is a CURSE. It seems to tell fathers to walk away to escape hard work of supporting his offspring. Moms are to suffer "the Curse of Eve" and for every act of intercourse, which she must never refuse the man, she is to be DOOMED to motherhood. Another commentator said judges must not let their religion shape their rulings. But five Supreme Court justices have shown respect for the Catholic Code of Canon Law. Until Roe v Wade, civil government enforced that part of Canon Law that says abortion is a crime. Dr. Kevorkian was jailed when civil courts enforced Canon Law banning suicide or attempted self-destruction. Google Code of Canon Law and see what I mean.

auradawnveirs of CA 5:39PM June 21, 2009

Someone must ask what genes are carried by unwanted but unaborted conceptions. I'll take the blame and ask. Was the father a rapist? Was he a blood relative of the mother, an incestor? Was he a john in a brothel or a with a street prostitute? Was he some woman's adulterous husband? Was he an employer who pressured an employee to trade sex for job security? Who was the mother? Was she a mistress who failed to get the married man to marry her? Was she a prostitute? Were one or both parents alcoholics or hard drug addicts? Were either of them mentally ill? Was either parent a carrier of a genetic disease that, not recognized yet, would appear in the adoptee later? Women know what kind of man impregnated them. When they decide to stop multiplication of fetal cells, it means they decided something is wrong with that particular collection of cells. Globally, Nature casts off millions of conceptions every day. I ask ban abortionists to remember that some churches don't want any potential tithers to be aborted before they can grow up, get a job and put money in the collection basket or pledge envelope.

aura dawn veirs of CA 10:24AM June 21, 2009

The Supreme Court is there to rule if the laws are within the Constitutional realm. They are there to make sure that the law is upheld. Not change the laws. As far as this Judges' religious rulings that does not make a differences. I want a Judge in the spot that will take do what the Constitution says for them not what their personal feelings are. I am happy if she is a religious Judge, but I do not want her to get the job because of her being a liberal or a Hispanic, or a woman. It is her knowledge of the law and not the other things to decide her worthiness to do the job.

touchmenot of TN 9:14PM June 07, 2009

Sotomayer was picked by Obama for 2 reasons:
1. She is Hispanic
2. She is a she.
This is scary! Whatever happened to qualifications? This is the same Affirmative Action bullcrap (Negative Action actually and reverse discrimination sanctioned by our government)
Sotomayer is for religion over government! That is scary, especially when we are not all religious nor do we all believe in a god!!!!
She has made decisions for anti-choice people!! Obama - what are you doing to us?? I am starting to worry about you and I am glad I didn't vote for you too!!

No god Exists of OK 4:12PM June 07, 2009

what about all these women who want to have these babies, I keep hearing president Obama saying he wan'ts to give these ladies a choice. With all these foreclosures, why aren't more and more being turned into homes where girls and women can go. There are thousands of couples who want to adopt a child and would help with funds, like the upkeep of the house,food,etc.
I am talking about girls who don't want to hurt their families anymore, women who can't afford or don't want abortion and realize that adoption is the better alternative. This is what I am waiting for President Obama to change, and if Supreme Court nominee Sotomayer helps to change some of these outdated laws, she truly judges with her heart.

paula Horkavi of IN 3:53PM June 04, 2009

Ross Sweatma 21 ward st
I think you have the process all wrong. The question is will she uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. Dose she stand for personnal choice and for personnal accountability, the founding principles of our goverment.
I would say that we are on opposite sides of this issue although i consider myself to be pro choice. I think of it like baseball three strikes and you are out of choices. Every woman should have the right to choose, but like all choices in life this one must be made in a timly mannor. In cases of rape and inscest the woman did not have a choice but in all other cases she made a choice, not to prevent it and to proticipate in activites that make pregency possable. I support the right to choose but by the fourth month the failure to make a choice becomes the choice not to abort the pregancy and carry it to term. She can then make the choice to keep the baby or put it up for adoption. That choice like the abortion choice is limited in time scope and is un-reversable.

Brian J of ID 11:02AM June 04, 2009

God says we are not to favor the rich or the poor in judgment. The law is the law; life experience that produces a sympathetic or prejudiced evaluation contrary to equality in the law is faulty. We can see it clearly in the murder of the abortion doctor; even a righteous cause and mental handicap cannot take priority over the law which must be equal for all people.
Laws were not to be changed by the precedent of a judge before. The errors of one cannot continue into future cases. We have become a lawless nation where even the most sensitive job in the country, the presidency, is not held responsible to the law. The US Constitution requires our president be a natural born citizen and President Obama refuses to release documents that would prove he was not an Indonesian citizen in the US on a student visa as evidence seems to show.
We must be careful with all his appointments and decisions; if he will hide his identity papers: school records, passport, sss registration, and birth records, should we expect good things ahead? When the government and the media refuse to call him to provide simple proof of his natural born citizen status, we must re-evaluate what kind of a government we have. We are not in danger of losing control of our government, we have lost it unless we act quickly and decisively. Media and government leaders, including President Obama need to know you want this base controversy ended. It is too simple to clear this up so we can have confidence in the US government again.

Marie Devine of MO 9:41AM June 03, 2009

My opinion is a Supreme Court judge would not be inclined to apply personal bias to any individual case.
That would mean the court's professional deliberation concerning the facts of a matter would be less likely to acknowledge justice because of personal persuasions.
Of course there are cases politically contrived to find justification through the law of the court - so, there must be the understanding that puts the particular people involved in an issue in priority to any rule of precedent.

Mart of KS 1:37AM June 01, 2009

The nominee is clear on her right to bear arms philosophy and reasonable clear on church and state tendencies. We feel it is critical for her to express her 14th ammendment thinking as it applies to a mothers' choice to have or not have an abortion and the claimed rights of tahe fetus' to life. This can also be extended to a persons end of life decisions.
We are bothered that her decisions do not seem to mesh with President Obama's pre election platform promises.
Does Judge Sotomayor feel that individuals are in control of their bodies/lives or does the state have some say in personal decision making?
Ross Sweatma21 Ward St
Fitchburg, Mass
01420

Ross Sweatman of MA 9:19AM May 28, 2009