Are you concerned that Neil Gorsuch belongs to a far-left church?

[Jazzhead]

Isolating a pertinent point: there will be, and always are, times when construing the Constitution reasonably will mean
that a law might be struck down as unconstitutional no matter how popular the law proves to be with one or another group of
people, even as a law might be upheld as constitutional no matter how unpopular it proves to be with one or another group
of people. Reasonable construction of the Constitution will not always uphold laws one likes or strike down laws one dislikes.

I would submit that bad law that is also unconstitutional is defined fairly as law that allows or mandates excessive government
overreach in violation of the Constitution's limits, to say nothing of obstructing or abrogating individual rights and economic and
political freedom. The record as it exists seems to indicate mostly that Gorsuch suffers neither constitutional fools nor government
overreach gladly, and that's well worth having on the Supreme Court.

I bust my buttons in admiration of your post, sir!

The best judge has rectitude and rigor,  and the gift of not letting bad facts allow him to make bad law.   

Reasonable construction of the Constitution will not always uphold laws one likes or strike down laws one dislikes.

And the corollary is:   Looking for litmus tests on legal issues that one has a political obsession with does not promote reasonable construction of the Constitution.   

[EasyAce]

I bust my buttons in admiration of your post, sir!

 

The best judge has rectitude and rigor, and the gift of not letting bad facts allow him to make bad law.

Which is often enough why, when a judge takes the eminently conservative path and a ruling or dissent comes forth
against a given law, conservatives might yet be furious but the Constitution dodges a bullet.

And the corollary is:   Looking for litmus tests on legal issues that one has a political obsession with does not promote reasonable construction of the Constitution.

Of course, the companion to that is that not every last issue or problem has or should have an explicitly political/legal
solution, something both right and left often have a difficult if not impossible time understanding.

[Emjay]

I'd feel a whole lot better if he attended Sunday services at the Heritage Foundation....or Liberty College.

All due respect, it doesn't matter how you feel about Neil's church.  At least he attends church, unlike most politicians.  I am Episcopalian myself and, although the church's Hierarchy is liberal, the congregation ... not so much.

The Episcopal Church has beautiful services and they are uplifting and comforting. 

People should rejoice that Neil has faith.

[Chosen Daughter]

Well if everyone is honest the church you go to does in some way help form your opinions.  I broke with my church of 7 years over this election.  But I can't honestly say that I would not go to a church that I did not agree was teaching the Word of God.

I guess time will tell if Gorsuch rules liberal on the Supreme Court.  My gut feeling is that he will and I am not entirely surprised.  Trump said he would embrace the gay community and people cheered.  I love gays no more than I love everyone.  We are all Americans and gays are nothing special.  I don't need to celebrate their life choice and I won't change Gods Word to accommodate their sin choice.

  But I can't honestly say that I would not go to a church that I did not agree was teaching the Word of God.

correction to original post.    But I can't honestly say that I would go to a church that I did not agree was teaching the Word of God.

[r9etb]

Well if everyone is honest the church you go to does in some way help form your opinions.  I broke with my church of 7 years over this election.  But I can't honestly say that I would not go to a church that I did not agree was teaching the Word of God.

1.  How do you know this church doesn't teach the Word of God? 

2.  It sounds like you really don't understand Episcopalians and the Episcopal liturgy.  That's not an insult, just an observation. 

The order of service is taken from the Book of Common Prayer, and it's well-nigh impossible to get through an Episcopal service without hearing the Word of God through Scripture, prayers, and hymns.  And it's a rare Episcopal priest who does not preach on the Scripture readings for the day, though it is the one place in the service where politics may enter in. 

But whatever the politics of the people within a given Episcopal parish, Sunday morning is really not a political time. 

[libertybele]

The Court probably should reflect the American people "to an extent"; there is no need to go overboard on the topic but they all don't need to come from the Ivy League and other elite schools.

You and Hillary should get along just fine as she believe that the Supreme Court should stand on the side of the American people.  WRONG!  The Supreme Court should stand on the side of the CONSTITUTION, period!

As for Gorsuch as long as he rules in line with the Constitution, I don't care if he belongs to a liberal church.  However, I question how someone who belongs to a liberal church could be seen as a conservative, but choses to participate in a church with liberal values and core beliefs.  Gorsuch maybe the exception, but I don't equate someone with liberal values and a liberal outlook as someone adhering to the Constitution.

[libertybele]

1.  How do you know this church doesn't teach the Word of God? 

2.  It sounds like you really don't understand Episcopalians and the Episcopal liturgy.  That's not an insult, just an observation. 

The order of service is taken from the Book of Common Prayer, and it's well-nigh impossible to get through an Episcopal service without hearing the Word of God through Scripture, prayers, and hymns.  And it's a rare Episcopal priest who does not preach on the Scripture readings for the day, though it is the one place in the service where politics may enter in. 

But whatever the politics of the people within a given Episcopal parish, Sunday morning is really not a political time.

I was baptized in the Roman Catholic church during the time when mass was still said in Latin.  I have also studied in the Episcopal church and was confirmed in the Anglican Catholic Church (Episcopal).  Both have swayed from the teaching of the Church that I knew years ago; especially the Roman Catholic.  As a conservative, I find that both churches have become very liberal.  You can read the Word of God in the Bible, Book of Common Prayer, sing hymns, etc., but if you take a look at the Bible, both Churches now have  the "Newer Translation" (more liberalized) and the Book of Common Prayer has a Rite I (older version more conservative) and a Rite II Version (more liberal).  IF you have a church that is led by a liberal Priest or liberal Reverend, I don't care how many times you hear the Word of God; that Priest's or Pastor's sermon will have a liberal spin to it and will 'translate' or 'interpret' what the Bible, prayers, etc., liberally.  All the collections they take up and their outreach fulfill liberal agendas.  I have also attended a non-denominational church who had an incredible Pastor; when he gave a sermon, you definitely heard the Word of God!  However, all the missions, outreach programs and the way they went about converting people to Christianity were done with a liberal twist and IMHO done with deception and preyed upon those very unfortunate.

[r9etb]

I was baptized in the Roman Catholic church during the time when mass was still said in Latin.  I have also studied in the Episcopal church and was confirmed in the Anglican Catholic Church (Episcopal).  Both have swayed from the teaching of the Church that I knew years ago; especially the Roman Catholic.  As a conservative, I find that both churches have become very liberal.  You can read the Word of God in the Bible, Book of Common Prayer, sing hymns, etc., but if you take a look at the Bible, both Churches now have  the "Newer Translation" (more liberalized) and the Book of Common Prayer has a Rite I (older version more conservative) and a Rite II Version (more liberal).  IF you have a church that is led by a liberal Priest or liberal Reverend, I don't care how many times you hear the Word of God; that Priest's or Pastor's sermon will have a liberal spin to it and will 'translate' or 'interpret' what the Bible, prayers, etc., liberally.  All the collections they take up and their outreach fulfill liberal agendas.  I have also attended a non-denominational church who had an incredible Pastor; when he gave a sermon, you definitely heard the Word of God!  However, all the missions, outreach programs and the way they went about converting people to Christianity were done with a liberal twist and IMHO done with deception and preyed upon those very unfortunate.

Well, I guess I'm happy you've found a church that suits you.

But I have to say: you're sounding pretty judgy about those of us who find God through the Episcopal liturgy. 

[Bigun]

I've been a member of one of the largest Churches on earth for more than 25 years.  Still have issues with things like continuing to remain affiliated with the Boy Scouts after all that has transpired with that organization recently.

My faith remains unshaken however.

[Chosen Daughter]

1.  How do you know this church doesn't teach the Word of God? 

2.  It sounds like you really don't understand Episcopalians and the Episcopal liturgy.  That's not an insult, just an observation. 

The order of service is taken from the Book of Common Prayer, and it's well-nigh impossible to get through an Episcopal service without hearing the Word of God through Scripture, prayers, and hymns.  And it's a rare Episcopal priest who does not preach on the Scripture readings for the day, though it is the one place in the service where politics may enter in. 

But whatever the politics of the people within a given Episcopal parish, Sunday morning is really not a political time.

I am not here to judge the Episcopal church and I won't.  I do judge any portion of the Word which I think any church is omitting for the purpose of social acceptance.  I wouldn't want a church to accept a minister who loves any perversion as a lifestyle.  Not one that is addicted to pornography or any kind of infidelity.  There have been many ministers of all denominations who have fallen because of sin.

Like look at Jimmy Swaggart when he fell.  Gods Grace is everlasting but a minister cannot continue on in a sinful lifestyle and minister to people.  Makes Gods Word worthless if it has no meaning.

[libertybele]

Well, I guess I'm happy you've found a church that suits you.

But I have to say: you're sounding pretty judgy about those of us who find God through the Episcopal liturgy.

No, I have not found a church that suits me; quite the opposite.  I see the 'church' as a building with 4 walls and the congregation as the people and the clergy of the church. Since, I do not agree with the liberal direction of the congregation, I choose not to assemble with those in the 'church'.  There is nothing wrong with the liturgy itself, the hymns, the Bible, the psalms, etc., those are instruments used to teach the Word of God and to worship him.  It is the 'interpretation' and the liberal spin of those instruments that are very common in churches these days that I have a problem with.  It seems that the 'churches' have swayed from their core beliefs in order to achieve some realm of political correctness.   As a quick example, the Catholic church accepting gay priests and reverends to lead the church because it is now politically correct to me is not acceptable and has swayed from the original teachings of the 'church'; it goes against what is stated in the Bible; it goes against the Word of God.  I am far from perfect and struggle with my faith all the time; I don't need political correctness added to my struggle.

[r9etb]

No, I have not found a church that suits me; quite the opposite.  I see the 'church' as a building with 4 walls and the congregation as the people and the clergy of the church. Since, I do not agree with the liberal direction of the congregation, I choose not to assemble with those in the 'church'.  There is nothing wrong with the liturgy itself, the hymns, the Bible, the psalms, etc., those are instruments used to teach the Word of God and to worship him.  It is the 'interpretation' and the liberal spin of those instruments that are very common in churches these days that I have a problem with.  It seems that the 'churches' have swayed from their core beliefs in order to achieve some realm of political correctness.   As a quick example, the Catholic church accepting gay priests and reverends to lead the church because it is now politically correct to me is not acceptable and has swayed from the original teachings of the 'church'; it goes against what is stated in the Bible; it goes against the Word of God.  I am far from perfect and struggle with my faith all the time; I don't need political correctness added to my struggle.

Hm.  Well, you've got your opinion. 

[r9etb]

I am not here to judge the Episcopal church and I won't.  I do judge any portion of the Word which I think any church is omitting for the purpose of social acceptance.  I wouldn't want a church to accept a minister who loves any perversion as a lifestyle.  Not one that is addicted to pornography or any kind of infidelity.  There have been many ministers of all denominations who have fallen because of sin.

Well, OK.

Nevertheless, I think you really don't understand Episcopalians.  In many parishes you'll find a pretty broad spectrum of beliefs about social and political issues.  We're not there to find uniformity of belief on those things. 

We're there because the Episcopal Church offers a particular and, to us, beautiful way of worship that helps us find God.  The political views of the clergy don't much enter into it.  I expect that's how Gorsuch feels about it.

[libertybele]

Well, OK.

Nevertheless, I think you really don't understand Episcopalians.  In many parishes you'll find a pretty broad spectrum of beliefs about social and political issues.  We're not there to find uniformity of belief on those things. 

We're there because the Episcopal Church offers a particular and, to us, beautiful way of worship that helps us find God.  The political views of the clergy don't much enter into it.  I expect that's how Gorsuch feels about it.

Yes, without a doubt the dogma and rituals of the Episcopal church are beautiful.  Overtime even those rituals and dogma have changed because society in general has changed. Rite I and Rite II are prime examples.  The Bible, the very Book of the Word of God has been changed to accommodate modern day language and along with it some translation has been lost or changed.  The Bible has been changed several times throughout the history of the Church.  The political views of the clergy does make a difference.  If you look at the Roman Catholic church (which has basically the very same dogma and rituals) the Pope IS clergy.  I haven't heard or seen a more liberal Pope than the current Pope Francis; he is about as politically correct as a pope has ever been.  To say that he has no influence or that a bishop, archbishop, priest, reverend, deacon, etc., doesn't have any influence over their church, I find rather inconceivable.  It is the accumulation over time of their opinions and beliefs that continue to shape and lead the direction of the church.

Faith in God is one thing and believing in the teachings of the 'church' are far different.  All I am trying to convey is that the Catholic Church; meaning Roman and Anglican have significantly changed over the past 50 years and for the most part because of political reasons, not because of religious reasons.

I apologize of you think I am being judgemental of you, I am only relaying my experiences and observations of the Church.  Perhaps it is because I have left and tried to re-enter the Church several times only to find a growing political presence within the Church that I feel as I do.  You obviously have a Church that you have grown with and that is a wonderful thing.

[Chosen Daughter]

Yes, without a doubt the dogma and rituals of the Episcopal church are beautiful.  Overtime even those rituals and dogma have changed because society in general has changed. Rite I and Rite II are prime examples.  The Bible, the very Book of the Word of God has been changed to accommodate modern day language and along with it some translation has been lost or changed.  The Bible has been changed several times throughout the history of the Church.  The political views of the clergy does make a difference.  If you look at the Roman Catholic church (which has basically the very same dogma and rituals) the Pope IS clergy.  I haven't heard or seen a more liberal Pope than the current Pope Francis; he is about as politically correct as a pope has ever been.  To say that he has no influence or that a bishop, archbishop, priest, reverend, deacon, etc., doesn't have any influence over their church, I find rather inconceivable.  It is the accumulation over time of their opinions and beliefs that continue to shape and lead the direction of the church.

Faith in God is one thing and believing in the teachings of the 'church' are far different.  All I am trying to convey is that the Catholic Church; meaning Roman and Anglican have significantly changed over the past 50 years and for the most part because of political reasons, not because of religious reasons.

I apologize of you think I am being judgemental of you, I am only relaying my experiences and observations of the Church.  Perhaps it is because I have left and tried to re-enter the Church several times only to find a growing political presence within the Church that I feel as I do.  You obviously have a Church that you have grown with and that is a wonderful thing.

 meaning Roman and Anglican have significantly changed over the past 50 years and for the most part because of political reasons, not because of religious reasons.


That above sentence is the problem.  God never changes.  If the church does it is leading its congregants down the wrong road for political correctness.

[Bigun]

meaning Roman and Anglican have significantly changed over the past 50 years and for the most part because of political reasons, not because of religious reasons.


That above sentence is the problem.  God never changes.  If the church does it is leading its congregants down the wrong road for political correctness.

ABSOLUTELY! God's laws are immutable! They don't change and when the Church forgets that and tries to play the PC game in order to appease the membership only bad things result!
 

[Emjay]

1.  How do you know this church doesn't teach the Word of God? 

2.  It sounds like you really don't understand Episcopalians and the Episcopal liturgy.  That's not an insult, just an observation. 

The order of service is taken from the Book of Common Prayer, and it's well-nigh impossible to get through an Episcopal service without hearing the Word of God through Scripture, prayers, and hymns.  And it's a rare Episcopal priest who does not preach on the Scripture readings for the day, though it is the one place in the service where politics may enter in. 

But whatever the politics of the people within a given Episcopal parish, Sunday morning is really not a political time.

I could not have said it better.  Thanks.

[Chosen Daughter]

ABSOLUTELY! God's laws are immutable! They don't change and when the Church forgets that and tries to play the PC game in order to appease the membership only bad things result!

Right and it is in many churches not just one denomination.  Here is an article that reflects on the same issue in the Evangelical church.  I won't go to one that is sugar coating or making things warm and fuzzy to gain more members.


A few years back, I listened in astonishment as some prominent emerging leaders talked about replacing "preaching" with "having a conversation."

At first, I thought that they might be confusing individual conversations with how we should speak to the masses, but I was wrong. They felt that we should stop "preaching" from the pulpit and start being more passive and less confrontational.

Never mind the fact that Jesus said, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent" (Luke 4:43).

But according to many, it's time to replace the pulpit with a couch and preaching with conversing.

It's not my practice to name names, or reference churches, but when they depart from truth they open themselves up for exposure. Sadly, many churches, including some in our valley, carry heretical books, promote their material, and seek to model their church after them.

There is a very troubling trend in the evangelical church as a whole. We are in desperate need of genuine leadership — broken, humble people who are not afraid to admit that they need God; men who are more worried about prayer than about status and recognition; men who petition God rather than position themselves. Many men want the recognition, but not the brokenness; the honor, but not the humility.

The state of the family today is disheartening as well. Men have largely forsaken their God-given role as spiritual leaders in their homes … that, no one can deny. And I believe that the pulpit is partly to blame.

Today, the truth is often neglected, watered-down, or avoided altogether in the hope of not offending members and building a large audience. Judgment is never mentioned; repentance is never sought; and sin is often excused. We want to build a church rather than break a heart; be politically correct rather than biblically correct; coddle and comfort rather than stir and convict.


"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (I Timothy 1:15), yet, many avoid words such as sin and repentance. The good news about Christ can only be appreciated with the bad news as the backdrop.

There are times when the saints must be fed, and there are times when the sinners must be warned (C.H. Spurgeon).

Preaching, witnessing, and teaching are to be done with God-given authority to truly be effective. When we fail to proclaim God's Word faithfully, we run the risk of "encouraging sin" and "perverting the words of the living God" (cf. Jeremiah 23).

Pastors are to be pillars who support truth, not who oppose it. Truth is not "flexible" when it comes to absolutes — it's solid and unyielding. Truth liberates.

Truth rebuilds. Truth restores. Truth heals. Truth transforms. Truth prevails — you don't change truth — truth changes you! We must begin here.

Where are the Isaiahs and Jeremiahs calling nations to repentance? Where are the Peters and Pauls who spoke with such authority that martyrdom did not silence them? Though they are dead, they still speak! Where are they?

As the church falls deeper into self-reliance and further from reliance on God, our need for bold leadership has never been greater. Change in our nation will only occur when there is a strong conviction of sin, genuine faith, humility, and sincere repentance, beginning in the pulpits. May God grant us the wisdom and strength to proclaim these truths.

We must stop confusing God's patience with His approval and preach with conviction from the pulpits again — as dying men to dying men.

Breaking up the fallow ground cleans the heart, renews the Spirit, and strengthens our walk. We want a deeper relationship — we want to receive from God — we want to grow, but we must prepare our heart.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastors-stop-trying-to-be-popular-and-politically-correct-opinion-169773/#ckMRE87Bj5Vcop5V.99

[libertybele]

meaning Roman and Anglican have significantly changed over the past 50 years and for the most part because of political reasons, not because of religious reasons.


That above sentence is the problem.  God never changes.  If the church does it is leading its congregants down the wrong road for political correctness.

Exactly.  We as a society are being bombarded by liberal political correctness so much that over time issues become acceptable. Divorce, extra marital affairs, out of wedlock births, cohabitation were just beginning to become less frowned upon 50 years ago; today it is the norm. The churches in order to hold onto their congregation and to grow the church have changed their views in order to become more appealing to current day society; when in essence if they were to adhere to their original teaching and to the Word of God, the appeal would be there as they church would then offer something that isn't available other than through the  Church.

[Bigun]

Right and it is in many churches not just one denomination.

Yep! Some of them going so far as to have biennial conventions to determine what their doctrine is going to be for then next two years. NEVER could get my head wrapped around that!

Given the rules here I think it best that we stick to generalities only and avoid getting into scripture.

[Chosen Daughter]

Yep! Some of them going so far as to have biennial conventions to determine what their doctrine is going to be for then next two years. NEVER could get my head wrapped around that!

Given the rules here I think it best that we stick to generalities only and avoid getting into scripture.

Well yes you are probably right.  I think that I already conveyed my feelings on the subject.  In a general way also.  Because this is Universal problem in all denominations and countries.  In politics also mixing with faith.  The world is moving in a Universal religion direction.  One world religion all excepting.  Its happening.

[Chosen Daughter]

Exactly.  We as a society are being bombarded by liberal political correctness so much that over time issues become acceptable. Divorce, extra marital affairs, out of wedlock births, cohabitation were just beginning to become less frowned upon 50 years ago; today it is the norm. The churches in order to hold onto their congregation and to grow the church have changed their views in order to become more appealing to current day society; when in essence if they were to adhere to their original teaching and to the Word of God, the appeal would be there as they church would then offer something that isn't available other than through the  Church.

Yes and when there is no conviction there is no healing, and no new life in Christ.

[Bigun]

Well yes you are probably right.  I think that I already conveyed my feelings on the subject.  In a general way also.  Because this is Universal problem in all denominations and countries.  In politics also mixing with faith.  The world is moving in a Universal religion.  One world religion all excepting.  Its happening.

You have made yourself quite clear to me at least! 

[truth_seeker]

I don't care much about his religion, unless it is islam.

I would hope the SC is not called on to issue opinions on religious doctrine.

[EasyAce]

I don't care much about his religion, unless it is islam.

I would hope the SC is not called on to issue opinions on religious doctrine.

You probably should have said, "I would hope the SC is not called on to issue opinions on religious doctine again," since
once upon a time it was sort of called upon to do just about that---in  West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,
the 1943 case in which the Court held in favour of two Jehovah's Witness children who refused to salute the flag or say the
pledge along the line of their Witnesses religious beliefs.

Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority . . .

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

--Justice Robert Jackson, writing for the Court majority. (The Court ruled 6-3; Justice Felix Frankfurter was the only
dissenter to write an opinion so far as I know.

The first sentence I quoted from Justice Jackson, by the way, ought to be taken very seriously by far more than just
your friendly neighbourhood Supreme Court justice.