How would Jesus select a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court?

[McGyver]

The following thread and question is to be a discussion of political views and historical perspective, and NOT that of any religious viewpoint. It is framed to generate intelligent discussion on leadership and the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice – and historically how Jesus might go about selecting a justice if He were in Congress and the President’s position today.

It seems pretty apparent from today’s Christian conservatives that President Bush’s moral imperative in selecting a new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court is clear – to nominate a “religious conservative” with the prerogative of overturning Roe v. Wade.

So I ask if “Jesus” were in the President’s (and Congress) position today, how would He go about choosing a person to replace Justice O’Connor? Would He follow the abrasive and condescending path demanded by religious conservatives - to shape the Court in the image of today’s religious masses and FORCE their interpretation of values, life, and our Creator’s agenda? Or, would He select a justice with the key qualities of leadership, intelligence, understanding, and vision to help guide America through the 21st Century?

In short, “How might Jesus select a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court?”

Historically, Jesus firmly believed that all people were endowed with “free will.” He did NOT believe in FORCING His beliefs, teachings, or healings on others. And He did NOT give into the strict demands of religious leaders or masses. He ASKED that people believe and practice their lives in consideration of His teachings! He led by example, and through love and trust – NOT bullying and condescension. I believe He would select a new Supreme Court justice consistent with these foregoing qualities!

Historically, Jesus was said to walk amongst all peoples of all religious beliefs, sinners (should some be so pious to call others), and His own disciples and followers. He repeatedly spoke that others should NOT practice radical condescension, NOR cast judgment upon others. As such, I believe He would NOT support the type of radical aggressive behavior that has pervaded the Christian movement today. This observation then causes me to pose this QUESTION:

“What is the rationale behind the bullying TACTICS apparently being employed by today’s religious conservatives, and the “pro-life” movement?”

President Bush and Congress have an opportunity of “historic proportion” to guide the future of America by their appointment of the next Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I ask that “they” act as Jesus would have them do – and that “they” act in consideration of the “separation of powers doctrine” of church and state, as stipulated in the Constitution.

By: Stephen Dolle
Dolle Communications
www.diaceph.com

 

[Evo]

McGyver has my approval for this discussion since it is from a political perspective.

 

[BobG]

Going by the "Render unto Ceasar" episode, where two opposing political groups tried to force him to side with one or the other in their stance on dealing with taxation and Rome, I'd have to conclude the scenario was impossible. Jesus didn't believe in mixing religion and politics.

 

[Pengwuino]

Historically, Jesus firmly believed that all people were endowed with “free will.” He did NOT believe in FORCING His beliefs, teachings, or healings on others. And He did NOT give into the strict demands of religious leaders or masses. He ASKED that people believe and practice their lives in consideration of His teachings! He led by example, and through love and trust – NOT bullying and condescension. I believe He would select a new Supreme Court justice consistent with these foregoing qualities!

Well then how exactly would he be able to pick a Justice if he did not want people Judging others?

Pick a better framework for your rhetoric.

 

[pattylou]

Yeah, the question seems strange to me as well.

I can't see him picking a justice.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah, its like asking who would Jesus pick to head the IMF.

I mean come on, we all realize you just want to post another thread bashing conservative christians. Just come out with it already, don't pose a contradictory question to make it seem like there is something new to this argument.

 

[pattylou]

Yah, its like asking who would Jesus pick to head the IMF.

Or who he'd pick to be president of the USA. :tongue2: Yeah, we can still bash conservative christians without needing to ask who he'd pick for SC.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I can't be sure since I have never really read the history of Jesus of Nazareth but only certain parts. From what I understand though the man did not approve of politicians and government but rather was the peace loving hippie sort that would prefer everyone just get along and follow basic ethical rules of conduct without anyone making them do so. I do not think he would aprove of just about any political system let alone take part in one.
I could be wrong but this is the impression that I have gotten from what I have read.

Due to this the only objective I can see in this thread would be to try to paint the "conservative christians" of America as "bad christians". If this is the case I don't think it is apropriate. I don't mean to accuse, I just don't see much of any other sort of discussion coming from this.

 

[pattylou]

I apologise for my past and future offensive comments to conservative christians. Nothing personal. One of my best friends is a bible thumper. Her kids try to convert my kids regularly.

I had trouble visiting her when the Bush sign was in her yard.

But we're still good friends. And I still have incredible difficulty with Bush.

 

[deckart]

"...my best friend is a bible thumper." :rofl:

 

[pattylou]

"...my best friend is a bible thumper." :rofl:

Yeah. She'd laugh too. I knew it sounded corny, but really, us hell-bound atheists are a part of the community! I posted it because I am pretty hard on christians on the internet. In other words, it was an effort to keep fences mended.

What was the motivation for *your* post? Hmmm?

 

[Moonbear]

I know Evo approved the original topic, but this thread is on a short leash. If it turns into bashing of ANY religion, it's going to be put out of its misery.

 

[pattylou]

Even atheism?

 

[pattylou]

"...my best friend is a bible thumper." :rofl:

Ya know, my previous comment was not fair. Possibly you were laughing *with* me, and not *at* me.

 

[edward]

I do remember that the only time Jesus displayed anger, was when he drove the money changers out of the Temple.

My discission is that Jesus would resurrect "Mr (Fred) Rodgers" and nominate him to serve on the supreme court.

 

[Evo]

What I took from McGyver's post was that the religious right says that they are wanting laws enacted according to the "christian faith" they are supposedly so tied to, but as McGyver is trying to point out, what they are really doing is trying to impose their own narrow minded interpretations and beliefs which have nothing to do with the original teachings of Jesus, making them hypocrites. Just my take on it. People can take anything and twist it to their own use. Is this what we see happening in our government?

I was thinking about starting a thread on the "right to assisted suicide" for the terminally ill that is currently in danger due to the Bush administration. Scary stuff.

 

[SOS2008]

In all fairness to the OP, this is a popular question in politics these days (e.g., the purple wrist band for "What Would Jesus Do," bumper stickers that "Jesus Is A Liberal" etc.) Jesus was a rebel in regard to organized religion, most specifically Judaism--not the laws of the land. One of his big issues was that religion was discriminatory, so he constantly set the example of embracing outcasts of society (the Sumerian, tax collector, prostitute, leaper, etc.). So IF he were to select a judge, it would be someone who is not partisan.

 

[Evo]

In all fairness to the OP, this is a popular question in politics these days (e.g., the purple wrist band for "What Would Jesus Do," bumper stickers that "Jesus Is A Liberal" etc.) Jesus was a rebel in regard to organized religion, most specifically Judaism--not the laws of the land. One of his big issues was that religion was discriminatory, so he constantly set the example of embracing outcasts of society (the Sumerian, tax collector, prostitute, leaper, etc.). So IF he were to select a judge, it would be someone who is not partisan.

Exactly. Which is not what we see happening from those who supposedly are acting on his behalf?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In all fairness to the OP, this is a popular question in politics these days (e.g., the purple wrist band for "What Would Jesus Do," bumper stickers that "Jesus Is A Liberal" etc.) Jesus was a rebel in regard to organized religion, most specifically Judaism--not the laws of the land. One of his big issues was that religion was discriminatory, so he constantly set the example of embracing outcasts of society (the Sumerian, tax collector, prostitute, leaper, etc.). So IF he were to select a judge, it would be someone who is not partisan.

No partisan judge should ever reach the bench. The reality of the situation is that they do. If the conservatives think they can take over the SC by getting more conservative judges in there then they will and the same goes for the liberals. So the strategy for each side then becomes a matter of having partisan judges in there to counter balance the partisan judges from the other side of the fence. When one side takes an advantage the other cries fowl and insists that we should be putting nonpartisan judges on the SC even though they would be quite happy to be the ones taking the advantage themselves. Neither side is innocent in this game.


I think that it's a bad idea to be taking potshots at the manner in which people interpret and act on their religeous beliefs. It also shows a bit of a slant in this protest for non-partisanship.

 

[pattylou]

My husband has read some articles on Jesus lately that make him believe Jesus was a homosexual terrorist.

He doesn't say this to be funny, he thinks it is as plausible as the anarchist hippie idea - and more importantly he thinks the sources he has read support that interpretation.

"Jesus is a liberal" is one of my favorite bumper stickers.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My husband has read some articles on Jesus lately that make him believe Jesus was a homosexual terrorist.

He doesn't say this to be funny, he thinks it is as plausible as the anarchist hippie idea.

"Jesus is a liberal" is one of my favorite bumper stickers.

Jesus was a mystic. Most mystics don't involve themselves in politics because they focus on what they see as far more important matters which transend this realm of existence.
They aren't anarchists, it's just that by their own belief politics don't matter and they don't want to waste time involving themselves in things that don't matter.

 

[pattylou]

I believe he was an anarchist in at least one sense of the word - In the sense that he thought those in "power" had no "power" and he wanted others to see that as well.

What do you think about the homosexual terrorist idea? I'm sure lots of terrorists are mystics, and lots of homosexuals too.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I believe he was an anarchist in at least one sense of the word - In the sense that he thought those in "power" had no "power" and he wanted others to see that as well.

What do you think about the homosexual terrorist idea? I'm sure lots of terrorists are mystics, and lots of homosexuals too.

In a sense the beliefs of most mystics, as I understand them, are more or less anarchistic. The difference, for most, is that they do not care to overthrow any government or tryanny except on an internal basis. They want humanity to see that these people have no "real" power. At the same time they do not wish to force their beliefs on anyone so if people wish to continue living in the illusion that they have power or are subject to the power of others then so be it.
I'm sure that Jesus was labeled a terrorist but I doubt that he was an any real sense. It was just that the spread of his ideas upset the power the government held over their citizens. Some people might call that terrorism I suppose.
Holy Warriors are often considered terrorists and definitely can be but the majority of holy warriors aren't mystics. Mystics tend to be pacifists. Many armies of Holy Warriors though had mystics with them giving them spiritual guidance such as the Sufi that attended the muslim holy warriors who fought back against the crusades. I don't believe they fought themselves but I supose in such a case you could call them terrorists by association.
As far as homosexuality goes most mystics of that time thought of women as unclean and avoided contact with them, especially while menstruating. I can see that many of them may have indulged themselves with other men instead then. As far as Jesus goes I have no idea, I'd imagine that there would only be conjecture and no substancial evidence to back up the claim.

 

[Evo]

I believe he was an anarchist in at least one sense of the word - In the sense that he thought those in "power" had no "power" and he wanted others to see that as well.

What do you think about the homosexual terrorist idea? I'm sure lots of terrorists are mystics, and lots of homosexuals too.

I don't know that there is any evidence that he was homosexual, bisexual perhaps? There was a great documentary on his life a couple of years ago. He was very clever, there is no doubt about that. He read and understood the prophesies and made them happen in order to get peoples attention.

 

[jammieg]

"Jesus" the man would probably pick someone like a friend which is from what I've heard is what Bush does, but "Jesus" the son of God would probably pick the best person for the job which I very seriously doubt would be someone he was familiar with because there are a lot more people than the people Bush personally knows in the world, with this type of question I think there is always a tough distinction to make between the Jesus the people have built up and aspired to be, a kind of superhuman role model, and the actual fallible Jesus, but in asking the question it forces one to try and imagine what would such a perfect being choose, although we can never be perfect it does better one...I see why people say "what would Jesus do?", or "what would Gangis Khan do?", or "what would _______ do?" depends on what kind of person you aspire to be, because part of that will rub off kind of like a mind meld.

 

[SOS2008]

Following discovery of new writings, there has been controversy that Jesus and Mary were married, and that the Church suppressed this information to be in keeping with the image they wanted people to have. So personally I don't believe Jesus was a homosexual, and since he was a peaceful man, I don't believe him to be a terrorist.

Jesus believed in the right to choose--not to be forced to practice religious beliefs. Instead, we all answer directly to God for our choices. And so it should be for religious beliefs of when life begins, or gay rights, or any of the other religious issues.

 

[deckart]

Yeah. She'd laugh too. I knew it sounded corny, but really, us hell-bound atheists are a part of the community! I posted it because I am pretty hard on christians on the internet. In other words, it was an effort to keep fences mended.

What was the motivation for *your* post? Hmmm?

I just like giving you a hard time, Patty.

 

[deckart]

I believe he was an anarchist in at least one sense of the word - In the sense that he thought those in "power" had no "power" and he wanted others to see that as well.

What do you think about the homosexual terrorist idea? I'm sure lots of terrorists are mystics, and lots of homosexuals too.

I think this could be constued as an attack on a religeous belief. I'm personally offended by this and I hope that the moderators realize that such remarks our out of line.

 

[ray b]

well any comments about the real person of JC will be found to offend some
and all religions try to limit discussion of valid ideas they don't like

the modern thumpers narrow views of the teaching of JC are heavy with revisions
mostly by saul/paul who invented a pop religion that while eazy to spread
didnot reflect the true teachings very well
then add on 2000 years, allmost, of church dogma and you get todays very split
church in that very few cults agree on what is the message

I think Thomas is the closest to the true words and teaching ideas of JC
a personal belife system not based on or biased by church dogma
the man who spoke those words would want a fair and unbiased judge
but also prohibit judgeing of people only laws are to be judged
and would be againts what most thumpers call GODs LAWs being inforced
by the state as he favored personal choise over compelling people to do
the right thing
and didnot follow the books laws himself but what some would call a higher standerd
of what is the right thing to do, not what the old books laws said

 

[McGyver]

Yah, its like asking who would Jesus pick to head the IMF.

I mean come on, we all realize you just want to post another thread bashing conservative christians. Just come out with it already, don't pose a contradictory question to make it seem like there is something new to this argument.

I have posed a logical and well-founded question. It is neither Conservative, nor Liberal, and I seek fairness and open reasoning. You have attacked the messenger with rhetoric. Please simply ANSWER the question.

A well-known author and public speaker by the name of Ken Blanchard, writes and speaks on how Jesus was the ideal leader, and He should be modeled by CEOs and those holding public office today. Religious groups have posed questions on such things as to what type of auto would Jesus drive - so I think my question is a valid question.

 

[McGyver]

Discussion delves into History, into modern Physics.

My thread and question raises a key discussion regarding “historical Christian writings,” faith, and leadership - and perhaps their overzealous interpretation and adoption by key Christian organizations today. I am concerned that some of these organizations ABUSE their powers of influence over followers in a manner inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings.

I seek “supporting reasoning” from Christian conservatives who hold the view that a new Supreme Court should be shaped so as to overturn Roe v. Wade, and mandate new list of “religious values” for ALL Americans to live by.

As for the modern “physics” implication of my question, it raises the principle of “cause and effect,” that thoughts, spoken words, and actions are ALL forms of energy, which once set in motion - traverse the universe until they are absorbed by their intended target(s) – where these as inanimate objects and life-forms react and subsequently respond to the energy. Positive energies tend to initiate positive responses, and negative energies tend to solicit negative responses and actions. In building inanimate objects, things, relationships, and organizations – you plan, plan, then enact those plans. You try NOT to senselessly or recklessly throw around energy.

In crafting this discussion, I have set positive logical thought and energy in motion with the intent of soliciting those in the U.S., on the receiving end – to THINK – and that maybe, just maybe, my energy might bring about a more positive and healthful direction for this country. Logic seems to be running in short supply!

 

[Evo]

Unfortunately this just isn't turning into a productive discussion.

 

[vanesch]

In short, “How might Jesus select a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court?”

I think it is obvious he'd pick me. Unless he saves me for the job of president