Federal judge nominee believes women should be

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07072004/utah/181590.asp

 

Reading from the Bible on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch endorsed a federal judicial nominee who wrote that wives should have a subordinate role in marriage, with the Utah Republican emphasizing "millions and millions of people will agree with" that view.

 

(..)

 

With Hatch's support and that of Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, Holmes was confirmed 51-46 in the Senate on Tuesday evening, even though many members of the Senate predicted his nomination would be rejected.

 

    Holmes' writing on abortion, marriage, slavery and other theological issues generated opposition from not only many Democrats but also some Republicans.

 

    Fueling much of the debate is a 1997 article Holmes and his wife, Susan, wrote for Arkansas Catholic magazine titled, "Gender Neutral Language, Destroying an Essential Element of Our Faith." The couple wrote that under Catholic teaching, "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in marriage and "is to subordinate herself to the husband."

 

    Senate Democrats who are also members of the Roman Catholic faith, such as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, have said the positions taken by Holmes "reflect a narrow view of the Catholic theology and do not embody contemporary standards that should be followed by any federal judge in any state."

 

    Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., lashed out at Durbin's criticism during floor debate.

 

    "We hear so much from the other side about tolerance," said Santorum. "Where is the tolerance for people who want to believe what has been taught for 2,000 years?"

 

(..)

 

Hatch also discounted criticism over a 1980 letter Holmes wrote to a newspaper arguing that rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions because "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has since apologized for the comment.

    "I find his statement to be insensitive and appalling," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, a former criminal prosecutor who cited studies showing an estimated 25,000 pregnancies occur each year due to rape. "Speak to the family of a 13-year-old girl who is pregnant by being raped by her family's best friend, the next-door neighbor."

    Said Hatch: "I believe all of us have made statements in the past for which we wished we could apologize."

 

Now, we all like our women submissive and such. But there's more to be revealed here. Of course, one part of this is that we're all really intolerant, says Senator Santorum. Another part is that Miami will be covered in snow this winter.

 

*gets popcorn*

[NoCalMike 0]

the problem is this sets his precident about what he believes in. I mean I would be willing to bet that women being subservient is probably the LEAST whacko idea he shares. I am not fond of any politician that starts out a justification with....."As the bible says...."

[2GOLD 0]

So Orrin Hatch, the bible and the representative state of Utah?

...yup, that sounds just about right.

 

Ever get the feeling some of these guys would still own slaves if given the option?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07072004/utah/181590.asp

 

Reading from the Bible on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch endorsed a federal judicial nominee who wrote that wives should have a subordinate role in marriage, with the Utah Republican emphasizing "millions and millions of people will agree with" that view.

 

(..)

 

With Hatch's support and that of Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, Holmes was confirmed 51-46 in the Senate on Tuesday evening, even though many members of the Senate predicted his nomination would be rejected.

 

    Holmes' writing on abortion, marriage, slavery and other theological issues generated opposition from not only many Democrats but also some Republicans.

 

    Fueling much of the debate is a 1997 article Holmes and his wife, Susan, wrote for Arkansas Catholic magazine titled, "Gender Neutral Language, Destroying an Essential Element of Our Faith." The couple wrote that under Catholic teaching, "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in marriage and "is to subordinate herself to the husband."

 

    Senate Democrats who are also members of the Roman Catholic faith, such as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, have said the positions taken by Holmes "reflect a narrow view of the Catholic theology and do not embody contemporary standards that should be followed by any federal judge in any state."

 

    Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., lashed out at Durbin's criticism during floor debate.

 

    "We hear so much from the other side about tolerance," said Santorum. "Where is the tolerance for people who want to believe what has been taught for 2,000 years?"

 

(..)

 

Hatch also discounted criticism over a 1980 letter Holmes wrote to a newspaper arguing that rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions because "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has since apologized for the comment.

    "I find his statement to be insensitive and appalling," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, a former criminal prosecutor who cited studies showing an estimated 25,000 pregnancies occur each year due to rape. "Speak to the family of a 13-year-old girl who is pregnant by being raped by her family's best friend, the next-door neighbor."

    Said Hatch: "I believe all of us have made statements in the past for which we wished we could apologize."

 

Now, we all like our women submissive and such. But there's more to be revealed here. Of course, one part of this is that we're all really intolerant, says Senator Santorum. Another part is that Miami will be covered in snow this winter.

 

*gets popcorn*

So conception by rape IS frequent?

 

Also, NCM his Catholic views were being questioned, not his political ones. What's wrong with quoting the Bible in that case?

[NoCalMike 0]

Also, NCM his Catholic views were being questioned, not his political ones. What's wrong with quoting the Bible in that case?

well for one I doubt he would just randomly be spouting off bible verses unless he was using them to justify some political idea/opinion. Much like Jerry Fauwell and Pat Robertson do. Although they are harmless to the masses.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Oh, that Rick Santorum. Doing us Pennsylvanians proud again

[Guest Cerebus]

What bullshit. Estrada gets filibustered and this guy gets his nomination. Awful.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Hatch also discounted criticism over a 1980 letter Holmes wrote to a newspaper arguing that rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions because "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has since apologized for the comment.

So conception by rape IS frequent?

I'd say that it's more common than snowfall in Miami.

 

Considering that the only time it ever snowed in Miami was in 1977 and all: http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/alma...02/alm02jan.htm

[NoCalMike 0]

Hatch also discounted criticism over a 1980 letter Holmes wrote to a newspaper arguing that rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions because "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has since apologized for the comment.

So conception by rape IS frequent?

I'd say that it's more common than snowfall in Miami.

 

Considering that the only time it ever snowed in Miami was in 1977 and all: http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/alma...02/alm02jan.htm

Considering it is absolutely irrelevent as to whether it is frequent or not.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Hatch also discounted criticism over a 1980 letter Holmes wrote to a newspaper arguing that rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions because "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has since apologized for the comment.

So conception by rape IS frequent?

I'd say that it's more common than snowfall in Miami.

 

Considering that the only time it ever snowed in Miami was in 1977 and all: http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/alma...02/alm02jan.htm

Considering it is absolutely irrelevent as to whether it is frequent or not.

Spicy's taking the extreme opposite on this too.

 

When this guy's comparison was much more irrelevant

 

It happens. Much more than Snow in Miami

[TheBigSwigg 0]

The couple wrote that under Catholic teaching, "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in marriage and "is to subordinate herself to the husband."

I seriously hate how people take that verse in the Bible out of context. It makes every Christian look like an asshole.

[Dr. Tom 0]

It makes every Christian look like an asshole.

Many Christians -- especially fundies in the public eye and/or in politics -- do a fine job of that all by themselves.

[Guest CronoT]

The couple wrote that under Catholic teaching, "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in marriage and "is to subordinate herself to the husband."

I seriously hate how people take that verse in the Bible out of context. It makes every Christian look like an asshole.

I'll see if I can try to explain it in the original meaning from Hebrew and Greek. The capacity for mistranslations from ancient languages to modern ones is vast.

 

The actual original translation of that phrase from Hebrew and Greek is that a woman should respect her husband. Respect in that sense is meant in the same way that most Christians respect the Priest, Pastor, or Preacher.

 

How respect got changed to subservient, I'll never know. But what I think everyone is getting all pissed off about is that everyone believes that Hatch is taking the more literal, conservative point of view with that Bible verse.

 

The image that is usually brought to mind there is one of a stupid, grunting dumbass of a man saying his wife should be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen," while he sits back doing jackshit sitting on the couch, watching TV. While I find people who endorse this view to be stupid, farting Troglodytes, there are some people who find this perfectly acceptable.

 

One of my sisters is married to a man who is Hispanic, and was raised in a tradional Catholic home. You don't get much more ingrained into that mindset then that. It's already caused a few arguements between them. If they ever get divorced, God forbid, it will probably be built around that.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Hatch also discounted criticism over a 1980 letter Holmes wrote to a newspaper arguing that rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions because "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has since apologized for the comment.

So conception by rape IS frequent?

I'd say that it's more common than snowfall in Miami.

 

Considering that the only time it ever snowed in Miami was in 1977 and all: http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/alma...02/alm02jan.htm

Considering it is absolutely irrelevent as to whether it is frequent or not.

You're right no matter how frequent those cases are, abortion is still wrong.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"We hear so much from the other side about tolerance," said Santorum. "Where is the tolerance for people who want to believe what has been taught for 2,000 years?"

 

ROFLOL. What an ass.

[NoCalMike 0]

"We hear so much from the other side about tolerance," said Santorum. "Where is the tolerance for people who want to believe what has been taught for 2,000 years?"

 

ROFLOL. What an ass.

yeah and the fact that he wants people to follow the rule of law from 2000 years ago.

[Highland 0]

Can't you guys just expunge Utah from the Union?

[Guest CronoT]

Can't you guys just expunge Utah from the Union?

No, it's more like we need to expunge all the Mormons and the Fundamentalist whackos.

 

If they believe in going on missionary work so much, why don't they all leave on one, and never come back?

[Ravenbomb 0]

*Proposes that clocks be outlawed* Can Hatch support me, too?

[Guest SP-1]

So is this guy Catholic or Mormon? If he's Protestant, that's an extreme protestant view that sounds completely uninformed about the original texts.

 

If he's Mormon, he's not a Christian. Hate to burst you guys's bubble, but Mormons are considered a cult by the Christian church. They use similar terminology but their beliefs are completely different. And subject to being easily dismantled.

 

If he's Catholic, then I'd lean towards him being one of the Catholics that buys so heavily into dogma and tradition that he missed the entire point of the gospel and thus probably isn't a Christian. That happens more often than I like to think.

 

At any rate, he's a fool and knows nothing of what a true Christian marriage operates out of: A deep love and trust of one another. Its a partnership of being known and knowing.

[NoCalMike 0]

So is this guy Catholic or Mormon? If he's Protestant, that's an extreme protestant view that sounds completely uninformed about the original texts.

 

If he's Mormon, he's not a Christian. Hate to burst you guys's bubble, but Mormons are considered a cult by the Christian church. They use similar terminology but their beliefs are completely different. And subject to being easily dismantled.

 

If he's Catholic, then I'd lean towards him being one of the Catholics that buys so heavily into dogma and tradition that he missed the entire point of the gospel and thus probably isn't a Christian. That happens more often than I like to think.

 

At any rate, he's a fool and knows nothing of what a true Christian marriage operates out of: A deep love and trust of one another. Its a partnership of being known and knowing.

thanks for the breakdown, I guess, but I don't care what "religion" it is, I don't want people in the government making any bills or laws when their justification is the bible.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

It makes every Christian look like an asshole.

Many Christians -- especially fundies in the public eye and/or in politics -- do a fine job of that all by themselves.

yes, but they make the ones who aren't fundamentalists seem like the majority, which isn't necessarily true.

[Guest MikeSC]

thanks for the breakdown, I guess, but I don't care what "religion" it is, I don't want people in the government making any bills or laws when their justification is the bible.

What justification IS OK with you, then?

-=Mike

[Guest Crazy Dan]

How about scientific research, logic, common sense and about everything else that is more relevant to the age we live in. I know there are some great teachings in the Bible, but come on, this was a book written by vary ignorant people, all of whom still believe the world was flat, the earth was the center of the Universe, and if you gave some one a good bleeding, that this would drain the evil spirits out of the body. They just did not have the scientific know how, which is made more available to us now

 

I am for seperation of Church and State... so if you get a judge who makes his judgments based on a 2000 year old book, well that to me really makes me question how effective he will be. Well all modern laws say you are innocent, but I found this obscure passage that makes me say you are quilty. I don't like this, keep your religious beliefs to yourself.

[Guest MikeSC]

How about scientific research, logic, common sense and about everything else that is more relevant to the age we live in. I know there are some great teachings in the Bible, but come on, this was a book written by vary ignorant people, all of whom still believe the world was flat, the earth was the center of the Universe, and if you gave some one a good bleeding, that this would drain the evil spirits out of the body. They just did not have the scientific know how, which is made more available to us now

 

I am for seperation of Church and State... so if you get a judge who makes his judgments based on a 2000 year old book, well that to me really makes me question how effective he will be. Well all modern laws say you are innocent, but I found this obscure passage that makes me say you are quilty. I don't like this, keep your religious beliefs to yourself.

Well, what about laws that seem to have no basis in ANY of that.

 

You know, like no smoking in public places and the like.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

How about scientific research, logic, common sense and about everything else that is more relevant to the age we live in. I know there are some great teachings in the Bible, but come on, this was a book written by vary ignorant people, all of whom still believe the world was flat, the earth was the center of the Universe, and if you gave some one a good bleeding, that this would drain the evil spirits out of the body. They just did not have the scientific know how, which is made more available to us now

 

I am for seperation of Church and State... so if you get a judge who makes his judgments based on a 2000 year old book, well that to me really makes me question how effective he will be. Well all modern laws say you are innocent, but I found this obscure passage that makes me say you are quilty. I don't like this, keep your religious beliefs to yourself.

Your entire post is absolutely, completely, absurd.

 

Here's a news flash for you: Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Some of the greatest philosophers of our time, men who's works have literally influenced the minds of COUNTLESS people over a span of several thousand years, lived during a time when.....why, when people believed that the Earth was flat and that bleeding you really was good for your health.

 

I suppose, following your logic, that we should ignore everything that they've written simply because they didn't have the scientific know how back then to build, for example, a George Forman fat-burning grill.

 

Again: absurd.

[Guest SP-1]

How about scientific research, logic, common sense and about everything else that is more relevant to the age we live in. I know there are some great teachings in the Bible, but come on, this was a book written by vary ignorant people, all of whom still believe the world was flat, the earth was the center of the Universe, and if you gave some one a good bleeding, that this would drain the evil spirits out of the body. They just did not have the scientific know how, which is made more available to us now

 

I am for seperation of Church and State... so if you get a judge who makes his judgments based on a 2000 year old book, well that to me really makes me question how effective he will be. Well all modern laws say you are innocent, but I found this obscure passage that makes me say you are quilty. I don't like this, keep your religious beliefs to yourself.

Show me the verses where you draw those statements from. You speak of logic, then use logic. I want to know your justification for claiming the biblical writers were even concerned about these things.

 

Also, name a judge who has made a judgement based on the bible (other than the commandments that our constitution, you know, upholds and agrees with).

 

Evidence, sir.

[Justice 0]

Wasn't bleeding out something that came out in Medival times?

 

And hell, we believe in a 200 year old document that is supposed to hold universal truths for all-time. Isn't Freedom of Speech timeless? Just because it is aged doesn't mean that there isn't logic or lessons that can be applied to today (Although I'll admit there are things that certainly aren't applicable today).

[Guest SP-1]

Wasn't bleeding out something that came out in Medival times?

 

And hell, we believe in a 200 year old document that is supposed to hold universal truths for all-time. Isn't Freedom of Speech timeless? Just because it is aged doesn't mean that there isn't logic or lessons that can be applied to today (Although I'll admit there are things that certainly aren't applicable today).

The thing most people completely miss with the Old Testament is this: Jesus changed the angle on a LOT of things. But most people haven't a clue of how to read the Bible or what it actually says so there's always people making assumptions and dividing up the Old and New testaments. They go together. They work together. They complement each other and Jesus made alot of the OT law clearer.

[Ravenbomb 0]

How about scientific research, logic, common sense and about everything else that is more relevant to the age we live in.  I know there are some great teachings in the Bible, but come on, this was a book written by vary ignorant people, all of whom still believe the world was flat, the earth was the center of the Universe, and if you gave some one a good bleeding, that this would drain the evil spirits out of the body.  They just did not have the scientific know how, which is made more available to us now

 

I am for seperation of Church and State... so if you get a judge who makes his judgments based on a 2000 year old book, well that to me really makes me question how effective he will be.  Well all modern laws say you are innocent, but I found this obscure passage that makes me say you are quilty.  I don't like this, keep your religious beliefs to yourself.

Your entire post is absolutely, completely, absurd.

 

Here's a news flash for you: Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Some of the greatest philosophers of our time, men who's works have literally influenced the minds of COUNTLESS people over a span of several thousand years, lived during a time when.....why, when people believed that the Earth was flat and that bleeding you really was good for your health.

 

I suppose, following your logic, that we should ignore everything that they've written simply because they didn't have the scientific know how back then to build, for example, a George Forman fat-burning grill.

 

Again: absurd.

I think you're seriously underestimating the George Forman grill