Should A Judge Check Their Faith At The Door?

(Before all this nonsense begins. We should study thd examples and words of past Supreme court judges. In no way did they check their faith at the door. It takes faith in God to be a great judge. After all God is the perfect judge to learn from.)

John Jay was an American statesman, patriot, diplomat, Founding Father, abolitionist, negotiator, and signatory of the Treaty of Paris of 1783. He served as the second Governor of New York and the first Chief Justice of the United States.

By conveying the Bible to people . . . we certainly do them a most interesting act of kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced. The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed – that this Redeemer has made atonement “for the sins of the whole world,” and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy, has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve. The Bible will also [encourage] them with many explicit and consoling assurances of the Divine mercy to our fallen race, and with repeated invitations to accept the offers of pardon and reconciliation. . . . They, therefore, who enlist in His service, have the highest encouragement to fulfill the du¬ties assigned to their respective stations; for most certain it is, that those of His followers who [participate in] His conquests will also participate in the tran¬scendent glories and blessings of His Triumph.

John Marshall (September 24, 1755 - July 6, 1835) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the fourth Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835. Marshall remains the longest-serving chief justice and fourth-longest serving justice in Supreme Court history, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential justices to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

John Marshall- W]ith us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.

A current conservative judge-

No one, including judges, should check his/her faith at the door.

I think most of the members of this site would agree that Christian judges should not check their faith at the door. However, what about judges who are Jewish, Hindu, or even Moslem? In a pluralistic society, is it right to demand different requirements for people of different faiths?

Gone are the days when elected legislators were the ones who made the laws. Now, in many countries, laws are actually made by judges, because legal precedent becomes law. Legislators just pass mushy-language bills and leave the judges to decide what those bills actually mean in practice.

God is not checked at the door of America's government nor courts.
One of the Friezes on the supreme court in Washington D.C. features Moses and the tablets bearing God's ten commandments. And on the chamber wall behind the bench of the justices appears the motto, In God We Trust.
As it also appears in the Congressional chambers and throughout America's courts.
The witness oath in most all courts concludes with the vow to tell the truth, so help me God.
There is an alternative oath administered for those who do not wish to swear to God, as it is not something we're to do according to scripture,(Matthew 5:34). That alternative oath is to affirm to tell the truth, so help me.

God, nature and natures God, is the foundation of this country. There's no checking at any door. God is always part of America. And her justices.

Jesus said let your yes be your yes and your no be no, so that you dont have to take oaths. Everyone who DOESNT do that needs to take oaths. Which can be more problematic when they are broken.

eg couples getting married, doctors taking hippocratic oath, judges, police officers, army officials, and people on the witness stand.

many employment contracts are made up because people go to work 'in good faith' They expect their employer to treat them reasonably and pay on time, so the employees can actually turn up to work and do their job. when that doesnt happen, this is why you get strike action, and contracts renegotation.

It shouldnt be one sided and it shouldnt be that you need things written down but actually we do need things written and spelled out because people FORGET.

One Republican and one Democrat dissented in Roe v. Wade. Four Republicans and one Democrat ruled to legalize abortion. They based their decision not on the fact abortion is a right under the constitution to their right to privacy.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. It struck down many U.S. state and federal abortion laws. (Quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)

Remember, it was a Republican Supreme Court the approved abortion and same-sex marriage.

Click to expand...

Your statement about Republican justices on the supreme court and their vote in the Obergefell v. Hodges case was one repeated in the "How Should Christians Vote" thread. You were wrong that the Republican justices voted for gay marriage as was proven in that thread.

If you're not reading this latest rebuttal of your untrue statement concerning SCOTUS and Republican justices opinion on gay marriage at least others who might read this will know you're continuing to promote a falsehood if you repeat your remarks in a different thread. Bearing false witness is a sin. Why repeat it?

Either you have me on ignore and did not see that fact, which is fine, or you're ignoring those facts so as to continue to bear false witness against those who are Republican on the supreme court.

How each Supreme Court justice came down on same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges)
The majority opinion
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by the court’s four liberal justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.



June 26, 2015
(Conservative/Republican) Justices' pointed dissents to gay marriage ruling show unusual discord[/QUOTE]

That's not true either.

Catholic Answers:
Doctrine of the Atonement (with audio reading also)
Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one

Atonement, DOCTRINE OF THE.—The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb “atone”, from the adverbial phrase “at one” (M. E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make “at one”; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for an offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. “For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (II Cor., v, 19). The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of the Mosaic Law, the Council continues: “Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (II Cor., i, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Gal., iv, 4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son, who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Rom., iii, 25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John, ii, 2).” More than twelve centuries before this, the same dogma was proclaimed in the words of the Nicene Creed, “who for us men and for our salvation, came down, took flesh, was made man; and suffered.” And all that is thus taught in the decrees of the councils may be read in the pages of the New Testament. For instance, in the words of Our Lord, “Even as the son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many” (Matt., xx, 28); or of St. Paul, “Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven.” (Coloss., i, 19, 20).

The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, thesufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This is, so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture. Without pretending to give a full history of the discussions, we may briefly indicate some of the main lines on which the doctrine was developed, and touch on the more important theories put forward in explanation of the Atonement.

In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediator between God and men.

Continues in full at the link. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/doctrine-of-the-atonement

Wow didn't know that , thanks for that info
All i hear on forums and in chat on line is how Republicans are for God and Democrats are of the Devil. lol seems people from both sides of politics vote for UnGodly things

[/QUOTE]
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Gal. 5:9

Catholics believe you must go to hell into this make believe purgatory then you go to Heaven. They also Pray to Mary, Jesus mother. Are they saved?

Catholics do not believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ Blood. So how can they have the Faith that God the Father honor? Remember, it was a Republican Supreme Court the approved abortion and same-sex marriage.

Are you saved? If you can ask that of over a billion people it is only fair.
I ask because you appear to insist on slandering other Christians whom you believe you're entitled to judge as pertains to their relationship with Christ. And when you clearly no little to nothing about Catholicism.
I also ask because you insist on bearing false witness about the supreme court and their position on same sex marriage.
You're in no position to judge anyone's spiritual security when you insist on bearing false witness and slandering what you no nothing about.

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Gal. 5:9[/QUOTE]
"Many will say to me on that day, 'LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

"Many will say to me on that day, 'LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' [/QUOTE]
See Rev. 3:1 - you have a name (people agree with you) but you are dead. Matthew 7:14

I think this is why the religious question concerning Jurists, especially those seated on the highest court in our nation, enters into political discourse.
However, as we find and shall find no doubt in Judge Barrett's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the question of religious conviction is likely to enter in. This is unconstitutional. It puts a religious litmus test before a candidate for government office,which is not allowed. None the less, we know that of all people certain Democrats will ignore the illegality and pursue their own agenda.

A Judge can't be religiously bias on the bench. Can you imagine? Iran and the Sharia courts. Where Sharia law, God's law according to Islam, is the first adjudicator. And in that legal system a Muslim woman's testimony is credited as only half to what is granted a man as having full credibility.

It's great to have Republican party members on the bench of the supreme court. However, it is unconstitutional for them to exercise their religious ideology in drafting decisions from that bench.

I think we should realize that a majority Republican, Christian, SCOTUS, in no wise guarantees the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The court would have to reverse itself in that decision as pertains to Roe. Which is a woman's right to privacy under the Constitution. To reverse Roe would mean the court would have to unanimously decide that the court was wrong in the first place in that respect. And then they'd have to determine women have no right to privacy under the Constitution.

Imagine the future of women with that one.

You're not reachable.
Just remember one thing as you pursue your adversarial agenda. Christians and non-Christians will answer for every word when standing before God.

I won't be reading you anymore. You have nothing born of nor from righteousness to say.

I tell MoTC the truth about the aberrant gospel he preaches, and he has put me on Ignore.

His post is the picture of hypocrisy.