WMark:

You say:

Another author thinks the problem with Judge Sotomayor's quote is that she's a wise Latina. The issue about it is that she said it qualified her to make BETTER decisions than a white male.

Here's the entire paragraph of Judge Sotomayor's lecture. Please note the COMPLETE last sentence:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

If you read carefully, she says not that a "wise Latina" woman judges better than all white males. She is talking about the impact of experience in life. The entire speech is about the fact that necessarily, our experiences shape the ways we see things. (Back in the 1960s or so, Sr. Mary Corita Kent created a poster that says "where you stand is where you sit." Same thing.)

The importance Judge Sotomayor points out for judging is to recognize the force of those experiences, and to make sure they are aware of their biases and make sure they do their best to consciously set them aside in order to approach a just decision. Some white males have done this, other minorities have not been able to do this. The goal of all judging is to be just. Something that I believe Judge (and soon to be Justice) Sotomayor will do her best to achieve.

That's all we can ask of anyone.

Pr Chris

In order to really "study" the Bible, you have to also study history and find how about those people lived and that will show you how cannot take the Bible word for word. By studying American history, you can learn what Jefferson and the others were thinking and feeling when they wrote the Constitution. If we were to take it word for word, before the Admenments, there would be no O'Connor, Ginsberg or Thomas on the Court, and no minorities in the government either. But I guess that's what some people what. Just Christian white males, and some sects would object to others, real followers of Jesus.

When will people understand that the phrase "literal interpretation" is oxymoronic and makes complete nonsense of any argument based on it? I mean, how hard is that?
The problem goes straight to the heart of the Sotomayor situation, the argument over whether the letter or the spirit of the law should prevail. If the letter, a "literal" reading, was all there was to the law, why would we even need judges? Only an idiot would think his interpretation of a statute the only true and correct reading, and therefore it seems only idiots are qualified for SCOTUS. Thus all this ridiculous theater. Good grief.

David Waters: Like depicting MASONS

Who are your so-called unanimous "ELDERS" of Jimmy Carter & gang?????

What a cheap & Jealous & Low LIFE of a Judeo-Christian deciet or is it Judeo-Jew Trick to discredit an good ex-U.S. president (raised with ex-slaves), aka "Mr. Peanut"!!

You should be deported, for Plagerizm & FALSE REPORTING or 'Influence Peddling' on this Public Media etc.., from wence Ye ancestry came from. Or

You should be fired by NEWSCORP.!

Very interesting connection Freeman draws between religious and political literalism, and one that makes sense considering not only the behavioral similarities but the underlying protective impulses of the two movements (it being a definitional aspect of conservatism to retain and maintain, to prevent change when it can be done).

The flight of conservative Episcopalians he cites is a fascinating sociological marker of sexism - toward all sexual minorities - being more deeply rooted and intractable than racism. This was notable during the most recent presidential election when racial slurs against Obama were rare, at least in print, but comments about Clinton, even those with no pertinence to the election, were common and frequently given play in the press. Although it would be impolitic to admit, and therefore is literally unspeakable, Republicans opposed to Sotomayor find her assertions of better judgment under certain circumstances to be more offensive and threatening because she is female than because of her race.

As Freeman notes, religious, social, and political conservatism unite and by their bedfellows demonstrate the hierarchy of prejudice: protectivist, predominately white American Episcopalians will gladly partner with predominately black African Episcopalians to prevent sexual equality or support for sexual equality in the church.

Understandable, but also socially destructive and irreverent of humanity, if not of doctrine. Decidedly not a Christianity Jesus would have approved. Plying rubbish against the temple of Truth, indeed.

Thanks for a thought-provoking piece.

Is that it David Waters,

Is that it Sally Quinn

Is that It John Meacham et al:

Let me , i [WE] us Post APOCALYPTIC Faith Philosophy , so that Ye can build it Up & then Sell a Novel Nugget here & there????

Why does WAPO have to resort to Jealousy & Theft of Intellectual Property [ESSAYS] posted Here?????

Why , after Deletion & sometimes non deletion moments that Coinsidentilly there appears Some thing , within the NEWSCORP family , one or two of our m,y, i, Themes.

Can't Ye folk be Original???? Why Purge/Delete & Steal only to Plagerize!

S
H
Ai
M NewsCorp!

S
H
Ai
M Newscorp!
E
E

S
H
Ai
M
E Newscorp!

S
H
Ai
M
E Newscorp!

S
H
Ai
M
E Newscorp!

WE [i] Will severley Punish Ye or atleast Embarras Ye all before FOX 5 & the World!

"The word of God is living and active..." Preach it Rev. Freeman! I have been amazed how the dominant state of Christendom has ignored Jesus consistent message of religious liberalism and warning as to the literalists. Who are the Pharisees and Saducees of today?

I wonder if there is any sincerity in the views of Sotomayor's critics. Those who would oppose her being seated on the bench were looking for any reason to justify their political differences with the woman,and so gender and race became masks in which they could cloak their political objections. In doing so, they appeal to the lowest ranks of the Republican faithful.
Maybe they are that contrived, or maybe these men are just sexist and racist. Hard to say given the track records...

At least Mr. Freeman gets one thing right. He understands that the difference between Liberals and Conservatives (who are generally interpret things literally). Certainly conservatives interpret the Bible and our Constitution and other founding documents literally. It makes sense to interpret the 2 most important and proven documents in the history of humanity as they were intended. It makes sense to me anyway. If you aren’t interpreting them correctly they aren’t of any value and could be more harmful than good.

Of course Liberalism requires one to interpret things as they feel like, adding and deleting what they desire. To me this removes all real meaning from the original text. If there was anything there to be garnered, who knows what is left after I have “re-interpreted” it to suit my needs. I think you can see this isn’t any type of real interpretation but instead using the document as a way of imposing personal beliefs that aren’t there.

At first I was not impressed with the quote by Rev Parker but now I am starting to see it may have real merit. Unfortunately it is taken out of context and placed in this article so it is hard to know all that was meant. I do believe that the main point is valid, although painfully butchered by Mr. Freeman in this article.

The point is that men teach “their own rubbish”. Of course men must interpret historic documents (Bible, Constitution, etc) in their own convictions. There will be disagreement but the main points should be relatively clear. The problem is when people add “their own rubbish” to the original content. If you haven’t figured out this is the liberalism that I already mentioned I am not fond of. When one adds or removes content from a proven text they pretend that their addition is equally as valid. Hopefully you see the downfall and danger. One might as well be interpreting a Dr. Seuss book since you can change it to whatever you want.

Part2:

I should also point out that that we have many “white men” that we can thank for the foundation of this country. Apparently Mr. Freeman has some disdain for these men, even with the great things that they did. Truthfully, I think they did a great job in shaping our nation and not interpreting things as only beneficial to them. Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson didn’t understand the ramifications of acknowledging that the Creator gave all people human rights? It was latter approved by other people, most of which were white men. They knew they were forming a framework to give freedom to people who had never been given freedoms before. Today we are reaping the fruit of their work.

I am proud to be in a country that considers a Latina woman equal with any man and is considering her for our highest court. That said, I am disturbed she feels superior to “white men” in some ways but at least has recanted the statement. I know our forefathers foresaw this day but I think they were equally concerned that freedoms could be in jeopardy if the ideals of our constitution were misrepresented. Let us reinforce these ideas and continue to teach our nation so we don’t lose the ways of our founding fathers.

Rev. Freeman is a Unitarian minister i.e

"A leader of a religious association of Christian origin that has no official creed and that considers God to be unipersonal, salvation to be granted to the entire human race, and reason and conscience to be the criteria for belief and practice."

i.e. pick your commandments whatever they be and thou shall be saved?

1.e. Waldo E. is our man??

Another author thinks the problem with Judge Sotomayor's quote is that she's a wise Latina. The issue about it is that she said it qualified her to make BETTER decisions than a white male. She thought is was perfectly non-discriminatory to throw out both blacks' and whites' firefighter test scores, as long as you threw out high scores by whites and low scores by blacks.

Her judicial leanings are not much different from David Souter, so it isn't a big deal if she joins the court. But if President Obama tries to replace Clarence Thomas with Attorney General Eric "we need more racial dialogue and tougher laws against offensive speech that don't protect whites" Holder, I hope a new Senate is in place by then.