NationStates Jolt Archive

All your base are belong to us!

Anyway ...

Looks like Specter is going to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. For those of you not in the know, that's the panel that approves or sends home packing the President's nominations for the US Supreme Court.

Specter has already said that no Justice will be allowed to gain appointment if they are against abortion rights.

The uber-conservative christian reich, who was pivotal in getting the shrub re-elected, has called this a personal slap in the face to their agenda of dominance.

All I have to say is .... "HA!"

Your religion has no place in my government or in my body.

Booyah, Specter, Booyah!

On another note, I do find it amusing that I saw this story and immediately following it was a story about how Shiite muslim clerics in Iraq are being pressured to denounce the newly formed Iraqi government and army and all that.

I find it funny that an extreme religious group (certain christians) in the US putting pressure on the government is "just peachy", but if an extreme religious group (certain muslims) does the exact same thing in Iraq, it's grounds for more bombings.

All your base are belong to us!

Anyway ...

Looks like Specter is going to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. For those of you not in the know, that's the panel that approves or sends home packing the President's nominations for the US Supreme Court.

Specter has already said that no Justice will be allowed to gain appointment if they are against abortion rights.

The uber-conservative christian reich, who was pivotal in getting the shrub re-elected, has called this a personal slap in the face to their agenda of dominance.

All I have to say is .... "HA!"

Your religion has no place in my government or in my body.

why the hell not, they're my taxes

most Americans are Christians - why the hell shouldn't that be reflected in our government?

I find it funny that an extreme religious group (certain christians) in the US putting pressure on the government is "just peachy", but if an extreme religious group (certain muslims) does the exact same thing in Iraq, it's grounds for more bombings.

hmmmm...pacivly calling for and end to genocide vs. beheading civilians

some how fail to see the parrallel

go Arlen!

Unfortunately for us, Specter is now completely wipped by the GOP leadership. Trust me, he knows his place now. Witness his quick backtrackings after Majority Leader Frist said he might not support Specter.

Specter is a sort-of ally in the Senate, like McCain, despised by the wingers in his party, but respected as a necessary ally (just as the Democrats tolerate Zell Miller and Robert Byrd...it is because we must). But Specter is vulnerable coming from a blue state. He nearly lost his seat in his own primaries, after a challenge from a winger. He beat his Democrat challenger by a safe margin, but no landslide. He got hell from his party for blocking Bork in the 80s...he will fall in line this time.

why the hell not, they're my taxes

Since churches don't pay taxes, they should have no say in the government. As a matter of fact, if they want a say in government, the IRS says they must pay taxes and will lose exemption if they make any attempts at swaying legislation.

Welcome to the US.

most Americans are Christians - why the hell shouldn't that be reflected in our government?

Most Americans are also white. Does that mean we should ban black people from the government? The US is designed to protect the minority, not uphold the interests of the majority. Any basic civics class will show you that.


hmmmm...pacivly calling for and end to genocide vs. beheading civilians

some how fail to see the parrallel

Well ... I would expect no less. I'll give you a moment.

most Americans are Christians - why the hell shouldn't that be reflected in our government?
I guess you pick and choose which amendments you like and which ones you don't?

Becuase this country was founding upon the priciples that everyone is created equal which would be defined by the courts who currrebtly define it as everyone.


Chrsitanity is full of Bulls**t people who are complete jacka$$es and will not even try to compromise on little things. ANd for the fact that america is a nation for all neutral in its own respect.

Since churches don't pay taxes, they should have no say in the government. As a matter of fact, if they want a say in government, the IRS says they must pay taxes and will lose exemption if they make any attempts at swaying legislation.

Welcome to the US.

was I talking about Church taxes?

I'm talking about my money being used for thing (like overseas abortions) that I find morraly horrific and not being used when a just cause arises

Most Americans are also white. Does that mean we should ban black people from the government? The US is designed to protect the minority, not uphold the interests of the majority. Any basic civics class will show you that.

unfortunatly white people don't have a set moral code. they don't meet every sunday and talk about white people things. there is no white people bible or white people catechism

I never said anything that could even be remotley considered banning non-Chistians from government, I merely said that the actions of our government should reflect the whishes of the majority of our people. this being a republic and what not

Becuase this country was founding upon the priciples that everyone is created equal which would be defined by the courts who currrebtly define it as everyone.

who is everyone? are fetuses included in everyone?

these are the same courts who ruled that blacks were not included in everyone

Chrsitanity is full of Bulls**t people who are complete jacka$$es and will not even try to compromise on little things. ANd for the fact that america is a nation for all neutral in its own respect.

ok, is that going anywhere?

why the hell not, they're my taxes

most Americans are Christians - why the hell shouldn't that be reflected in our government?

A little something called the US Constitution, friend.
I suggest you try reading it (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) .

I guess you pick and choose which amendments you like and which ones you don't?

what?

no, I just said that the choices of our governemnt (on things like abortion, gay marriage) should reflect the views of our people and the majority of those views happen to be Christian ones

A little something called the US Constitution, friend.
I suggest you try reading it (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) .

what would be great is if anything I suggested violated any law in that document in any way

what would be great is if anything I suggested violated any law in that document in any way
Check the First Amendment
It says that the Government shall not endorse any religion.

was I talking about Church taxes?

I'm talking about my money being used for thing (like overseas abortions) that I find morraly horrific and not being used when a just cause arises

In the current system, the only way your money is being used for abortions is if you go get one yourself or pay for a friend's. Abortions are 100% legal in the United States. Morality should not be an issue because you do not have the right to decide what is morally correct for anyone else.

I merely said that the actions of our government should reflect the whishes of the majority of our people. this being a republic and what not

So, what happens when you're no longer in the majority? It's sort of like the fillibuster debate. The current Republicans want to get rid of it so that the minority Democrats won't be able to stop legislation from passing that they don't agree with. But what happens when Republicans are no longer the majority? Will they want the fillibuster back?

The two fastest growing religions in the US are Islam and Wicca. Christianity has grown 0.05% between 1990 and 2000 while Islam has enjoyed 110% growth and Wicca 180% growth.

Keeping that in mind, would you still want the will of the majority being imposed on you - regardless of your personal beliefs - if you were no longer in the majority?

It's a reality that could happen within your lifetime.

We are a Republic. That means we have elected officials who are in place to act as representatives of everybody, not just the majority. Only in a true Democracy is the will of the majority the only driving factor. We are not now, nor shall we ever be, a true Democracy.

Again, basic civics.

Check the First Amendment
It says that the Government shall not endorse any religion.

ah, but there in my friend you find your fault

I'm not saying the government should rename us a Catholic republic make the senate recite the book of mormon or teach our kids the koran

I'm just saying this is a majority Christian country, and that impacts many of the moral decisions people make - and those decisions should be reflected in the actions of our politicians

so arlan spector is actually being quite the duche by denying the majority of Americans representation in the supreem court for no better reason than he feels like it

ah, but there in my friend you find your fault

I'm not saying the government should rename us a Catholic republic make the senate recite the book of mormon or teach our kids the koran

I'm just saying this is a majority Christian country, and that impacts many of the moral decisions people make - and those decisions should be reflected in the actions of our politicians

so arlan spector is actually being quite the duche by denying the majority of Americans representation in the supreem court for no better reason than he feels like it
It doesn't matter if you rename the country or not. Basing politics on religious belief is endorsing a religion.

EDIT: Also, Arlan Spector, if I read correctly, is not denying representation because "he feels like it," but rather because he is protecting the minority.

In the current system, the only way your money is being used for abortions is if you go get one yourself or pay for a friend's. Abortions are 100% legal in the United States. Morality should not be an issue because you do not have the right to decide what is morally correct for anyone else.

yet at the same time morality allows us to pass legislation saying we can't murder or steal from one another, how is this topic any different

and btw, before clinton was ousted American tax dollars were paying for overseas abortions


So, what happens when you're no longer in the majority? It's sort of like the fillibuster debate. The current Republicans want to get rid of it so that the minority Democrats won't be able to stop legislation from passing that they don't agree with. But what happens when Republicans are no longer the majority? Will they want the fillibuster back?

when (if, I pray) we're the minority I will expect the democrats to represent the views of those who elected them

The two fastest growing religions in the US are Islam and Wicca. Christianity has grown 0.05% between 1990 and 2000 while Islam has enjoyed 110% growth and Wicca 180% growth.

I'm pretty sure the two fastest growing are Mormonism and Catholisism, but I could be wrong

Keeping that in mind, would you still want the will of the majority being imposed on you - regardless of your personal beliefs - if you were no longer in the majority?

for the things that they pay the taxes for and those that involve interating with other human beings its only fair

...most Americans are Christians...

The definition of a "Christian" is vague at best. And how did you come that conclusion, that 'most' (implictly stating a majority) Americans are 'Christians'?

It doesn't matter if you rename the country or not. Basing politics on religious belief is endorsing a religion.

EDIT: Also, Arlan Spector, if I read correctly, is not denying representation because "he feels like it," but rather because he is protecting the minority.

I'll give you an example - GW is a Chrstian - God tells GW to try to stop abortion and he does - does that mean he's undermining the first ammendment? hell no! he's doing what he thinks is right

JFK is a Christian - God tells his to try to stop communism - does that mean he's undermining the first ammendment?

Lincon is a Chrsitian - God tells him to try to free the slaves - does that mean he's undermining the first ammendment?

Last stats I saw, catholicism was going down. Biggest are Islam and Wicca.

The definition of a "Christian" is vague at best. And how did you come that conclusion, that 'most' (implictly stating a majority) Americans are 'Christians'?

census

the four biggest branches of Christianity in America (forming a majority of the vote) are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Mormons - and while these are very different religions they tend to agree on alot of things - abortion and gay marriage being good examples

Last stats I saw, catholicism was going down. Biggest are Islam and Wicca.


where did you see that

cause in the 2004 election they stil made up a full quarter of the vote

I'm just saying this is a majority Christian country, and that impacts many of the moral decisions people make - and those decisions should be reflected in the actions of our politicians
You do realize the majority of Americans support the right to an abortion. Therefore, Arlen Specter is upholding the will of the majority.

Hint, not all Christians are anti-abortion.

Hell, give America another 30 years and Christianity itself will be a minority in America.

I'll give you an example - GW is a Chrstian - God tells GW to try to stop abortion and he does - does that mean he's undermining the first ammendment? hell no! he's doing what he thinks is right

JFK is a Christian - God tells his to try to stop communism - does that mean he's undermining the first ammendment?

Lincon is a Chrsitian - God tells him to try to free the slaves - does that mean he's undermining the first ammendment?
George is acting outside of his Constitutional job description. John and Abe were not; both were acting as Commander in Chief of the armies. Also, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was more a punishment of the South than anything. He only freed slaves in "states of rebellion."

census

the four biggest branches of Christianity in America (forming a majority of the vote) are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Mormons - and while these are very different religions they tend to agree on alot of things - abortion and gay marriage being good examples
Note: I am a Methodist, and most of the Methodists I know are pro-choice, and also (surprisingly) for gay marriage.

You do realize the majority of Americans support the right to an abortion. Therefore, Arlen Specter is upholding the will of the majority.

prove it

Hint, not all Christians are anti-abortion.

and not all athiests/jews/muslims/buddists/hindus are anti-life

Hell, give America another 30 years and Christianity itself will be a minority in America.

psshhhhh, people have been saying that since the 1790s

I'll give you an example - GW is a Chrstian - God tells GW to try to stop abortion and he does - does that mean he's undermining the first ammendment? hell no! he's doing what he thinks is right

JFK is a Christian - God tells his to try to stop communism - does that mean he's undermining the first ammendment?

Lincon is a Chrsitian - God tells him to try to free the slaves - does that mean he's undermining the first ammendment?
Hitler is a Christian - God tells him to destroy the Jews.

where did you see that
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

A very comprehensive study of religion in America. Most notable is that from the years 1990 to 2001, Christianity fell from 86% to 77%. In just 11 years, if fell 9%. Those with no religion rose from 8 to 14% over the same time period. Chew on that.

George is acting outside of his Constitutional job description. John and Abe were not; both were acting as Commander in Chief of the armies. Also, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was more a punishment of the South than anything. He only freed slaves in "states of rebellion."

where in the consititution does it gurentee the right to abortion?

where does it say that abe can reign in a state that tries to cecced?

where does it say that kennedy can overthrow a passive government?

[QUOTE=Chodolo]Hitler is a Christian - God tells him to destroy the Jews.

how many times did hitler go to Church?

where in the consititution does it gurentee the right to abortion?
9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because abortion is not a constitutional right does not mean there is any grounds to ban it.

There is no constitutional right to have sex with your spouse either.

where in the consititution does it gurentee the right to abortion?

where does it say that abe can reign in a state that tries to cecced?

where does it say that kennedy can overthrow a passive government?
1) Abortion is protected by the ninth amendment. Go read it if you don't believe me.
2) Abe was acting as Commander in Chief after the Congress declared war.
3) I've decided to concede that JFK was acting outside of his Constitutional duties. You win this point.

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because abortion is not a constitutional right does not mean there is any grounds to ban it.

There is no constitutional right to have sex with your spouse either.

yeah, but then theres that whole LIFE, then liberty, then the persuit of happyness thing

beisdes, if its not in the constitution then its up to the populous, and the populous just said they want it out

1) Abortion is protected by the ninth amendment. Go read it if you don't believe me.
2) Abe was acting as Commander in Chief after the Congress declared war.
3) I've decided to concede that JFK was acting outside of his Constitutional duties. You win this point.

1 - I'm seeing protections of this not stated, that means they have to be protected as laws, not that they have to stay laws

2 - congress had no authority under the consitution to declare war on a fellow state for cession, abe (I swear as president........to defend the constitution) was legaly obligated to veto that decaration

3 - thank you, reasonablity noted and approved

beisdes, if its not in the constitution then its up to the populous, and the populous just said they want it out
You are wrong. The majority of America supports the right to an abortion.

I guess you just have to sit back and enjoy dominance of the majority.

Just citing sources: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=13&num=1584

and http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html

yet at the same time morality allows us to pass legislation saying we can't murder or steal from one another, how is this topic any different

It is different. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says you can't kill someone or steal from someone. The framers of the Constitution knew that murder and theft were issues of morality and, thus, were an issue best left to the community. Certain kinds of murder, however, are not illegal. In Texas, if someone breaks into my home and is a threat to myself, my family, or my property (ie theft), then I have the right to kill that person. It is murder, but it is legal.

and btw, before clinton was ousted American tax dollars were paying for overseas abortions

Mmkay ... first of all, Clinton was not "ousted" ... he served his full two terms.

Second, I refer you to the Addis Ababa Fistula Clinic (link: http://www.fistulahospital.org/ ). Do you know what a fistula is? It's a very ugly thing that can happen to a woman's body. Now ... the US government was giving tax relief funding to the clinic until GWB ended all federal funding for "clinics who perform abortion services". At this clinic, Dr. Catherine Hamlin was removing dead fetuses from women's bodies and GWB considered that an "abortion service" and funding was cut off.

GWB wants to stop AIDs in Africa, but does this by forcing it so that AIDs infected babies must be born. A little common sense goes a long way.

You see abortion as morally reprehensable, I see a 13 year old girl who was raped by her father being forced to have the baby as morally reprehensable. Difference between Christians and Pagans, I suppose.


I'm pretty sure the two fastest growing are Mormonism and Catholisism, but I could be wrong

Yup. You're wrong. Check any religious census. Islam and Wicca are the fastest growing religions in the US.

yeah, but then theres that whole LIFE, then liberty, then the persuit of happyness thing
Actually, it's life, liberty and property. Back to the point, the jury's still out on whether or not a foetus counts as a life.
beisdes, if its not in the constitution then its up to the populous, and the populous just said they want it out
Where did you get that idea? No offense, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If it's not in the body of the Constitution, it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not it fits with the intent of the Constitution.

prove it
I have put a couple links in the preceeding post. Here's another: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/20/health/main537243.shtml

psshhhhh, people have been saying that since the 1790s
I think the evidence speaks for itself. However, the trend may slow if Hispanic (largely Catholic) immigration continues at such a high rate.

2 - congress had no authority under the consitution to declare war on a fellow state for cession, abe (I swear as president........to defend the constitution) was legaly obligated to veto that decaration


How do they not have the authority to declare war on a sovereign nation?

1 - I'm seeing protections of this not stated, that means they have to be protected as laws, not that they have to stay laws

Then obviously you do not understand the ninth amendment
2 - congress had no authority under the consitution to declare war on a fellow state for cession, abe (I swear as president........to defend the constitution) was legaly obligated to veto that decaration
If Lincoln had vetoed the declaration, he would have been lynched. Anyways, the Supreme Court didn't rule until much, much later that congress had acted wrongly. Also, secession was declared to be illegal about the same time and by the same Justices. Therefore Abe was still acting under his Constitutional umbrella as Commander in Chief. Police power is given to the President.

Something else you may want to consider ...

According to the Bible, life begins at birth, not conception. More specifically, life begins when the baby is more than 1/2 outside the mother.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

We can even go deeper and decide how life was created. According to Genesis 2:7 : “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul”. Other references are Ezekiel 37:10, I Kings 17:17-21, and James 2:26. Since a fetus doesn't breathe, it isn't life and doesn't have a soul, according to biblical definition.

Additional evidence that a fetus is considered to be less than a human life is that the biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is only a fine to be paid to the woman's husband (I don't know what is to be done if she doesn't have a husband!), while for an injury to a born person, it is life for life, eye for eye, etc. (Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:17-21). Even an infant under the age of one month is considered to be worth a lot less than an adult (Leviticus 27:1-8, Numbers 3:15,28,34,39,40,43). Also, the god once punished David by killing his newborn son (II Samuel 12:14-19); so apparently the right-to-life of the infant was not important.

The sanctity of life, born or “unborn”, is denied in many places. Two examples: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling....” (I Samuel 15:3), “they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” (Hosea 13:16)

A lot of the discussion on abortion has to do with “illegitimate” pregnancies. An adulterous woman is to be killed (Lev.20:10); with no mention of an exception if she is pregnant. And “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even unto the tenth generation..” (Deut. 23:2). So according to the Bible neither the fetus nor the born child is worthy of much consideration.

Note also that Jesus talked of being born again. He didn't say conceived again.

Yup. You're wrong. Check any religious census. Islam and Wicca are the fastest growing religions in the US.
Technically, Wicca is growing WAY faster than Islam, but it was such a small movement to start with that we usually regard Islam as a faster growing (in sheer numbers) religion. Also, Hinduism is growing faster percentagewise than Islam, but again, the total population in America is smaller.


I'm pretty sure the two fastest growing are Mormonism and Catholisism, but I could be wrong
Mormonism and Catholicism aren't even keeping up with general population growth, they're numbers are slowly rising, but not in accordance with the total population (thus their percentages are falling). Protestants are actually decreasing in population, as are Jews by faith.

How do they not have the authority to declare war on a sovereign nation?
Simple: the Supreme Court determined later (much later!) that secession was illegal, and therefore the Confederation never truly existed. I think they would have been singing a different tune if the South had won...

Simple: the Supreme Court determined later (much later!) that secession was illegal, and therefore the Confederation never truly existed. I think they would have been singing a different tune if the South had won...

Yes, but if someone maintains that secession was legal, then the Confederacy did truly exist, and then Congress was well within its rights to declare war on another sovereign nation for any reason they deem fit.

Yes, but if someone maintains that secession was legal, then the Confederacy did truly exist, and then Congress was well within its rights to declare war on another sovereign nation for any reason they deem fit.
Meh. Personally, I agree with you. I'm just telling you what I remember from US History and US Government/Politics.

I'm talking about my money being used for thing (like overseas abortions) that I find morraly horrific and not being used when a just cause arises
My taxes fund the arrests and prosecution of pot-smokers, something I find morally horrific. We pay our taxes, plain and simple, whether or not we agree with the causes they fund. If you disagree with the cause, fight the cause. Helps to have the majority of the population on your side, but if the cause is unconstitutional as deemed by the courts, you're screwed.

Just complaining about your taxes is not helpful. When you pay your money to the government, it is no longer your money.

1) Abortion is protected by the ninth amendment. Go read it if you don't believe me.
2) Abe was acting as Commander in Chief after the Congress declared war.
3) I've decided to concede that JFK was acting outside of his Constitutional duties. You win this point.

Actually it's contraception that is protected by the 9th.

Roe v. Wade, is something else.

Actually it's contraception that is protected by the 9th.

Roe v. Wade, is something else.
Contraception, Privacy, and a whole lot of other stuff.

I'm talking about my money being used for thing (like overseas abortions) that I find morraly horrific and not being used when a just cause arises
I think I missed this one. Thanks for bringing it up, Chodolo. Schrandtopia: I was unaware that the government was giving money to abortion clinics. I was under the assumption that abortions, like plastic surgery, were paid for by the consumer.

Contraception, Privacy, and a whole lot of other stuff.


I think I missed this one. Thanks for bringing it up, Chodolo. Schrandtopia: I was unaware that the government was giving money to abortion clinics. I was under the assumption that abortions, like plastic surgery, were paid for by the consumer.


Abortion is protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. See Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception) is found under a "penumbra" of privacy rights by invoking the 9th amendment.

(Althought the lower court in Roe, relied upon the 9th amendment that interpretation was not adopted by SCOTUS).

Abortion is protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. See Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception) is found under a "penumbra" of privacy rights by invoking the 9th amendment.

(Althought the lower court in Roe, relied upon the 9th amendment that interpretation was not adopted by SCOTUS).
Abortion is covered by Due Process? Well, I guess that means we don't need to use the 9th anymore. I'm a bit confused as to how Due Process protects abortion, though... I'll have to look up the actual cases.

Abortion is covered by Due Process? Well, I guess that means we don't need to use the 9th anymore. I'm a bit confused as to how Due Process protects abortion, though... I'll have to look up the actual cases.



Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them."

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

First, the original poster is wrong in his conclusion that Specter would try to block a pro-life judge; he's stated that he will not use a litmus test (and incidentally has voted for pro-life judges in the past)

Secondly, if the majority of Americans support abortion, then the above is moot. Individual states can pass laws concerning abortion.

Thirdly, a politician who uses religion as a moral compass is not in any way violating the constitution.

First, the original poster is wrong in his conclusion that Specter would try to block a pro-life judge; he's stated that he will not use a litmus test (and incidentally has voted for pro-life judges in the past)

Secondly, if the majority of Americans support abortion, then the above is moot. Individual states can pass laws concerning abortion.

Thirdly, a politician who uses religion as a moral compass is not in any way violating the constitution.
1) You could be right, I don't know
2) The majority is moot if abortion is protected by the Constitution, which DeaconDave has proven
3) That depends. If he can give a reason other than religion for wanting to pass a law, he's fine. Otherwise he's going against the 1st Amendment.

Specter actually said that he wouldn't approve hard liner anti-abortion judges because such an appointee would never get through the senate.

Thirdly, a politician who uses religion as a moral compass is not in any way violating the constitution.

True. But if a politician's ONLY reason for supporting/opposing a given issue is a religious one, then isn't that politician endorsing one religion (his) over all others? And if that's the case, then doesn't it become a violation of church and state?

most Americans are Christians - why the hell shouldn't that be reflected in our government?
It infringes on the rights of others, and that's called tyranny of the majority.