Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Anti-Catholic left....Hmmm...I wonder where that leaves my family - most of whom are strict Catholics
and rather Liberal.
Lots and lots of stereotypical assumptions going on here.
The Pope himself as made statements that would appear like he's not exactly a Trump fan.
Thus did California Sen. Dianne Feinstein pronounce on Wednesday that, by virtue of being a faithful Catholic, Amy Barrett, a respected law professor at Notre Dame, may have excluded herself from a federal judgeship. President Trump has nominated Ms. Barrett for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. But the Democratic obsession with Ms. Barrett’s religion transformed what should have been a routine Senate confirmation hearing into a tour of the mind of the modern secular left.
The ugly implication of Mrs. Feinstein’s words is underscored by the context. She deployed them to suggest Ms. Barrett’s faith would lead her to substitute her personal beliefs for the law
Democrats never seem to stray far away from pitting people against people. In this case they put Catholics against non Catholics. The reality, of course, is that the religion of liberalism is incompatible with the rule of law. Ms Barrett stated in the hearing that IF a case came before her that she believed would be incompatible with her religious beliefs - she would Recuse herself. That is the proper thing to do. [b]A Religious Test is NEVER acceptable in this Country and Senators' Feinstein, Durbin & that great legal philosopher, Al Franken - are all perfectly aware of that. They certainly (properly) did ask "religious dogma" questions of the Muslim Judge that Obama recommended for the bench.
Feinstein and the other trained Democratic seals on the Committee have obviously forgotten that these dogma arguments they use against this nominated candidate were the same arguments used against JFK as he sought the nomination for President from the Democratic Party. These accusations made about him from inside and outside his Party in essence said because he was a Catholic he would only do the Pope's bidding. I actually remember all the hand wringing about electing a (gasp!!) Catholic President.
I wonder what you will say after you hears Steve Bannon's comments about the Catholic church in the interview he gave 60 Minutes. It will air this coming Sunday.
It shines a light on religious bigotry is the good part. There should be no religious test to be in government.
The article rambled on about past cases of religious bigotry by non governmental groups, which presumably is suppose to apply somehow to the title of the article and the first paragraph. Although the linkage is never established.
For the record, I'm against tax payer support either by direct aide or tax cuts for religious based private schools. I would be against schools run by my own denomination receiving such treatment. I'm against it because as you stated there should be "no religious test" for government supported activities. My position has nothing to do with being anti-Catholic or anti-religion.
I have no problem with a denomination running a non-religious based school and receiving the same type of support that any other private school would receive.
As for the inspiration for the article, the quotes I read of the questions, they seemed totally reasonable; as did the nominees answers.
I've sat on a religious body reviewing candidates for being a pastor in a non-religious institution (Hospitals, Hospice, etc). One of my concerns was always how the candidate would treat those of a different religion; would they be willing to check their own beliefs while serving others.
Thus did California Sen. Dianne Feinstein pronounce on Wednesday that, by virtue of being a faithful Catholic, Amy Barrett, a respected law professor at Notre Dame, may have excluded herself from a federal judgeship. President Trump has nominated Ms. Barrett for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. But the Democratic obsession with Ms. Barrett’s religion transformed what should have been a routine Senate confirmation hearing into a tour of the mind of the modern secular left.
The ugly implication of Mrs. Feinstein’s words is underscored by the context. She deployed them to suggest Ms. Barrett’s faith would lead her to substitute her personal beliefs for the law
Democrats never seem to stray far away from pitting people against people. In this case they put Catholics against non Catholics. The reality, of course, is that the religion of liberalism is incompatible with the rule of law. Ms Barrett stated in the hearing that IF a case came before her that she believed would be incompatible with her religious beliefs - she would Recuse herself. That is the proper thing to do. [b]A Religious Test is NEVER acceptable in this Country and Senators' Feinstein, Durbin & that great legal philosopher, Al Franken - are all perfectly aware of that. They certainly (properly) did ask "religious dogma" questions of the Muslim Judge that Obama recommended for the bench.
Feinstein and the other trained Democratic seals on the Committee have obviously forgotten that these dogma arguments they use against this nominated candidate were the same arguments used against JFK as he sought the nomination for President from the Democratic Party. These accusations made about him from inside and outside his Party in essence said because he was a Catholic he would only do the Pope's bidding. I actually remember all the hand wringing about electing a (gasp!!) Catholic President.
I can't read the full posted article, not being a subscriber. Did it quote Feinstein or Durbin saying that the candidate can not server simply because she is a Catholic?
The article paints with a broad brush, a lot of generalizations about the 'left'.
There is enough bigotry to go around to be sure. No one has a monopoly there.
I think the real agenda of this article is about school vouchers, and it misses the mark.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
