Dems accused of ‘religious bigotry’ for questioning Trump court pick’s Knights of Columbus ties
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Following questions from multiple Democratic senators over the impartiality of Trump judicial nominee Brian Buescher and his ties to the Knights of Columbus, a charitable Roman Catholic organization, Republicans and various religious leaders hit back Monday against “religious bigotry.”
“This isn’t just about the Knights of Columbus or Catholics, this is an ongoing attack from the extremist left of the Democratic Party to silence people of faith and run them out of engaging in public service based on their religious beliefs,” Penny Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America, a Christian women’s activist group, said in a written statement.
“It is pure and simple religious bigotry,” Nance added.
Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, recently raised concerns about Buescher's membership as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee's review of his nomination by President Trump to sit on the U.S. District Court in Nebraska.
In a series of questions sent to Buescher, Hirono asked whether his membership in the Knights of Columbus would prevent him from hearing cases “fairly and impartially” and, if confirmed, whether he would end his membership in the organization.
“The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions,” Hirono said in the questionnaire. “For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”
Harris meantime, in her questions to the nominee, called the Knights of Columbus “an all-male society” and asked the Nebraska lawyer if he was aware that the group was anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage when he joined. The California senator also referenced Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson’s statement that abortion amounted to “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with the statement.
“The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher wrote in reply to the queries . “If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges regarding recusal and disqualification.”
Prominent Republicans and religious leaders backed Buescher in the face of the questions.
Despite the pointed questions of the nominee and the implications of the interrogations, Knights of Columbus Senior Vice President Kevin Shinkle said the organization has valued the backing it's received.
“The Knights of Columbus is grateful for the support of so many people who recognize our charitable efforts and understand that mainstream religious beliefs shouldn’t disqualify anyone from serving their country,” Shinkle said in a statement to Fox News.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
421 visitors
"Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, recently raised concerns about Buescher's membership as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee's review of his nomination by President Trump to sit on the U.S. District Court in Nebraska."
"The California senator also referenced Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson’s statement that abortion amounted to “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with the statement."
“The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members ,” Buescher wrote in reply to the queries ."
So you can't take one members position and apply it to all members just because they belong to the same group, right? So why is it okay to paint all Democrats as questioning this candidate about his religious organization affiliation? Did every Democrat there do the same? If not then why frame it as "Dems accused of religious bigotry!"? Oh, that's right, you have an agenda to paint anyone not of your faith as an enemy and yourselves as the victims, it's the only way you can continue pushing unproven beliefs as facts in this day and age, distract, obfuscate and when that doesn't work, just lie, lie and deny.
The fact is, Knights of Columbus are basically a Catholic political action committee. While their tax exempt status prevents them from directly supporting any one candidate, they are always out in force at every anti-abortion rally. "Regarding attempts to characterize the Knights' politics, the historian Christopher Kauffman has argued that "[i]f the Knights displayed a conservative tenor, it was not political conservatism but rather cultural conservatism."
"More recently it has been active in defense of religious liberty, promoting faithful citizenship, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and building a culture of life."
They are the Catholic equivalent of evangelicals.
The difference is that they're more tempered than evangelicals when it comes to rhetoric about immigrants. Here's an example of both how they do engage in politics, but also that they are far more compassionate than most evangelicals I've heard regarding immigration policy.
"On 9 April 2006 the board of directors commented on the "U.S. immigration policy [which] has become an intensely debated and divisive issue on both sides of the border between the U.S. and Mexico.". They called upon the President and the U.S. Congress to agree upon immigration legislation that not only gains control over the process of immigration, but also rejects any effort to criminalize those who provide humanitarian assistance to illegal immigrants, and provides these immigrants an avenue by which they can emerge from the shadows of society and seek legal residency and citizenship in the U.S.
At the 136th Supreme Convention in 2018, the Order adopted a resolution criticizing the Trump administration family separation policy . The Supreme Council called on the administration to "equitably balance the legitimate rights of persons to emigrate in order to seek better lives for themselves and their children, with the duty of governments to control migration into their countries so that immigration policy serves the common good."
I think Kamala might be surprised that they share the same view as she on Trumps decision to separate families at the border.
Who is doing that? The story just says "Democrats" not "all Democrats." Factually, more than one Democrat asked these types of questions, so it's reasonable to use the plural. I don't see anything in the story that implies it was some kind of party-wide effort.
But then you kind of undermine your own objection by arguing that it's ok to ask those questions.
It seems that in comment 2.1 , Dismayed Patriot attributed the block quote from the seeded article in my comment 2 to be my own words.
He also seems to not know that "Dems" does not mean all/every Democrat; it simply means more than one , which was clearly explained in the seeded article.
Perhaps someone should tell Mazie and Kamala that Justice Samuel Alito is a Knights of Columbus member so they can start proceedings to remove him from the Supreme Court.
Perhaps conservatives shouldn't nominate religious fanatics to positions where their religious dictates can interfere with the rights of other groups. I have no problem with religion that doesn't try to force their beliefs on the rest of us. Which THEY DO, and that is exactly why they are nominated by the gop. Nothing off about democrats trying to preserve and protect Americans from narrow christian taliban decisions.
They were right to question his K-of-C ties. My father was a 4th-degree Knight and some of his religious/social beliefs were unusual to say the least. My uncle is a 4th degree Knight and he is a religious nutjob. If they are anything more than a casual member, that group are not moderates.
Apparently, from what you're saying, is that anyone with religious beliefs and convictions is either a fanatic, or a bigot, or both. I sincerely doubt that anyone has forced their religious convictions upon you lately, politician or otherwise.
Religious bigotry only comes from the religious.
Religious tests are warranted for two reasons.
1. As a measure of understanding and basic intellect.
2. Trump asserted that his judicial picks would have a 'religious litmus test' concerning the question of Choice.
Trump brought it up and he got it. This is all on him.
At least you aren't trying to hide your trashing of the Constitution.
Trump asserted that his judicial picks would have a 'religious litmus test' concerning the question of Choice
And now you are simply making things up. It's funny how many people who claim to be so upset about Trump's lies can't criticize him without making things up.
Where does he say he would have a religious litmus test? Your link doesn't mention it.
To them anyone whom is anti-abortion is a religious nut and therefore it is a religious litmus test. Abortion is the only form of legalized homicide that anyone not a government official in charge of executions can perform. These same people who support abortion are many of the same that think that executions of extremely dangerous criminals should be illegal. At least those of us whom are anti-abortion and pro-execution have it so that the innocent whom has committed no wrong other than existing should be protected while the criminal is severely punished.
Do you own homework Sean.
It's even part of the Republican Party Platform of 2016, that candidate Trump approved.
Do you own homework Sean
I'm not the one who posted a "rebuttal" that didn't address the point at issue.
Still, not a word from Trump, let alone in the Republican platform, about a religious litmus test.
Respecting the right to life is a not a religious test. One can be religious and support abortion and vice versa.
While many religious people are anti-abortion, the opposition to abortion does not need to come from scripture. Personally, my concerns over abortion are rooted in science, not religion.
Who cares what you think about something that has no impact whatsoever on your health? THIS is a major reason why religion has no place in determining our lives and rights. Another sack of crap from the 'poor victims' of discrimination. Except they are the side that is determined to take and limit the rights of others.
And your science is laughable in most issues, so we'll take a pass here too.
I see, not a "religious" litmus test.
Got it.
Just a litmus test....
What scientific idea would that be?
Sure its a litmus test. Do you believe Democratic presidents don't have litmus tests?
The idea that life is already happening in the womb, including heart beats and brain activity - as opposed to this thoroughly unscientific notion that life begins at birth.
So if a man beats his wife, that's none of your concern, right? We, as a society shouldn't concern ourselves with that, right? After all, it doesn't impact your health, does it?
This is another emotional argument and people who make decisions based on emotions and religious beliefs tend to make very bad decisions
That fetus is not a viable person until it can survive outside of the womb without heroic medical measures so you will not take away the rights of the mothers because of your religious beliefs. We do not become 2nd-class citizens in our own body when we are pregnant because you prayed about it. It is our body and entirely our choice. You need to learn about the age of medical viability and how it applies.
Instead of being focused on a fetus that cannot survive on its own maybe instead you should work on improving the lives of people who are already alive by supporting universal healthcare, free lifetime public education and other ideas that makes the lives of people better instead of trying to legislate a conservative religious idea that takes rights away from a woman and gives them to a biological parasite.
You need to to control your emotions that are being driven by conservative religious thoughts. We do not exist to be baby makers and you will not try to turn rights back to the time when we only existed for your social control and sexual pleasure. They were known as the dark ages for a reason.
Governor Kasich vetoed the stupid heartbeat bill in Ohio. He is a econiomic scumbag but even nutjobs occasionally get something right.
SP - your so-called Republican Party platform link is from UC Santa Barbara's The American Presidency Project and is not the official Republican Party's 2016 platform.
About the Presidency Project
Why should women be forced to live under YOUR religious beliefs? Abortion is NOT murder, it is another pregnancy not going to term, which happens more often than not due to all kinds of things, from accidents to illness to miscarriage. Your attempts to make women who chose not to continue into some murdering monster are fucked up. Look at you here, trying to equate domestic violence with a healthcare decision. Just keep your ignorance out of women's business.
You are correct and it seems I inadvertently deleted the actual link to the magazine article which was either NPR or Vox - can't locate it again.
Here is a link to the whole platform and the appropriate subsection.
and scripture is not the only religion...
to some, even science is a religion.
Woah! Let's get this straight. Your claim is that my assertion - that a heartbeat and brain function are detectable in the womb - is based on emotion??? Well, then you need to learn a lot more about how babies are made.
3 to 4 Weeks
6 to 7 Weeks
Recently, Ireland had a constitutional referendum to repeal their outright ban on abortion. It passed easily, though there are still restrictions. I found an article by a doctor endorsing the repeal. So understand, that he is on your side. Even this pro-abortion doctor is not trying to pretend that there is no brain activity in the womb.
The moment a baby’s brain starts to function, and other scientific answers on abortion
I don't need to learn any such thing because nothing I said has anything to do with that. I have made no claims about consciousness, viability or anything like that. All I have said is that life exists and we know this because there is a heartbeat and brain activity in the womb.
You don't even read what you respond to. You just start making assumptions about what other people think rather than responding to what they actually say. And then - and this is the amazing and hilarious part of it all - you accuse others of being too emotional.
Where did I say anything about my religious belief? What thread do you think you are reading? Who do you think you are responding to?
Look at you here, trying to equate domestic violence with a healthcare decision.
I was responding to your standard. You're the one who said
So the standard - your standard - is that people's opinions on an issue don't matter if it has no impact on their own health. I have just shown you what an absurd and useless standard that is. Care to take it back now?
That is very true.
This is an interesting claim. How can science be a religion when religion is based on subjective belief but science is based on objective fact.
May I inquire as to who these people are who view science as a religion?
Religious tests are unconstitutional. Period.
The Progressives on this board would appear to disagree.
This time it's inconvenient for them.
[Deleted]
Kennedy was Catholic.
Chief Justice Roberts is Catholic
as are Clarence Thomas,
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Brett Kavanaugh
Neil Gorsuch ( raised RC, currently Episcopalian )
okay....
That doesn't have anything to do with my point, whether you are talking about the former President or the retired Judge.
Again, not sure what that has to do with Democrats bigotry towards believing Catholics, but yes, there are Catholics on the Supreme Court.
Did you find evidence of Trump's religious litmus test yet?
I wonder what Sean would think if 6 of the 9 were Jews or Muslims.
It is not bigotry against Catholics.
It is concern over a certain group.
Wow.
You claim that the Democrats to whom their was no low to which they would not stoop to keep practicing Catholics off the bench, somehow aren't biased because Catholics were ultimately confirmed over their wishes.
It's like a KKK member claiming they can't be racist because the black governor who they tried to kill was elected despite their best efforts.
He could never get the Democratic nomination for president today.
wow....perhaps Christians and Catholics should where arm bands so they are identified.
My concern is from ALL religious groups that want to force their dictates on everybody.
It's call proselyting...you can just ignore it and walk away. But no one is forcing it upon you.
Is he really? How did the evangelicals let that one slip by? I personally know evangelicals who would call the Episcopal church nothing more than a social club.
There's probably nothing thinner than a piece of paper separating a Catholic from an Episcopalian.
A paper about the infallibility of the Pope which Catholics (supposedly) hold as dear as the Episcopalians find it laughable.
In my Catholic family when people get divorced they tend to become Lutherns or Episcopals when the ink is dry on the judge's decree. It's very predictable.
I see nothing wrong with their questions. And it is an all male organization.
I would wonder about that as well. The law is secular, not laws of religion.
Two uppity minority women questioning an all male religious group, how dare they./s
And there we have it. Left wing identity politics at its base truth.
But stacking the court with anti-choice Catholics isn't "identity politics," right?
The group is not on the bench. Let just stick to his professional career. His private beliefs are none of your business.
Missed the sarcasm, eh?
Agreed, but the 2016 Republican party platform says otherwise. They have a Trump approved list of litmus tests for judicial candidates
that if used by the President or the Senate will guarantee bias.
The republican party is a private group....not a governing body. The comparison to two Senators questioning a candidate's religious belief is well let's just say ignorant.
hear that goal post moving...
They have every right to question his membership and he answered the question appropriately.
What if Buescher was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, would questions not be appropriate?
he is after all up for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.
He is in my opinion not qualified. He is an inexperienced litigator and self proclaimed ideologue.
43 years old, spent his entire legal career( 18 years) in one law office and tried all of 10 cases.
He ran for Nebraska Attorney General in 2014 and failed.
No questions concerning a person's religious belief regardless of the group.
Oh look, you dropped your gender card.
ignoring the /s?
Since he ran for Nebraska AG his religious and political beliefs are a matter of public record from his own failed political campaign.
With a bit of race baiting tossed in.
Kinda thought based on your other comments that you genuinely assumed critics of the senators to have the mindset that they were "uppity minority women." If I'm wrong, I apologize.
As we all should know, each POTUS has the prerogative to nominate whomever s/he wishes. Perhaps you can explain to our NT readers why there has been such blatant vehemence and vile hatred toward Trump's judicial nominations but not nearly as much occurred with other presidents' choices.
Ah the old "but what if it was Muslim " comeback. I guess when you got nothing you can always truths old favorites.
All religions in the US are to be treated equally by the government. Doing otherwise shows favoritism to one over the others or to religious belief over non-belief. That action would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Then you should be against them asking about his relationship to a Catholic sponsored group as you would be if they questioned a Muslim's affiliations. Somehow, after viewing past responses, I don't think you are.
Not all Catholics are members of the KofC and not all Catholics agree with those very conservative views. Pope Frankie is obviously a Catholic and yet there is a very large segment of the RCC that opposes his more reasonable policies. Pope Frank and Pope Benedict have radically different beliefs, despite the fact that they are both mackerel snappers.
There are many pro-choice Catholics. There are also LGBT supportive Catholics.
This guy sounds like an Opus Dei nutjob. Antonin Scalia was rumored to be one of them.
And not all Muslims are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no more reason to question his membership in the KoC than there is to question membership in the MB or the Elks for that matter.
New lows from two darlings of the socialist progressive liberal left. Harris and Hirono continuing the hypocrisy they showed during Justice Kavanaugh's hearings!
If their behavior is consistent, how can it be hypocrisy?
Heehee
Both Mazie and Kamala voted "NO" regarding Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Would now be a good time to point out how selective the admiration for Catholics is on the rightwing? They aren't too fond of the social and economic justice and anti-capital punishment positions of the Church. I've seen a fair bit of vitriol poured out on Francis for his official statements on those subjects.
These are the same bimbos that wanted to crucify Kavinaugh over uncorroberated accusations. Go figure. Is anyone really surprised?
I'm not surprised you referred to them as bimbos........does that count?
Gives us a good idea of the typical Kavanaugh toady which in turn tells us what a POS Kavanaugh is.
Christine Blasey Ford was telling the truth. Kavanaugh should never be on the court, and all of those justices were put on specifically by the gop BECAUSE they were expected to vote against abortion. Stop pretending they have some moral high ground. A couple might be a bit afraid of women right now, but that won't last forever. We have a right to stop that infringement. And we also had a right to have Merrick Garland on the court instead of Kavanaugh. Won't be forgetting all the bullshit republicans pull in their quest for power any time soon. Stop whining.
No...she made it all up.
No, she told the truth and Kavanaugh lied about it.
His appearance in that Senate committee hearing would have won an Oscar for best performance as the "lying POS" category if there were one.
I'm going to save that comment for the day when it's a Dem Senate blocking a Rep president's nominee from even having a hearing for over a year and people like you are blubbering and frothing over what an outrage it is. [ Deleted ]
When it happens, you'll be the one proving it, Tex.
When repubs obstruct, it's ok, when dems do it the repubs whine and complain.
Prove it. She is the one that passed an FBI administered polygraph....which ole brett refused to take. Weird huh? LOL
Why do you say things that aren't true?
Not many are surprised that you called them bimbos. Right in your wheelhouse...