'Rebels without a clause': 10 times Dem. senators questioned Trump nominees' religious beliefs
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
One of the nation’s leading Christian conservative advocacy organizations has called out 12 senators who have employed “unconstitutional religious tests” on Trump nominees in the past two years.
Since the Trump administration came into power in 2017, a noticeable trend has occurred in which Democrat senators have questioned Trump judicial and political nominees about their religious beliefs and religious affiliations as to suggest that such beliefs and affiliations should disqualify them for public office.
The Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council released on Wednesday a new publication that documents 10 incidents over the past two years in which senators have interrogated nominees concerning their personal religious beliefs even though Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office.
The document was written by Alexandra McPhee, the director of religious freedom advocacy at Family Research Council.
“It is important to distinguish what questions should generally be considered appropriate or inappropriate,” the document “ Rebels Without a Clause: When Senators Run Roughshod Over the ‘No Religious Test’ Clause of the U.S. Constitution ” explains. “For instance, ‘[m]erely asking a nominee whether their beliefs might stop them from fulfilling their Constitutional duties is a relevant question.’ But ‘[r]ejecting someone over their faith alone is unquestionably a religious test.’”
The document stresses that a senator should not deem a nominee “fit or unfit according to his or her formal affiliation with one religious group or another.”
“And as Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) explained, ‘asking [a] nominee about the particulars of his or her religious beliefs’ is inappropriate because it will ‘inevitably expose those beliefs as somehow a qualifier or a disqualifier for public office,” McPhee wrote.
Neomi Rao
Earlier this month, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a candidate for president in 2020, questioned Trump judicial nominee Neomi Rao, who currently serves as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, during a confirmation hearing.
“Do you believe gay relationships are a sin?” Booker asked the nominee selected to replace Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. appellate court.
Rao responded by saying: “Senator, my personal views on any of these subjects are things that I would put to one side and I would faithfully follow [the precedence of the Supreme Court].”
“Senator Booker suggested this was an appropriate line of questioning because ‘religion [has been] used as a ruse to discriminate against African Americans,” the FRC document explains.
Booker’s question came during his line of questioning about Rao’s previous writings on past court rulings that favored gay marriage.
William Barr
Trump’s nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as attorney general, William Barr, who served as attorney general during the George H.W. Bush administration, was questioned by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in January.
Whitehouse brought up a 1992 speech in which, according to Whitehouse, Barr “blamed secularism for virtually every contemporary societal problem.”
“Relying on this characterization, Senator Whitehouse asked, ‘About a quarter of American adults today are not religious. Do you still think that those Americans are responsible for virtually every contemporary societal problem? If not, what changed your mind?’” the FRC document explains.
“Senator Whitehouse concluded, stating, ‘Given your stated views on the evils of secularism, what commitments will you make to ensure that non-religious career attorneys and staff at the Department are protected against disparate treatment on the basis of their secularism?’”
Barr responded by saying that the reports that Whitehouse quoted took “substantial parts of my speech out of context and are inaccurate.”
“Contemporary societal problems are complex and caused by many factors,” Barr responded. “I have never claimed that societal problems are caused by specific individuals or specific classes of individuals.”
Barr was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday.
Paul Matey and Brian Buescher
In November of last year, two Trump nominees faced questioning about their affiliation to the Catholic fraternal organization Knights of Columbus.
Although the organization does great charity work to help some of the world’s most vulnerable people, Kamala Harris, a California Democrat who is also running for president in 2020, questioned nominees Paul Matey and Brian Buescher about their membership with the Knights.
Her objection was the fact that the organization, in staying true to Catholic beliefs, opposes abortion and gay marriage.
Additionally, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii asked if the nominees' membership in the Knights of Columbus would allow them to “deal with reproductive rights and abortion issues fairly and impartially.”
“She questioned whether Judge Buescher and Matey would end their memberships with [Knights] ‘to avoid any appearance of bias,’” the FRC document explains. “In addition, Senator Hirono asked Judge Buescher and Matey whether they ‘believe[d] federal funds should not be given to [those] providers who support abortion services.’ Senator Hirono also asked each nominee about the health value of contraceptives and ‘what steps’ each took ‘to make clear that [they did] not hold [those] views’ reflected in statements by the Knights of Columbus.”
California Attorney General Kamala Harris speaks at the Center for American Progress' 2014 Making Progress Policy Conference in Washington November 19, 2014. Allison Rushing
Allison Rushing, a nominee for the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, was questioned last October by several senators about her participation in programs led by the conservative religious freedom legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom.
Although ADF has won nine Supreme Court cases in the last seven years, Sens. Whitehouse, Hirono, Booker, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Chris Coons, and Richard Blumenthal all questioned her about her affiliation with the group.
“Senator Hirono questioned Rushing’s ability to render decisions impartially or fairly in cases involving the court-created right to abortion or involving litigants that identify as homosexual or transgender because of Rushing’s internship and speaking engagements with ADF,” McPhee detailed. “Senator Blumenthal asked, ‘Would you perform a same-sex wedding if asked to do so?’ In questions related to ADF, Senators Whitehouse, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, and Booker relied on the characterization by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a progressive activist group that frequently defames ideological opponents.”
The SPLC lists ADF and several other Christian conservative organizations as “hate groups” because of their stances on sexuality and gay marriage. SPLC has faced defamation lawsuits because of the “hate group” labeling.
“In questions related to a separate speaking engagement, Senator Whitehouse asked, ‘In your view, are Judeo-Christian morality and homosexuality incompatible?’” the FRC report explains. “Senator Harris also asked Rushing whether she believed ‘that LGBT rights cannot be reconciled with religion.’”
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
“Allison Rushing, a nominee for the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, was questioned last October by several senators about her participation in programs led by the conservative religious freedom legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom.
Although ADF has won nine Supreme Court cases in the last seven years, Sens. Whitehouse, Hirono, Booker, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Chris Coons, and Richard Blumenthal all questioned her about her affiliation with the group.
“Senator Hirono questioned Rushing’s ability to render decisions impartially or fairly in cases involving the court-created right to abortion or involving litigants that identify as homosexual or transgender because of Rushing’s internship and speaking engagements with ADF,” McPhee detailed. “Senator Blumenthal asked, ‘Would you perform a same-sex wedding if asked to do so?’ In questions related to ADF, Senators Whitehouse, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, and Booker relied on the characterization by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a progressive activist group that frequently defames ideological opponents.”
The SPLC lists ADF and several other Christian conservative organizations as “hate groups” because of their stances on sexuality and gay marriage. SPLC has faced defamation lawsuits because of the “hate group” labeling.”
The ADF religious stances are unyielding and contrary to the US Constitution, as is attempting to legislate those stances into laws affecting everyone. The ADF is more than a hate group, it's a religious based subversive organization of activists that promote unamerican ideals, while being protected by the same document that they claim persecutes them.
I'd certainly want to know if a nominee to a federal bench was some knuckle dragging bible thumper that couldn't check their particular version of some religious faith bullshit at the door of Constitutional law in a secular USA. If a judge can't separate church and state in real life, unlikely they will from the bench. I'm guessing some Americans might have a problem with that.
Well ADF just got one of our own on the appeals court. We also won 9 cases before the United States Supreme Court in the last couple of years. The SPLC thought that they could destroy our various organizations by defamation and libel with their bigoted hate designations. Instead we are more powerful than ever. Our groups have places in the judiciary, in the executive branch, on congressional staff and their leaders and writings are appearing all over other conservative and Christian media. Personally I’d choose their very real increased political and media power over being able to seed directly from any of my aligned organizations sites any day. We mock those who call us hate groups and laugh in your faces as our political power grows and message spreads across many more platforms because of the designation. Now the lawsuits move forward and the SPLC and those who use their hate labels in any of their business actions will be made to cease and desist or face financial ruin.
cool, I urge bible thumpers to breach the wall separating church and state as soon as possible.
What you and I define as a real and significant blending of church and state are not the same thing. A state controlling what religious people can believe and not protecting the free excercise clause of believers is a breach as would be the state taxing a church. The church using the power of the state to coerce on its behalf in matters of conscience and belief tegarding it’s doctrines would be a breach.
As an atheist, any group I form is subject to laws which churches get to skirt. I am President of a 501(3)(c)charity which is only tax exempt if we focus solely on charity, not on any religious or political grounds. And that makes perfect sense. I'm not running this charity to push any beliefs. I'm running it to ensure that people who need dialysis can get transportation to it, as they're waiting for kidney transplants. Whatever their beliefs may be.
Nobody's harming your belief by allowing us to not use our tax dollars to allow you to evade paying property taxes. Any charitable donations by churches should be tax exempt. But having buildings for people to worship should not be exempt. You want special consideration and then screech "PERSECUTION!!" if you are treated the same way as anyone else. And you want your churches to be able to preach about politics without penalty, despite what the law says.
Hmmm, sounds exactly like how the supposed "Deep State" has been described.
"We mock those who call us hate groups and laugh in your faces as our political power grows"
Sure, sure, you sound mighty friendly alright, how would anyone get the impression you were a hate group? /s
Strange. Seeing as how 'the GOP' wears that cross as a badge I fail to see why this Op/Ed topic has any merit of discussion. Proclaim it loud and proud, right?
Besides, didn't the Trump proclaim that his 'litmus test' for judges would be the 'anti-choice' candidates?
The point of the article is that the questions those Democrats were asking were inappropriate.
You do get that, right?
Inappropriate? Why? The GOP asks these questions as a matter of routine. They do not want any marriage equality or pro choice people--so they ask. What is the problem?
If one is asked if they're religious the answer is either 'yes' or 'no'. What is the big deal?
At least they are not being asked if they believe and trust Putin. And the Trump did say what I said about the litmus test.
Please don't pretend Republicans as a rule ask those type of questions. If so, please quote some asking those types of questions of a judicial nominee.
That isn't what was asked.
Please provide a link for that.
Some on the left regularly throw Russia or Putin into virtually every conservatives seed on the site as an attempt to derail the whole conversation. The tactic is a form of trolling seeds of ideological opponents by the fake news left.
Must assume you have never watched congressional or senate confirmations and testimonies.
No, the president does that. Everyday. Everywhere. All the time. He believes Putin. He trusts him.
Must assume you can't provide any links to back that statement up. Or what you were asked, for that matter.
Do you have television? Or even radio?
I do indeed have both. And internet, too.
Do you have sources for your claims?
Well said. Thanks for the support.
I appreciate it. 
It would seem not.
Really? After Fox News, my next biggest source of information over the years is and has been even before Fox existed, is C-SPAN. I love those Three channels I have access to here. I even watch their convention coverage when I want the actual speeches instead of comments over the top of them.
Why? Unless the Muslim is trying to force his/her religious views into our laws, as some Christian whackjob religious fanatics are trying to do, why would you care what religion they follow? And wouldn't you want to know that they would put our Constitution above their religion?
Inappropriate Please explain?
Except C-Span is no a news outlet. You missed on that one. And Fox and fools is an entertainment outlet not a news outlet
Why?
What part of inappropriate aren't you understanding?
C-SPAN simply carries our government in action unfiltered and uncensored. Live sessions of both houses, various committees hearings in full, news conferences, the release of Presidential statements and regulations. Newsmaker interviews, book fairs, history events, biographies, covering political events in full as well as protests and rallies, covering key local news reports on an issue, carrying various debates for different offices elections. There are no sources to be better informed about our government than C-SPAN. As for Fox News it is the most Trusted Name in news. There are other Fox channels for entertainment as well as business info and sports.
It has merit of discussion because I seeded it. And yes the no religious test clause of the US Constitution needs to be proclaimed loudly and proudly and by the very fine and upstanding groups doing so. There is a clear constitutional difference between a litmus test based on a desired political or legal outcome and using religious beliefs as a test of whether one can be confirmed to or elected to any office.
Those Democrats asking those questions should be ashamed of themselves.
They have no shame. [deleted]
They are all valid questions. I would like to know whether a politician follows the rule of law over their own deeply ingrained mythological, superstitious and biased delusions.
Personally I prefer to go on a person's record than on the lies they tell during confirmation hearings.
These are nominees for judicial positions, not politicians.
I can agree with that, which is one reason I was mad when they didn't do exactly that for Kavanaugh.
I think it’s awesome that members and leaders of groups on the SPLC’s biased and bigoted hate list are all over in government. In the courts, the administration, congressional staffs. Their leaders testify before Congress, win cases before the Supreme Court and get members appointed to courts. FAIR, CIS, Judicial Watch, Concerned Women For America, Liberty Council, Family Research Council, American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom and likely others. They openly speak at GOP conventions and get their leaders and ideas published by other conservative and Christian media. We conservatives openly mock the SPLC and all who use their designations knowing that the more they attack our organizations all of which I align or donate to or outright join the more powerful they become. In your face SPLC and all its fans.
It’s time to call out the SPLC and others on the secular progressive left on their anti religious bigotry.
Kind of hard to tell the difference these days considering all of the conservative activist judges that Trump has appointed.
[Deleted]
Notice that it's conservatives and "christian" media not by factual medica.
So it's time to call out all conservative organizations for their bigotry. Will do.
It's time to keep calling out these bigoted hate groups who fight against equal rights for all. The worst part is that they are Christian - despite going against everything Jesus stood for. It must be exhausting for them to be so full of hate.
What exactly are you referring to. I see no context for your remarks.
Conservative and Christian media are the factual media. The msm is nothing but questionable sources riddled with pseudoscience and hate .
It is the SPLC and it’s secular progressive hate following are the real haters showing nothing but intolerance for a diversity of opinion.
Diversity of opinion which includes bigotry towards gays and hatred is ... hatred and bigotry. Being intolerant of those who preach hatred towards others and fight against equal rights is the right thing to do, and is actually biblical if you worship Jesus instead of Paul. It's rather amusing that the atheists you hate show far more morality, and are following Jesus' example far better, than this Liberty Council you so admire.
Try thinking about what Jesus would do. I guarantee it's nothing like what this group does.
And republicans should be ashamed of trying to squash their right to do so. [Removed]
They have no right to do so. You DO know what a religious test is, and that they aren't allowed, right?
Prove it.
Prove WHAT exactly?
That the US Constitution forbids a religious test?
Really???
SMMFH
Lol. They should not have eliminated civics classes...
That’s for sure. Those democrat party senators need a do over of their civics classes. They all must have slept through the part covering article 6 section 3 of the US constitution.
Why
We must question their personal moral character and their loyalty to the constitution they swore to uphold when they carry on as described by the seeded article. No religious test for office.
Religious affiliation or the lack thereof is not a qualifying or disqualifying factor when someone goes into public service. That is the no religious test. But the question becomes whether they will let religion influence their judgment when it comes to upholding the Constitution. That is a legitimate concern and valid question.
Exactly. Just imagine a Muslim running for office .. suddenly the fanatical Christians would want to know their views and affiliations, even as they screech about others wanting to know about theirs.
Sure. Islam is not merely a religion. It's stated goal is theocracy.
Your personal beliefs - religious or otherwise - are supposed to be irrelevant to your willingness and ability to abide by the Constitution. But inquiry into religious beliefs and affiliations are constitutionally prohibited. And these elected representatives who swore to protect and defend that document know better.
[Deleted]
["][Labeling and/or creative name-calling of entire political groups, ideological, religious, cultural, sexual identity / orientation, etc. groups (i.e. Rethuglicans, Libtards, etc), is forbidden."]
You can find that on the left too.
Because of the Constitutional separation of church and state, I don't see anything wrong with making sure candidates will actually be unbiased. In Barr's case, his comments about secularism were worth asking him about, to ensure that they wouldn't impact his ability to do his job. Unfortunately, some religious extremists WILL place their faith above all else, including our Constitution.
I don't either, but inquiring into that should be based on some history of the nominee actually exhibiting bias by imposing their beliefs instead of abiding by the law. The inquiry shouldn't be based on an assumption that a person of a certain religious affiliation will be biased in the future because of that religious affiliation. If the Senators are going to ignore history and look only at religious affiliation, the nominee has no defense.
I think affiliation does count as history. The goal of the questioning was to ensure that their affiliations and beliefs would not impact their ability to fulfill their oaths of office.
I’m just glad that we got a leader of the awesome conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom on to one of our federal appeals courts. That kind of victory is great.
This is why it's valid to ask them questions, if they have questionable affiliations. I've noticed that most fanatics can't keep themselves from saying what they really think, when they're not allowed to dodge the question.
No religious test for public office. Period. Just what part of the word no is so hard for secular progressives to understand?
just trying to figure out the whole person
Would you reject me solely on my lack of religious beliefs? Remembering that I agree with you on somethings and disagree on other issues and mostly try to be consistent
I've actually heard some theists say they would not vote for anyone without a religion, regardless of any other qualifications or record of a candidate. To them, religious affiliation (or lack thereof) is the single most important factor.
Does them exercising their rights bother you?
Not at all. It's the narrow mindset that is questionable.
Narrow minded depends on opinions.
Not everyone thinks they are narrow minded.
What individual voters' criteria for candidates consists of is their, and theirs alone, business.
Someone voting for a candidate based on a single factor alone, without even considering anything else seems rather narrow minded to me.
Some people do have a high opinion of themselves.
Of course, and I didn't say otherwise. I simply said it's narrow minded.
So those Democrats who simply refuse to consider anyone who has ever displayed pro-life tendencies is an example of their narrow-mindedness.
Yes, some people are blessed with a healthy self-esteem. Nothing wrong with that.
Some might say criticizing someone's own standards is narrow-minded. Why on earth would not everyone have their own criteria for who to vote for? Anything else is absurd.
Yes.
Until it becomes egotistical or arrogant.
People can vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they want. That's not the issue. When you vote based on one specific criteria without considering anything else, that is narrow minded.
Besides the Democrats who have openly said that someone's stance on abortion is the reason they won't even consider them for a judicial position, who else can you prove is doing that?
That doesn't refute or change anything I said. That only reinforces it.
Right. Confirms that Democrats who refuse to even consider a nominee based on the single issue of abortion are narrow-minded.
Got it, and thanks.
There is to be no religious test for office. No questions regarding the beliefs or the legitimacy of a believer in any faith or none at all.
That is what I said. Glad you understand.
And there isn't! Religious affiliation is not a qualifier or disqualifier for seeking office.
Wrong! A candidate for office can certainly be questioned by constituents, especially when there is a concern religious belief will hinder the ability to uphold the Constitution. He simply cannot be disqualified from seeking office due to religion.
Yet atheists need not apply.
Got it!
I must have been in shock to actually see you post a single word critical of Democrats.
So bald was Feinstein’s bias that Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber and Sen. Orrin Hatch warned that the senator was violating the most emphatic sentence in the entire US Constitution.
“No religious test,” that sentence says, “shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
How could the Framers possibly have made themselves more clear? “No … ever … any.”
At the time the Framers wrote that sentence, there were myriad religious tests applied to state-level offices. The Supreme Court didn’t definitively scrap the practice until 1961.
That ruling came after Maryland’s governor appointed an atheist, Roy Torcaso, to be a notary public. Torcaso refused to proclaim, as Maryland required, that he believed in God.
The Maryland court of appeals decided Torcaso’s rights weren’t violated because he wasn’t required to hold public office in the first place. The Supreme Court overturned that error unanimously.
Maryland, Justice Hugo Black wrote, had set up “a religious test” designed to “bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public ‘office of profit or trust’ in Maryland.”
In doing so, the Nine noted, Maryland had violated the First Amendment’s bar on Congress establishing a religion, which was incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment. https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/07/05/democrats-new-religious-test-for-the-supreme-court/amp/
Why? I don't play along party lines.
Okay.
They should create an atheist party then.
That makes no sense. Atheism is not a political party.
no, you choose to try to control other's lives and other's choices concerning their lives and bodies. you are trying to hold them to your religious standards instead of giving them the choice to do as they wish with their bodies and medical decisions relating to those bodies.
That usually happens after viability. But the woman's well being is paramount.
sure, at the point of viability, correct ? would a woman be able to make her own decisions about her body up to that point ?
who is the power source?
At the expense of someone's personal choice.
Because the actual life and existence of one should trump the selfishness and convenience of the other.
There is only one that is actually alive and existing
Supplying the power trumps using the power
And what is wrong with convenience? I like convenience
Then you're against the choice of someone. So that makes you anti-choice.
Nope, we are pro-choice.
No one is pro abortion, we are pro choice. An individual woman decides which choice is best for her.
No, I choose life over death. It really is that simple.
Exactly. They are pro abortion.
Great. You just don't get to make that choice for anyone else, or otherwise restrict anyone else's choice.
And you would be wrong!
Do you support mandatory blood & organ donation? If not you are not pro-life because people die without those donations.
You've already made it clear you think a clump of cells which isn't yet a human being trumps the living woman who is pregnant.
And the people cowered at the foot of the alabaster monument cradling that which was not yet among them.
A man infected with aids just raped and impregnated your beautiful daughter. What do you do?
My drivers license says go ahead and harvest me when I'm dead.
Was a paramedic for way too many years and watched folk die due to lack of blood..
I give platelets as often as I can because I am O-. The universal donor.
And you advocate for abortion so you are pro abortion.
One is a human being from the moment of conception. Calling a person a clump of cells is simply objectifying a person to rationalize what the President referred to abortion as in the state of the union address on this topic out of personal selfishness and convenience.
I too am a donor and have given blood regularly as well. Mine is B-
No, I advocate for people being able to make their own choice. So I am pro-choice.
A "clump of cells" is exactly what it is. And a cell/'s is not yet a human being. Calling cells a human being is just erroneous emotional based rhetoric.
If you believe that, then you must believe that sperm - because they are alive, they compete to get to the egg, etc. - are also unborn human beings, and that if you don't impregnate a woman every day, you're committing murder.
I'm sure there are some people who do believe that.
And the funny thing is, they're probably the religious fanatics who are so hung up on sex that they almost never have it.
I am also registered as an organ donor, but it was my choice. Some people want women to be forced to donate their uterus to save a life, but would think the government would be overstepping to force people to donate organs to save lives. Kidneys & livers can be harvested while the donor still lives so if a woman is forced to donate her uterus then those that think that is ok should be forced to register and donate those organs when needed to save a life.
To be clear - I do not believe in forced organ donation.
I wouldn't be surprised. What else other than religion has convinced people that sex is bad, dirty, "sinful," ect.?
It's sad that those who pretend to be "pro-life" show so clearly that they actually don't care about life. They're anti-choice for everyone else, but when it comes to themselves, they are selfish and hypocritical.
Indeed. The whole "choose life" nonsense isn't a choice when some people think that shold be the only "choice." They don't get that whatever another person "chooses" to do is none of their business or concern.
And I advocate for human life at all stages of our human development from conception to natural death when that happens. I oppose the arbitrary ending of any human life at any stage of it and am thus pro life.
Except that a zygote is a clump of cells, not a human life.
You're anti-choice and anti-science.
As I said, you don't get to make that determination or decision for anyone else, nor deprive anyone if their right to choose. Neither is anyone else's decision or choice any of your business!
A zygote isn't even a clump of cells. It's just a single, undifferentiated cell. A cell does not a human make.
And you advocate not allowing a woman the choice so you are anti-women.
Good point. An embryo, then.
You are anti woman and pro fetus must be born no matter what, the woman comes secondary just like a human incubator or a brood mare.
Not even that. First it's a zygote. Then a blastocyst, then an embryo.
And he's anti-Planned Parenthood - I guess any woman who dares to have sex deserves to get pregnant and to be forced to give birth. No birth control for those sluts!
Basically, it's woman hating: some don't care about women's rights, choices, or health. It's essentially wanting to make women second class citizens. I do not understand how anyone can hate women.
As someone whose grandmother died giving birth to my father, I think those views are evil.
Axlotl Tanks from Dune
That's putting it nicely.
If we are talking of the MBFC definition of anti science since you use their phraseology, I am proudly so. Their parameters are pure and unadulterated bs of no merit whatsoever and I categorically reject and defy them and all who stand by them or identify with them. Their view of science is bigoted and nothing more than progressive propaganda. They are an interesting example of an unrelated 3rd party media site whose opinions mean nothing whatsoever except sheer and utter contempt for to me. [Deleted]
Coming from an admitted young earth creationist, that's hilarious. Of course facts garner only sheer and utter contempt from you. They destroy your viewpoint and invalidate your attempts to prevent others from having equal rights.
Not to mention a biblical literalist and angels aficionado too.
Some people just can't handle facts. they prefer the emotionally appealing coziness of mere belief and delusion.
I honestly don't get the appeal of a delusion which tells you are inherently a POS, and that you have to reject reality and facts, and have to go through mental gyrations and avoid any real education. How could that be cozy?
Neither do I.
You're asking the wrong guy. I'm "cozy" when I curl up with a good book. Like the last book Stephen Hawking wrote: Brief Answers to the Big Questions.
Speaking of cozying up to a book .. I worked from home today, and asked Alexa to play soft classical music. She chose "classical music for reading" .. it is truly great background music when you're cozying up to a good book.
The sperm uniting with the egg becomes human life in that instant. Neither alone can become human life. Thus when we eat eggs we are not killing baby chicks 🐤 to do so. Humans don’t die when a woman has a period or a guy masturbates.
And I have a great new science seed for you. Enjoy 😊
I totally stand by absolutely everything that I wrote and double down on every single word of it.
Please don't tell me you can't tell when you're eating a fertilized egg.
I don't care if you quadruple down - you're still wrong. Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
Given your obvious and glaring lack of scientific understanding, I'll pass on your idea of "science," thanks.
Wrong! it becomes a zygote: a single, undifferentiated cell, no more unique (and even less so) than any other cell in the body. Calling it "human" is just an attempt to anthropomorphize it or attach some emotional appeal.
So you can look at a chicken egg and tell if it's been fertilized or not?
Neither do humans die when a woman has an abortion.
If you want to double down on ignorance and foolishnness, be my guest.
So you would get behind mandatory blood and organ donations to save lives? You would be ok if some person you do not know is a match to you & you are forced to give a kidney, a piece of liver or even blood to save that person?
Be glad you did. It's from the Liberty Institute .... a very poor and obvious attempt to turn people away from evolution and onto intelligent design, especially considering the Wedge document.
No surprise there. it's not the first time he tried to pass on BS religious nonsense trying to masquerade as "science." It's easy to call him out on such things and expose the intellectual dishonesty.
Whatttttttttttt?
smh.
Most farm fresh eggs are fertilized. They are still eggs, sometimes killed by refrigeration, sometimes killed by cracking open the egg.
If there is a vein in it, the egg white is thicker, but the egg is still edible, enjoy it.
Now, in your assumptive position that major brand supermarket eggs are infertile, and you are somehow exonerated by eating them, please know that they are the result
of questionable mass production which defies the very definition of 'animal cruelty' by supposedly killing 6 BILLION male chicks globally every year. They are suffocated and tossed in the trash.
The females are sold to egg mills
and when those females have artificially produced hundreds of eggs per year more than they would in the wild,
they are killed in the most horrific ways and then tossed as trash.
Caution, if you open this link, you might swear off eggs and chicken for a long time.
Why would Democrats or Republicans ask any nominee about their religious beliefs if they aren't trying to impose some type of banned religious test?
Those who defy the no religious test clause for office in questioning appointees for a government position should be impeached and removed from office themselves.
[Deleted]
So you have some evidence of all Republicans asking judicial nominees religious questions?
Willing to share your link?
Read and heed, btw there are plenty of articles that discuss this.
Do you even bother to read your own links?
That has nothing to do with a religious test being used on judicial nominees.
That is what the article is about.
You know that, right?
First, they aren't imposing any sort of religious litmus test. They are not asking "Are you religious", they are asking whether the nominee will put the law first, or their closely held religious beliefs when it comes to making and enforcing the law.
We have a constitutional duty to keep the government free of any establishment of religion, to keep our civil servants loyal to the law and the constitution, not some imagined magical wizard in the sky. While having a belief in said magic wizard isn't a deal breaker, a decision to put personal faith before the law and the constitution is. So asking whether a nominee would ever do such a thing is entirely appropriate.
Now if you want to see inappropriate religious litmus tests being applied, look no further than the hypocritical Republicans.
"Shane Reeves, (atheist candidate Gayle Jordan's) Republican opponent, and state GOP leaders have made her lack of religious belief an issue in the Middle Tennessee race , which could have greater implications for how the November midterm elections unfold.
All inappropriate questions for judicial nominees.
Not even close to the same thing, and you should know that if you don't already.
All well said and right on.
Why? All of those questions had to do with how the nominee might use their personal religious beliefs to make or enforce secular law.
"Not even close to the same thing, and you should know that if you don't already."
Why exactly is it different to call out someones lack of belief than it is to question their belief? Is it your position that political parties should be allowed to use a candidates lack of faith in any deity as a campaign issue, but they can't use someones religion as a campaign issue? You can call out someones possible actions based on their lack of belief but we can't questions someones possible actions in office based on their religious beliefs?
Gay marriage is legal. Abortion is legal. Questioning those who will be the arbiters of those secular laws about how they might enforce those laws is critical. I wouldn't have any problem with the Senate asking an atheist nominee that same question, do you "believe[d] federal funds should not be given to [those] providers who support abortion services.’? It's a fair question whether Christian or atheist, Muslim or Hindu, and yes, there are some anti-abortion atheists out there, they come in all shapes and sizes.
I would be fine if they simply asked, "Can you and will you do the job? Without regard to religion or lack of it.
That isn't what they did.
Judges do not make laws.
Also, it is quite possible that one can rule on a case legally while being religious-minded without religion playing a part in their decision.
But they had proven history which required the questions to go further. If you're a member of an anti-gay group, of course there will be skepticism. Or a member of Greenpeace, which supports environmental terrorism.
True. But not all people can, so we need to ask them questions to make sure they can. Most religious people I know support the separation of church and state, because they don't want other sects' views forced on them or their children, and they have no interest in forcing their views on others or into our laws. But the religious fanatics are not like you, and don't share your rational views about your faith.
What "proven history" would lead someone to believe that they would rule a certain way?
Which of the nominees do you consider to be a religious fanatic, and why?
Last time around .. Huckabee, Santorum, for sure. I'd have to review the candidates again to see who else I thought would fall into that category. But anyone who is affiliated with a group who is anti-gay, or pro-terrorist (which is why I brought up Greenpeace) .. should be questioned.
C'mon, Texan. You are not a stupid man. I've already explained my views on this. Affiliations with anti-gay groups, for one, would lead me to think they should be questioned on how they'd rule. I never claimed that they would definitely rule a certain way, just that their affiliations make it necessary to find out whether or not they would. As an atheist, I would probably be questioned to make sure I'd be fair to those of faith - and that would be perfectly fine. Religious people would want to know that my lack of faith wouldn't lead me to trample on their Constitutional rights.
I guess I just don't get the logic behind being able to think that these people might not be able to do their sworn duties because of some religious bias and then think that they would somehow be ethical enough to tell you the truth if you just ask.
The true fanatics, quite often, can't help but brag about this type of thing.
SO, which "true fanatics" were exposed by this line of questioning?
I have no idea. I don't follow those hearings too closely. I'm just making the point that there is nothing wrong with making sure their beliefs don't them incapable of keeping their oaths. People should have the knowledge to make decisions about how they want to vote or whether they want to confirm a nomination.
Seems weird that you would have wrote this then: The true fanatics, quite often, can't help but brag about this type of thing.
Still seems weird that one could think that these folks are unethical enough to not do their sworn duties properly but are ethical enough to answer the questions posed.
I'm not saying it's because of ethics that they would answer the questions posed.
And you make a good point, we often see people skating around these questions to try to avoid them.
What are you trying to say?
Perhaps the questioners should ask better questions.
A simple "Is there any scenario where your personal beliefs would ever keep you from ruling impartially, and would you make any of your decisions based on your beliefs rather than the law?" would seem to be the appropriate question to ask.
Also the questioners here swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States 🇺🇸 that includes article 6 section 3, no religious test. Let’s hold them to it.
That has to do with voters, politics and changing times, not some far right wing conspiracy theory.
The only far right wing conspiracy theory is the one you dreamed up.
The "dreamed up" Deep State gave him that question to bring up...
Of course he had to clear it through Obama's thugs before they would endorse it.
More Evangelical percussion complex on display.
Interviewer - "You know the rule is not to let your religion bias your work, correct?"
Typical Older White Male Evangelical Interviewee - "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
After reading the article, and the specific questions asked of the nominees, do you believe that the questions asked were appropriate?
Or do you think the question you cited was the only question?
Oh, my bad. We can't question the altra-religious about their religious views in this country without hurting their feelings.
Yes, they're always the victims, those small c christians, aren't they?
No, you can’t question the religious beliefs of others in deciding if one can hold a government office or not. It’s in the constitution, that inconvenient document for America’s secular progressives.
We absolutely can question them to ensure that they won't put their religious beliefs above our Constitution. Religious fanatics all too often put their faith above all else, which would disqualify them from upholding their oath of office.
Yes, we can, and should! One cannot be prohibited from running for a political office based on religion. But that doesn't mean those beliefs cannot be scrutinized by voters or nominators in determining if they want said person in office or not.
You mean that document its writers specifically made secular to prevent rule by divine decree as some Evangelicals would like to do?
You mean the document trump is shitting all over.
.
Ya mean like those two A-wholes Roy Moore & Kim Davis?
Two perfect examples of folk that the voters needed to know how, once elected, they would be putting their warped religious beliefs ahead of our Countries Constitution.
Just religious fanatics? Where have you been? We have two establishment political parties that always put party before country. It is not just a religious issue.
Good point. The party before country is a major issue as well. Both parties want to get and keep power; that's all they care about. And as soon as most people get elected, they start worrying more about getting re-elected than about doing their job. And the higher up they get in politics, the worse they are, for the most part. The more power they have, the more they focus on keeping it.
But the questions about their religion to determine how it affects their ability to keep their oath are valid, IMO. As someone pointed out above, look at Moore and Davis.
Their religious views are none of your business. That is the freaking point.
They are my business, when their religious views make them incapable of putting the Constitution over their faith. Which means they are incapable of keeping the oath of office.
Religious views or affiliation have nothing at all to do with whether one can fulfill the duties of the government position they seek. Setting up unconstitutional religious tests for office only shows the bias and bigotry of those engaged in doing so.
Please address Kim Davis and Moore. Also sick and freaking tired of same religions trying to have input and control over what people (esp women) can do and obtain via insurance. I could not care less about what people believe until they try to force them on others, examples above with plenty of others if those aren't enough.
They absolutely do. Religious fanatics seek to insert their myths into our laws, because they consider their myths more important than our Constitution. Therefore they cannot uphold their oaths of office.
Religious fanaticism also makes people incredibly ignorant and anti-science and anti-fact - for example, someone who believes the bullshit from the 1800s about the Earth only being 6000 years old is clearly not capable of making intelligent decisions about science, or about many other things which are so important to our country and world. I certainly want to know about someone's views and affiliation so I can avoid voting for morons.
have you any evidence at all to support thinking that those judicial nominees would be unable to perform their jobs correctly?
Anything at all?
Their involvement with groups which fight against equal rights is a pretty clear red flag which needs to be questioned further.
Just as if a candidate were a member of Greenpeace, I'd want them questioned further to make sure their fanaticism wouldn't be more important to them than our Constitution.
Actually you can’t and shouldn’t. Period. No religious test to obtain office. It can’t be more crystal clear than that.
To a secular progressive, mere disagreement with their world view justifies their right to trample all over the constitutional rights of nominees that might share our religious or political point of view. To them the ends justify the means, the constitution be damned if it stands in the way of their inquisition against people seeking office who think like us.
That is total projection of what the religious right is doing. And I'm not secular.
Maybe you'll be better able to understand if I switch things up a bit.
What if this was a Muslim nominee for an important position in a Muslim country. Then the ones who have to confirm them to their position asks them questions about their faith, whether they share certain beliefs with the radical element within Islam, asking them questions to determine if they are simply a Muslim or possibly an extremist Muslim who might use their position to push religious extremist views. Wouldn't you want to know whether you were appointing a radical extremist to a position of oversight rather than just your average Muslim in a majority Muslim country?
I see no difference in trying to determine whether a nominee here is your average Christian or whether they are religious extremist Christians who intend to use their position of oversight to push their radical religious agenda.
No, you can’t question religiously affiliated people in the form of a test for elected or appointed office. It’s clearly unconstitutional and those engaging in such religious test questioning need to be called out on it.
There have been no extremist Christians appointed to office outside of mainstream Christianity. As to Muslims you don’t question their religion. You ask direct questions about viewpoints relating to the constitution itself in areas of the constitution you have concerns about. You don’t question their religion. No religious test. Period. Crystal clear in the constitution.
" T he emboldened religious right has unleashed a wave of legislation across the United States since Donald Trump became president, as part of an organised bid to impose hardline Christian values across American society."
A playbook known as Project Blitz, developed by a collection of Christian groups, has provided state politicians with a set of off-the-shelf pro-Christian “model bills”.
Some legislation uses verbatim language from the “model bills” created by a group called the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation (CPCF), set up by a former Republican congressman which has a stated aim to “protect religious freedom, preserve America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promote prayer”
At least 75 bills have been brought forward in more than 20 states during 2017 and 2018 which appear to be modeled on or have similar objectives to the playbook, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State , a campaign group which tracks legislation that undermines the principle of separation of church and state.
Seems pretty extreme to me.
That's laughable - our Vice President is an extremist Christian.
Why? Because you say so? Laughable!
Apparently you do not understand what no religious test actually means.
How is anyone's constitutional rights being trampled?
Nice sweeping generalization.
See second statement.
VP Pence comes to mind.
The guardian and it’s readers are extreme. What they are talking about is normal represtative democracy. The issue here is the use of religious tests as a condition of attaining a government office or position and that is strictly unconstitutional. There’s nothing else to discuss here.
No, he’s not. He’s mainstream Christian and rightfully faced no religious test to be elected.
Yes, he is. He supports gay conversion therapy, supported a bill in favor of anti-LGBT discrimination, used his office to try to deny same-sex marriage, fought against anti-gay discrimination laws claiming it was a war on his religion, fought against funding for HIV treatment, pushes for the teaching of the Christian creation myth in public schools ....
He's a nutter, all right.
It’s not about hurting feelings. It’s about secular progressive politicians being held to the rule of law and obeying our constitution that they clearly have no respect for.
And I agree with him on each and every single one of those things he actually did. I don’t believe you that he tried to cut off all HIV treatment funding.
Am I supposed to be surprised that you share the views of a religious extremist?
It's always the ones who bleat the most about non-existent persecution of Christians who try the hardest to persecute others and implement Christian Sharia law. Which is the exact opposite of what Jesus would do. But then, talking the talk is a lot easier than walking the walk, for that type, and hatred is more attractive to them than love.
You can use whatever you want to when deciding who to vote for, so it would be a valid question for the person elected to ask same type questions
When it comes to religion it is not. Or would you prefer all atheists (of which I am) to be questioned on their beliefs (or lack thereof) because religious politicians think anyone that doesn't believe in God is unfit to hold a position at any level of government?
These questions are just for show for each sides base anyways. It is not like judicial nominees don't have their entire college, lawyer, and judicial records on file. The politicians have already made up their minds how they are going to vote long before the show begins. In the case of Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Kavanaugh it was a chance to drag a political opponent through the mud. With Bork it worked- and set the tone for Thomas and Kavanaugh. Wonder when the Republicans will sink to the Democrats level?
They already do that. In some states, atheists can't even legally hold office - despite a religious test being illegal.
I am worried about the religious extremes, the less religious they are the better
Anti religion is an extreme.
And here I thought that far right Christian based religion was insane (won't be kissing snakes anytime soon).
Yep. Sad to say that the USA has become extremely backwards thanks to a plethora of far right wing propaganda paid for by the Kochs and their ALEC friends.
The Koch’s are much more libertarian than populist. The Koch’s, ALEC, Heritage, and Heartland are all great Americans.
That's kind of funny since the Kochs despise your orange idol.
I’m aware. That’s why it’s funny that another brought them into this conversation.
Never.
So you had no problem with the democrats line of questioning to Trump nominees Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett?
Democratic leaders charging the Knights of Columbus (of which John F. Kennedy was a member) is a secret hate society. They are so detached from reality at this point that I assume Coney Barrett will attacked as a witch if she's nominated for the Supreme Court.
She was already attacked on the no religious test grounds by various senators when she was being confirmed for her current court position. Something about the force of dogma being “strong” in this one. Of course it was a senator from California that embarrassed herself with that one.
In the USA. the Constitution is higher than the Bible
Some people have a hard time understanding or believing that.
the Constitution is higher than the Bible
Some people have a hard time understanding or believing that.
I'll say! It's like they've never looked at Article VI, Section 3.
Have these Democrats been referred to the Ethics office? They should be.
It’s past time the senate leadership should do that. If they do, better late than never.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html
Isn’t it interesting that the same atheists who once quoted article 6 section 3 to protect their own seeking appointed office would now that they have some political power behind their beliefs then turn it on its head and trample upon it when it comes to believers who are their political opponents seeking office?