Religious Persons Need Not . . . . The New PC Bigotry

The New, PC Approved, Bigotry.
Religious persons.

No Longer about Jews, Buddhist, but now inclusive of
TOO CHRISTIAN. Regardless of branch.
Too Catholic. Too Mormon. Too . Too. Too. and so we witness.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/high-court-nominee-served-handmaid-180254678.html

High court nominee served as 'handmaid' in religious group​

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served as a “handmaid,” the term then used for high-ranking female leaders in the People of Praise religious community, an old directory for the group's members shows.

Barrett has thus far refused to discuss her membership in the Christian organization, which opposes abortion and, according to former members, holds that men are divinely ordained as the “head” of both the family and faith, while it is the duty of wives to submit to them. . . . . .


Hasn't religious affiliation gone too far?
One's religious affiliations use to be private in
What happened?


I remember there was concern the first
Roman Catholic President would leak secrets to The Vatican


Has the media gone too far regarding a candidate's religion??


Moi

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

No.

A politician's religious beliefs are as much a determinant of his political actions as anything else and thus a matter of legitimate concern to we who have to live with their political actions.

I don't remember the media ever let one's religion be private with politicians. They were always asked about it and they were expected to attend some sort of church, usually a Christian one, on a regular basis

 

No. We should understand their religion so we can be prepared for their bias.

 

And so, the open practice of a mainstream religion is not a disqualifying detriment to service in government.
/discussion

 

Including Pelosi and Biden's religion?

 

of course it's not, are you dim?

 

Can't you read?

 

No, I can't read, that's why I read and type here...
If you had a keen grasp on the obvious, you would see I was inquiring as to your partisan double standards. I'm sure you are terribly concerned with the religion of Democrats...

 

@FatBack
@Diablo


If "their" function seems out of order
per the Laws of the Land. That is one thing.

But, because they profess allegiance to this or that religion
is a "private matter" and not proof of disqualification.


Today we condemn the witches without so much as a Salem Witch Trial.
Ref.: Senator Al Franken, a great opportunity for Democrats 2020

Jimmy Carter and abortion. A great Middle Ground of his religion and abortion
TODAY WE NEED ALTERNATIVES WELL ADVERTISED
And maybe different sorts of "giving up the baby" as might allow "aunt" status.

The Alternatives are not well advertised. Are they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Florence_Crittenton_Mission



Moi

No Adoption


​

 

The 'establishment' trashed Kennedy for being Roman Catholic. They trashed Mitt Romney for being a Mormon. They trashed Jimmy Carter for being a "born-again" Christian.

Today, if your personal religious opinions differ from liberal, Left-wing agendas, they'll come straight after you! They want you to be hyperliberal, international-socialist, mixed-race, 'inclusive', and, 'diverse'. And they want NOTHING to do with 'God'....

 

The issue isn’t really with one’s religion, it is an issue with their ability to make judgements not based on their chosen religious belief. There are too many versions of “God” for him to have a place in public policy that rules all people.

As long as one can make policy that is not influenced by their chosen religious ideology then there is no reason for them not to be considered. If they cannot then the public and their representatives should reject them.

 

They can ask. She can refuse to respond as irrelevant. They get to decide if she is right.

 

i remember the outcry about kennedy's catholicism, but i don't remember anyone being concerned about sotomayor's faith, even though the intervening years had brought to light the rampant sexual abuse among that religion's clergy. it would seem your concerns are only for those with whom you might have a philosophical bone to pick. your hypocrisy is duly noted and you are excused from the adult discussion..

 

Except when your religion is hipster-approved. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Then you can go nuts.

If it wasn't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

 

If it only applies to certain religions, then it has absolutely nothing to do with separation of church and state.

It's simple, grubby, medieval, ideological warfare.

 

Generally, yes, its gone too far.

But in ACB's case, if its true that she ceded a ruling on a case to a decree from The Pope (something I heard from a typically reliable source but I've not verified for myself because she's already a shoe-in), that would be a big red flag for me. And not just because the current Pope is a flaming communist luciferian.

But thats not quite as alarming as her support for mandatory vaccinations. If she didn't have such a good track record supporting the 2A, I would be wondering wth Trump ever nomd her for in the first place. I kinda do anyway...

 

I have a philosophical disagreement with any religious person's argument. They are children though, and reason as such. Therefore they think a snarky comment wins any argument and are generally a waste of bandwidth to deal with.

 

Depends. I always try and find out what a persons religion is. Give's me an idea where they may fall on the issues. I have noticed that much of the New York media is Catholic but not adherents to the Dogma. Social liberals but pro-choice.. Nancy and Chuck are two of the nastiest people on the hill. One Catholic and one Jewish. Religious ? I think not. Now we have Amy for the court and pro-life, surely not a racist, and I suspect a social liberal but a moral conservative. Pretty much what a practicing Catholic is suppose to be. Pretty sure the Pope would Canonize her but the Washington Swamp Scum would crucify her if they could get away with it.

 

How about having to demonstrate a nominees official actions
were associated with religious affiliation and not just the label.
Any nominee must have a considerable volume of writings
and official judgements.



Moi

STOP ​

 

The media's focus on religion has to do with how this person's religious beliefs may influence their rulings on controversial subjects that affect millions of people.

Because they will.

 

It would be a start. Sometimes as we get older our outlook on life changes. At one time I didn't really have an opinion on abortion but it changed when I got older and looked more into it. Outlook on many subjects have changed when I think about it.

 

Journalism has an obligation to print a story unbiased and let the reader draw their own conclusions . The facts should suffice. Need opinion then go to the editorial page. Most media today is biased opinion.

 

So then by this do you mean that I could actually harm Mr. Joe Biden's political campaign by luring him into a discussion partly on spirituality?



http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-from-an-aspiring-canadian-politician.579886/


A challenge for Mr. Joe Biden from an aspiring Canadian politician....

 

Their 'philosophical' beliefs have the same influence. There's not an iota of difference.

 

Most people, including pols, pay "lip service" to religion. Very few people and this includes those actually running religions, like Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and priests, really "believe" in the tenets they preach anymore and they haven't for a long time. It's really very strange a whole network of people all "fooling" each other into supporting this billion-dollar mass delusion. It's even stranger in the Islamic world, where this has gotten into politics. It's become really dangerous and will probably kill us all eventually, but everybody knew religion was going to do this someday

It's not really this bad, at least I think. There IS an actual spiritual dimension to our existence. It's like Teilhard de Chardin said; "We are not human beings seeking a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings immersed in a human experience" Maybe that's it. I dunno