HOT MIC: Liberal Senator Feinstein Caught Ranting About Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic Religion When S

HOT MIC: Liberal Senator Feinstein Caught Ranting About Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic Religion When She Thought No One Was Listening!

The disparate divide couldn't be more stark - palpable here. The near open disdain of the 'establishment' Dem. Congregational members toward anyone of professing "faith" is chilling! While my initial druthers would have been for a straight 'up / down' Senate vote for ACB confirmation ~ perhaps this charade of Sen. judiciary hearings, putting various senators on the record is, indeed worthwhile...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...s-catholic-religion-thought-no-one-listening/

 

It's a sad state of affairs when a libertarian Senator(Sasse) has to pass a Senate resolution reminding Democrats of their oath to the American Constitution. America was largely founded against religious persecution, and in part the last world war was fought on precisely that: Religious persecution. The dogma of anti-religious liberty lives largely in the heart of the Democratic Party.

 

Yeah, I saw that.

Dianne needs to retire.

She has already ridden enough coattails from the Harvey Milk thing.

She has become an embarrassment.

That said, nothing is going to stop Barrett's confirmation.

The GOP will ram her through (no matter what).

 

Another hateful democrat bigot is showing her true colors.

 

Can anyone explain how this comment is hateful?
“She’s been pro-life for a long time. So I suspect with her, it is deeply personal and comes with her religion.”

And as Joe is also Catholic, how are the Dems using her religion against her?

 

“She’s been pro-life for a long time. So I suspect with her, it is deeply personal and comes with her religion.”

Im not sure I see what is disparaging there.

 

Sasse is exactly right. You seem to be conflating the 2 issues AN.


The founders forwarded only 2 positions on religion.

1. An individuals faith should not be intruded upon by the government
2. Religious doctrine should not be written into governance

Most of the founding fathers practiced "Diesm". It was a simple "religion" that believed in a supreme being as the creationist, but that "being" was absent from the present world. i.e. You can have religious liberty, as long as it doesn't intrude on governance. This idea that dems dont believe in religion is ridiculous. If you truly believe in the constitution, and as most righties believe in the intent of the founding fathers, then read the federalist papers which show very clearly that they believed in your religious liberty, as long as it is not used in our governance. That is EXACTLY why the left is pushing back on ACB because her religion is so much a part of who she is (by her own admission)

 

Ranting? Please look up the word. This looks more like someone at GWP is far to sensitive...a snowflake perhaps.

 

Fair assessment, lol... can we substitute in "opine" / "comment" - would that bring your indignance on semantics down a notch or two...?

 

Left wing politics has an distain for anything religious....as the DNC has become increasingly radical since the turn of the century we are seeing more and more of it from them

 

No, that's a ridiculous stance that utterly betrays the framers vision. While the Framers did not want religious law codified, they did not ever specify that a person's religious views could not be influenced by the law. Otherwise, the very notion of religious freedom wouldn't exist. It is so philosophically clear, that it leaves no distinction and no other alternatives.

it applies not only to religion, it also applies to any sort of philosophical vision or ideal. We all have our own inherent bias's, these bias's should not necessarily disqualify us from any position whatsoever, as it is impossible to go through life without holding a position or view on a subject. If we took this faulty and incorrect position to its final determination, a Republican could be concerned about an atheist judge respecting religious liberties.

But you won't hear this from Republicans, the judge's atheism is not a concern, the concern is whether or not the judge would abide by the constitution and laws as written. Liberals are not only in intellectual error, but in embarrassing fashion.

 

Sure looks that way.

If someone got hung up on Feinstein's religion the way she's hung up on Barrett's religion they'd be immediately tarred and canceled as an anti-Semite.

 

Those words are much more appropriate in describing the context of the statements but doesn't change the fact that someone at GWP was still offended.

What was offensive about this "opine"?

 

I have to remark as a former Liberal that I am depressed with how intellectually declining the so-called intellectual party has become. It has interpreted the separation of Church and State as the exclusion of Church and State, which is so intellectually false that it goes against every tenant of American law up to the 21st century.

it is embarrassing that they are taking this flawed approach to government. Church and State are not excluded from the other, they exist separately. The Church is not a part of our government system, but it is not forbidden in our land either. It exists in the middle(or should). The interpretation by Liberals is dangerous, it means that if you want to serve in government it's better to hide your religious faith. Do we really wanna go back to those times?

The Framers did not create this country to enable religious persecution. And yes, questioning a person's faith is the same as persecuting them. If Democrats are pro persecution, then that's simply an unacceptable premise in our country on a cultural level.

I'm actually very happy for the Barrett confirmation for this reason, Democrats are declaring to their fellow man whether they are for real or not on equal protection under the law.

 

The Democrats have no business making her Catholicism an issue, which brings us to a position that you failed to include in your list:

In fact, the Founders expressed many positions on religion, most notably the one articulated in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence (below), but only a few are to be found in the Constitution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

Well 'Sheite' castigate me along too... I'm offended that Feinstein would "comment" / "opine" or "rant" (pick your flavor) at such - about a personally held belief system... (or do my conservative views preclude me from consideration)

I certainly don't see 'them' kicking up any dust at the doors of Rep. Ilhan Ohmar, Rashida Talib ~ or the like... For known illegalities, I might add.

 

I mean, let's take their position to its logical conclusion. A conservative could vote against a Liberal judge, who voted for democrats and attended democratic functions. It doesn't matter if this judge's record shows that he/she would be an accurate constitutional scholar and scored high on the judiciary review board. By their standards, a conservative could vote that way.(Of course, conservatives wouldn't because that would just make it open practice.)

If Barrett is the right's version of Ginsberg, then why not? Liberals had their Ginsberg, the Right should have a Barrett.

 

I think that religion and the left only come into conflict when religion preaches discrimination against people, such as in the case of abortion and same-sex marriage equality. That doesn't mean that individuals won't have prejudices against religion, but you'll find that just as easily on the right as you will on the left. Being religious is no more inherent to being right-wing as being an atheist is to being left-wing.

 

Joe Biden is about as Catholic as Bill Clinton is Baptist

 

I see. So you are outside his house to see if he goes to church? Do you hide in his house to determine if his behavior is 'catholic'? What, pray tell, is your proof that Joe is not 'Catholic'? And what is your proof that ACB is?

 

Not to 'splice hairs' unnecessarily, however, there are a few tenets of Christianity that are just incompatible with the Democrat platform, as it is presented in this election cycle...

 

It's actually much more simple than that... Go by what they say, by what they propose to do...

Matthew 7:16
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

 

And what is Biden saying and proposing that suggests he is not, in fact, Catholic?

 

****ing Catholics/Christians!!! Am I right Lefties?

Democrats will discriminate based on religion given the chance.

 

Seeing as even Christians themselves can't decide definitively on what Christianity actually is, since passages in the bible can be interpreted literally or metaphorically depending on the interpreter and the circumstance, I would say there is nothing at all that makes Christianity incompatible with Democratic platforms, now or ever.