Senate calls out Kamala Harris for her religous bigotry

The thing is no they wouldn’t. Right now the left is calling such criticism islamophobia. So much so that it’s a meme.

a reply to: strongfp

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: seeker1963

Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

"Of" has a totally different meaning than "from" and "freedom from religion" does not exist in the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
NOWHERE in there does it say America or our representatives, or even their decision making, must be free from religion. It simply states that the nation's law makers can't pass a law declaring a religion be considered a national religion. The bastardization of the amendment, trying to turn it into some horsecrap that says America's government must be totally atheistic, is a relatively new putridity dumped on the country by an activist SCOTUS and then championed by childish imbeciles over the years.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's not what JFK believed. The speech in which he addressed his faith was as the majority of his speeches, outstanding. Here is what I believe to be the most relevant part, no where in the speech did he renounce the Pope nor his or any Americans faith. In fact, as can be read, he was a believer in American values which includes all faiths.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him. 

Sounds to me President Kennedy was a believer but placed the values of every American above the individual's faith, why is it so hard to believe another man or woman can do the same. No one should have to renounce their faith in order to hold office. Are the standards to be applied to every religion to include recent elected officials who follow the Muslim faith I hope not, Judges across the nation worship every week, and continue to apply the law according to our Constitution, and Judges who are atheists, or other beliefs also do the same. It's a ridiculous idea to forbid an individual to serve, but only if they not worship a certain way or renounce their own belief system

originally posted by: IanForge
a reply to: seeker1963

That's due to the rather curious phenomena of "it's ok to back Christianity, it deserves it, but leave all other religions alone." Also, most of the folks who do bash Islam don't know beans about it, other than what Pastor bob Whitebread says about it. *sigh*

That’s false on the left though. It’s literally the opposite. It’s okay to bash Christianity and no other religion.

Also, I have nothing against any of them but criticize fundamentalists or extremists of all backgrounds, from Christian to communist to Islamic. What’s problematic in current discourse is the double standards.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

... you're defining separation of church and state.

But yes, you're right.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here ya go.

Believe it or not, as you will.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: burdman30ott6

... you're defining separation of church and state.

But yes, you're right.

,,,which only exists from a court ruling, not anything actually ratified by the states or codified as law by Congress.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: Annee

Have you heard of the word discrimination?

As enshrined in the First Amendment, religious freedom includes two complementary protections: the right to religious belief and expression and a guarantee that the government neither prefers religion over non-religion nor favors particular faiths over others. These dual protections work hand in hand, allowing religious liberty to thrive and safeguarding both religion and government from the undue influences of the other.

www.aclu.org...

Have you heard of separation of church & state?

In AZ if an atheist gives a secular invocation -- it's still backed up with a religious prayer of some kind.

So, yes! Absolutely, I am familiar with discrimination.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: DJMSN
Prominent Democrat and President John F. Kennedy was also a member of the Knights of Columbus. If we decide to forbid anyone that belongs to a religious or charitable organization from holding office, will it also apply to those recently elected ?

Anyone who hold's the Pope's authority over the authority of the Federal Government should not be qualified to serve as a Federal Government judge or administrator.

Holy Cow, talk about reaching back into time!!!! THAT is the EXACT argument put out when JFK was running for office in an attempt to scare the voters into voting for Nixon. Now you're trumpeting Republican prop from over 60 years ago.

What was that quote? Something about those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it?

Deny ignorance indeed!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Blaine91555

So, lets see the "real" oath that Knights of Columbus take, then. Otherwise, I don't believe that this oath has been effectively refuted or debunked.

thankfully for the rest of us it doesn’t matter what you believe.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: narrator.

The Knights of Columbus are a men's guild associated with the Catholic Church, and they perform charitable work. Any political positions they take are an extension of their being a catholic group.

Yes, Harris having a problem with it is evidence of anti-Catholic
sentiment. The Knights are completely harmless and would only be controversial to someone who is already anti-Catholic.

Any political positions they take that are an extension of a catholic group would then go directly against the constitution.

Separation of church and state. A beautiful thing.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The constitution says freedom of religion. If I'm an atheist, am I supposed to be forced to believe in something? No, that's why freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

a reply to: diggindirt

Snookie has exposed his/her intolerance yet again.

a reply to: Annee

To be clear on what you are saying here, are you saying that it's OK to consider religious affiliation in appointments and further OK to deny a seat as a Justice for being Catholic?

How does that equate with this?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The Senate said no unanimously because clearly it would violate the Constitution.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: narrator
I feel it necessary to point out, they most definitely didn't "attack" him because of what religion he is. They don't like the fact that he's a member of the Knights of Columbus, which is a group that opposes same sex marriage and a woman's right to choose.

They'll have to get over it.

You’re right. Unless he tried to do something political at the behest of that group or due to his beliefs. Separation of church and state.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here ya go.

Believe it or not, as you will.

You just linked me to the same oath. If that isn't the oath, where is the "real" oath?

a reply to: strongfp

Wrong you are free to choose not to be religious, it doesnt mean the state can discriminate based on your religion.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: narrator

I disagree. They certainly DID target judicial nominee Brian Buescher over his Catholic beliefs. This was clearly a veiled Dim strategy, to see if it could be used again on a future confirmation hearing on another Catholic. With Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsberg's health failing, the Democrats are fearful that a Catholic, like Judge Amy Coney Barrett may be nominated to take Ginsberg's place.

Also, Senator Sasse clearly mentioned that one of his colleagues "called The Knights of Columbus an extremist organization." Senator Sasse himself rebuked his colleague on the Senate floor, so why exactly is this a "poorly worded and incredibly misleading article title?"

Can you show proof that they were actually attacking his Catholicism rather than his being a part of the Knights? Because that’s the only thing they mentioned in their arguments. Is there more info now, or are you just assuming they did that because Dems are bad, evil people?

It’s poorly worded because “the senate” didn’t rebuke them. One person did. It goes on to say that they voted to rebuke them. Which they didn’t do. They voted on whether or not being a member of the Knights disqualifies one from holding public office. That wasn’t to “rebuke” them, that was to decide if being a member is ok or not for a political office holder.

a reply to: diggindirt


It doesn't matter that questions were raised in the 1950's. The Apostles Creed doesn't change. The Church doesn't change, and neither do the oaths that its body requires.

And, I'll say it again, JFK publicly claimed that he would not put his Catholic faith or the Pope's authority above his oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution.

a reply to: strongfp

I would argue that, for the purposes of the Constitutional wording, "religion" includes the ideology of atheism. A negative position is still a position or belief system, meaning atheism is a religion. You have the freedom to believe as you wish, you do not have the freedom to force everyone else to help prevent you from hearing or encountering the beliefs of others. If that was the intent, then it is the only component to the Bill of Rights which actually infringes on everyone else's rights, which would make it untenable and a true outlier in an otherwise very clearly "pro individual rights" document.

In other words, if I start prostyletizing, you have the right to reject what I say, walk away, shut your door in my face, or even stick your fingers in your ears and ignore me entirely. You do not have a right to charge me with violating your rights because you do not have the right of freedom from religion. Side note: obviously there's an exception for things like workplace harassment... but those are almost always civil, not criminal, and they center around a person in a position of authority bullying someone under their command... and, lately, more and more courts are saying employers can absolutely fire or harass their employees about what's said, meaning the first amendment has zero protections for employer/employee relationships, so that part of religious freedom will no doubt be tested in the near future as well.