Senate calls out Kamala Harris for her religous bigotry

a reply to: toms54


Look around! Look at the tens of thousands of fearful and angry women in pink pussy hats, defending their reproductive rights. Look at the recent attacks on equality and the legal rights of the same sex marriage and the LGBTQ community. They're fearful and speaking out and protesting because of right wing religious influence in politics, and their very public and loud campaign to repeal and displace their rights.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

hey, I have no problem believing there's a group of christian fanatics who've worked for the last few decades to gain power in our gov't with the objective of obtaining a christian theocracy in america..
I just have a problem that that oath is in fact real.
maybe it is, but if so, my guess is that not too many are taking it seriously.
and if I am wrong... well...
I'm can have a really sick sense of humor.... and that is what I envision happening, the masons and the knights going full genocidal in the halls of congress.
and then I wonder... would that really be a bad thing considering the state they have this nation in at the moment??

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sounds a lot like the Jesuit oath lite version.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Too bad the pussy hats are dead in the water right now. Apparently they are getting tired of the Jews doing the same thing to them that you are trying to do to us right here. Google women's movement antisemitism.

Why are you talking to us? You have the wrong target audience.

Join a woman's forum and try to re energize that group.

a reply to: toms54


What does that have to do with real right wing religious zealots trying to wrangle their way into government positions to inflict their archaic religious morality and repeal the hard earned rights of women, the LGBTQ community and other disenfranchised groups?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are trying to whip up a bunch of Christians telling us how evil we are and how we are "to inflict their archaic religious morality and repeal the hard earned rights of women, the LGBTQ community and other disenfranchised groups?"

Of course we are not going to believe it. We know it's nonsense. In fact, it makes you look wild-eyed crazy.

This type of BS only works with non Christians.

a reply to: toms54


Not really, I'm just giving the other side of the argument, as to why the two Congresswomen might question Judge Brian Buescher's Knights of Columbus allegiance, to determine if he will be an activist judge who tries to legislate his religious ideals from the bench. It's part of their job, to give advice and consent to the president's nominees, to inject critical questions and challenges to the nominees.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's not their job to discriminate against an individual based upon their chosen Faith. It's actually against the law, a violation of Federally Protected Civil Rights protected by the Constitution, ironically that those two politicians swear an Oath to protect and uphold. An Oath they have violated by discriminating against an individual based upon his religious beliefs. They should face more than a Senatorial Rebuke, unanimously voted upon, they should publically apologize and recuse themselves from a confirmation vote involving this individual

If after this man is confirmed, if he is confirmed, there are checks and balances already in place to prevent any unethical or unlawful behavior. Until there is clear evidence presented which shows religious bias on his part it is illegal to exclude his participation in a confirmation hearing. There is already clear and ample evidence to prove that Senator Harris is in violation of an individual's Civil Rights as she has clearly demonstrated a concerted effort to deny an individual employment based upon his religious faith, a clear felonious act.

Good religion is stupid. I like her.

a reply to: DJMSN

It's not their job to discriminate against an individual based upon their chosen Faith.

They aren't, not based on his "faith". They're asking questions to judge his ability to do the job in accordance to the law, fairly and unbiasedly, based on questions about his allegiance to the Knights of Columbus, to determine whether or not they can consent to his appointment, or advise against his appointment because they believe that he might be one of those activist judges who try to legislate from the bench. That's their job.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

because they believe that he might be 

Hmmm... might be...are now going to dismiss individual's consider for employment based upon what they might do ? Its discrimination and a direct violation of this individuals Federally protected Civil Rights. It is against the law to discriminate against an individual based upon his or her faith. I cant imagine, where we will be if begin to take into account of what MIGHT be or what somebody MIGHT do. It's wrong plain and simple just as wrong if someone applying for the same job, be denied based upon what they MIGHT do.

This Judge like other Judges are to render decisions based upon precedent laws such as Roe vs Wade, the Constitution and do so based upon the evidence presented to them. To preemptively strike down someone based upon their Faith is a violation of the Constitution. As I said, there are entire avenues of Checks and Balances within our system that to date have worked and continue to work. You have no idea of someone's faith until those questions are asked, and since it is illegal to ask, Mrs Harris was rebuked unanimously by the full Senate

a reply to: DJMSN

Hmmm... might be...are now going to dismiss individual's consider for employment based upon what they might do ?

Yes! That's why they have confirmation hearings!

Wow that is certainly one, poorly written, one sided article. Topped off with a whole lot of bias. Sure to play well with a certain element that is prevalent here, so kudos for that.

It’s probably past time to label the catholic religion as propagators of pedophiles. Another backwards religion that doesn’t deserve any reverence from society.





a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

a reply to: dawnstar

heh it's a fake.

Though it would make things really interesting.

a reply to: Annee

What about the Fear of Anarchy in the USA , and Never Mind the Bullocks Missy ?

a reply to: grey580

Kamala Harris , Born in 1964 , One Year Before Any of her Parents were U.S. Citizens , Can NEVER Be a U.S. President . Just Sayin' ..............

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

As long as she was born as a Natural Born Citizen.

She qualifies.

www.presidentsusa.net...

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.