Bill Maher Attacks Amy Coney Barrett On Her Faith

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,460
Reaction score
3,631
Points
360
Location
Pittsburgh
There are already five practicing Catholics on the Supreme Court. (Joe Biden describes himself as a practicing Catholic). Boy, they've really fucked things up, haven't they?

It is becoming wearisome in the extreme to watch, hear, and read Leftists blather on about one thing and another, when their only real concern is the irrational one about losing the Court-created "right" to get an abortion. And they treasure this "right" mainly because it tends to keep the Negro population down...they fear it would balloon out of control without abortion, because they assume that Negroes are too stupid/irresponsible to use BC.

The abortion issue itself is much over-hyped and misrepresented in the Media in any event. A complete overturning of Roe v Wade would merely shift the question back to the States, which would immediately render it perfectly legal in all but a few of the states in the country. And indeed, if there were the consensus on the issue that Leftists claim, it should be a fairly simple matter to get all 52 state legislatures on board with legalizing it and having it paid for with public dollars. Right?

What some of them actually fear (though they would never admit it) is a Court REINFORCING the rule of Roe, which would allow states to completely outlaw abortions once the fetus is arguably viable (third trimester), and REGULATE abortions in the second trimester. The fact is, they profess love of Roe v Wade, but want no part of its actual holding.

As for Maher, in this as in everything, his knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep. Most of what he says is intended to be profound for high school sophomores - nobody wiser than that.
 

JusticeHammer

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
2,553
Reaction score
838
Points
210
To Secularist wack jobs like Maher, refusing to use birth control means you are not qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.


Democrats are abandoning people of Faith for whom their faith over-rides their politics, to them that is CRAY-CRAY.
I have news to you Trumpettes. A USSC justice rules based on writtren law & the US Constitution. Not the fucking Bible.

You all know damn well is a Muslim was nominated, you asdsfucks wiould be running through the streets, waving your arms about & screaming "Sharia Law!!!! Sharia Law!!!!"
Too bad God's word makes you scum Satan worshipers piss your panties.
 

Pilate

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2016
Messages
758
Reaction score
166
Points
80
To Secularist wack jobs like Maher, refusing to use birth control means you are not qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.


Democrats are abandoning people of Faith for whom their faith over-rides their politics, to them that is CRAY-CRAY.
I dunno why he’s so worried. Technically, the right was supposed to have a majority with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But shit, I don’t see storm troopers, death camps, and whatever else. In fact, it seems that they’ve made virtually no difference. The fact is that these Supreme Court nominees are usually milquetoast and inoffensive.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
14,136
Reaction score
3,589
Points
290
When can we have a serious discussion about whether people "of faith" who are given positions of power and public trust will remain neutral when acting on behalf the American People or will abuse the power given them to impose the tenets of their particular faith on the public? People opposed JFK because they thought that he would take orders from the Pope. Same here. If appointed to a life position, will Barrett rule in a manner that would impose her faith on the entire American Public, which is comprised of people of all faiths and no faith? She is known to take extremist positions on issues regarding sex and reproduction to the point that she should be a Duggar by now.

Moreover, Roman Catholics are always split on which of the Catholic Church's teachings they wish to follow. How many Catholics follow this church's teachings opposing the death penalty and how to treat strangers and care for others, for instance? How many Catholics practice racial discrimination? Fail to oppose injustice? Fail to oppose violence? I mean actually acting in accordance with these teachings, not just giving them one line of lip-service in a speech somewhere.
.....it's undeniable, MOST blacks given positions of power do not remain neutral when acting on behalf of the American people.....they think more of RACE--blacks
...so, let's be fair
I said nothing about race. My comment was about keeping the right to religious liberty free from having any form of government impose a sectarian belief on all citizens.
When can we have a serious discussion about whether people "of faith" who are given positions of power and public trust will remain neutral when acting on behalf the American People
You mean like RBG?
When did RBG ever impose the beliefs of her particular sect of Judaism on Americans who practice other forms of Judaism or non-Jews, be they of other faiths or no faith?

Unfortunately, there are some religious sects that have beliefs regarding other people that are not based on the religion of these other people, but are based on other characteristics, such as sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. These other people are entitled to equal protection.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,845
Reaction score
4,332
Points
1,140
There are already five practicing Catholics on the Supreme Court. (Joe Biden describes himself as a practicing Catholic). Boy, they've really fucked things up, haven't they?

It is becoming wearisome in the extreme to watch, hear, and read Leftists blather on about one thing and another, when their only real concern is the irrational one about losing the Court-created "right" to get an abortion. And they treasure this "right" mainly because it tends to keep the Negro population down...they fear it would balloon out of control without abortion, because they assume that Negroes are too stupid/irresponsible to use BC.

The abortion issue itself is much over-hyped and misrepresented in the Media in any event. A complete overturning of Roe v Wade would merely shift the question back to the States, which would immediately render it perfectly legal in all but a few of the states in the country. And indeed, if there were the consensus on the issue that Leftists claim, it should be a fairly simple matter to get all 52 state legislatures on board with legalizing it and having it paid for with public dollars. Right?

What some of them actually fear (though they would never admit it) is a Court REINFORCING the rule of Roe, which would allow states to completely outlaw abortions once the fetus is arguably viable (third trimester), and REGULATE abortions in the second trimester. The fact is, they profess love of Roe v Wade, but want no part of its actual holding.

As for Maher, in this as in everything, his knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep. Most of what he says is intended to be profound for high school sophomores - nobody wiser than that.
Who is “They”? does Bill Maher and a faction of others speak for everybody on the left now?
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
42,921
Reaction score
15,239
Points
2,290
Has anyone cited a case in which Judge Barret has ruled against abortion or contraception?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
93,053
Reaction score
9,222
Points
2,015
Filthy bigots like the Catholic-hater trolling this thread always try to justify their hatred on the absurd basis that they really, really want to believe they're 'right.'
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,524
Reaction score
5,017
Points
290
... People opposed JFK because they thought that he would take orders from the Pope. Same here....
"Same here"? Did JFK take orders from the Pope, you irrational bigot?
You didn't read my post. The people who opposed JFK before he was elected did so on the ground that they thought that, if elected, he would take orders from the Pope. You're comment is based on what he did or didn't do after he was elected, when it was too late one way or the other.

It is not being an "irrational bigot" to question whether a person who already has advanced extreme sectarian views can be trusted to put these views aside when representing the public or rule in a manner that will impose these views on the public by creating legal precedent. This applies to all faiths. How many people would reject a Muslim candidate who advanced extremist Muslim views on the basis that they don't want Muslim religious law imposed on them?

You are setting up a situation in which Americans have to reject candidates based on what religion they belong to. For instance, I have voted for three Southern Baptists in the past. But due to the antics of the Southern Baptist religion in the last few decades, I now can't vote for a Southern Baptist. They are just off my list due to fears that they will use their power to impose the tenets of the Southern Baptist religion on all Americans. This is a really uncomfortable situation to have to deal with. Is this what you want?
How about Governmentalists that worship an all knowing all powerful Government?
A government that has actual earthy powers.
Those religious zealots are much more terrifying.
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,524
Reaction score
5,017
Points
290
To Secularist wack jobs like Maher, refusing to use birth control means you are not qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.


Democrats are abandoning people of Faith for whom their faith over-rides their politics, to them that is CRAY-CRAY.
I have news to you Trumpettes. A USSC justice rules based on writtren law & the US Constitution. Not the fucking Bible.

You all know damn well is a Muslim was nominated, you asdsfucks wiould be running through the streets, waving your arms about & screaming "Sharia Law!!!! Sharia Law!!!!"
Is it weird that some of the left leaning justices including ginsburg, stated that it was not our Constitution and laws?
 

Billiejeens

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
10,524
Reaction score
5,017
Points
290
When can we have a serious discussion about whether people "of faith" who are given positions of power and public trust will remain neutral when acting on behalf the American People or will abuse the power given them to impose the tenets of their particular faith on the public? People opposed JFK because they thought that he would take orders from the Pope. Same here. If appointed to a life position, will Barrett rule in a manner that would impose her faith on the entire American Public, which is comprised of people of all faiths and no faith? She is known to take extremist positions on issues regarding sex and reproduction to the point that she should be a Duggar by now.

Moreover, Roman Catholics are always split on which of the Catholic Church's teachings they wish to follow. How many Catholics follow this church's teachings opposing the death penalty and how to treat strangers and care for others, for instance? How many Catholics practice racial discrimination? Fail to oppose injustice? Fail to oppose violence? I mean actually acting in accordance with these teachings, not just giving them one line of lip-service in a speech somewhere.
.....it's undeniable, MOST blacks given positions of power do not remain neutral when acting on behalf of the American people.....they think more of RACE--blacks
...so, let's be fair
I said nothing about race. My comment was about keeping the right to religious liberty free from having any form of government impose a sectarian belief on all citizens.
When can we have a serious discussion about whether people "of faith" who are given positions of power and public trust will remain neutral when acting on behalf the American People
You mean like RBG?
When did RBG ever impose the beliefs of her particular sect of Judaism on Americans who practice other forms of Judaism or non-Jews, be they of other faiths or no faith?

Unfortunately, there are some religious sects that have beliefs regarding other people that are not based on the religion of these other people, but are based on other characteristics, such as sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. These other people are entitled to equal protection.

Joe Bidens sect of the Catholic Church apparently teaches that there are rules to being black.
 

toobfreak

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
30,644
Reaction score
14,478
Points
1,600
To Secularist wack jobs like Maher, refusing to use birth control means you are not qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.


Democrats are abandoning people of Faith for whom their faith over-rides their politics, to them that is CRAY-CRAY.

Pretty funny being attacked in the character of YOUR faith from someone who has NONE.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
23,342
Reaction score
5,007
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
When can we have a serious discussion about whether people "of faith" who are given positions of power and public trust will remain neutral when acting on behalf the American People or will abuse the power given them to impose the tenets of their particular faith on the public? People opposed JFK because they thought that he would take orders from the Pope. Same here. If appointed to a life position, will Barrett rule in a manner that would impose her faith on the entire American Public, which is comprised of people of all faiths and no faith? She is known to take extremist positions on issues regarding sex and reproduction to the point that she should be a Duggar by now.

Moreover, Roman Catholics are always split on which of the Catholic Church's teachings they wish to follow. How many Catholics follow this church's teachings opposing the death penalty and how to treat strangers and care for others, for instance? How many Catholics practice racial discrimination? Fail to oppose injustice? Fail to oppose violence? I mean actually acting in accordance with these teachings, not just giving them one line of lip-service in a speech somewhere.
Pelosi is Catholic.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,055
Reaction score
11,005
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
When can we have a serious discussion about whether people "of faith" who are given positions of power and public trust will remain neutral when acting on behalf the American People or will abuse the power given them to impose the tenets of their particular faith on the public? People opposed JFK because they thought that he would take orders from the Pope. Same here. If appointed to a life position, will Barrett rule in a manner that would impose her faith on the entire American Public, which is comprised of people of all faiths and no faith? She is known to take extremist positions on issues regarding sex and reproduction to the point that she should be a Duggar by now.

Moreover, Roman Catholics are always split on which of the Catholic Church's teachings they wish to follow. How many Catholics follow this church's teachings opposing the death penalty and how to treat strangers and care for others, for instance? How many Catholics practice racial discrimination? Fail to oppose injustice? Fail to oppose violence? I mean actually acting in accordance with these teachings, not just giving them one line of lip-service in a speech somewhere.
Oh, you mean like leftists who push Marxism?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top