Bill Maher Attacks Amy Coney Barrett On Her Faith

[Sun Devil 92]

To Secularist wack jobs like Maher, refusing to use birth control means you are not qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

Maher rips Barrett, Trump's expected Supreme Court pick: 'She's a f---ing nut'

"Real Time" host Bill Maher tore into President Trump's likely Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Friday night -- and warned about the consequences that may follow her confirmation.

www.foxnews.com

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

Mahr has always hated religion.

He's an Anathema

 

[Sun Devil 92]

... 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?

The entire premise here is bullshit.

Nobody is setting up anything. There is no way to typify people who are catholics or muslims or anything else.

 

[blackhawk]

Typical of Maher his disdain for religious people is no secret.

 

[two_iron]

Nobody takes that coked up runt seriously. He has to pay whores just to sit with him and pretend they're interested.

Fugly.... inside and out.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

There is zero evidence she has imposed her faith as a sitting appellate judge in the decisions she has rendered. At some point in the debate facts and evidence should matter.

 

[pknopp]

I think that our Founding Fathers were aware of issues like this, and came up with 'Separation of Church and State'
to be put in the First Amendment. It's the protection of the person from the government.

The "Founding Fathers" never came up with that and it's not in the 1st. I expect you know that though.

One of them did. And the ACLU and all leftist thinkers, Supreme Court justices, scholars, etc. use the "separation of church and state" rational for the bedrock on which to keep religion out of the public sphere entirely.

You are more than a little disingenuous...or a liar. You pick which one it is.

A liar? You call me that a lot and never explain how. You even are agreeing with me and still say it. So since you agreed with what I said, what would that make you?

ACLU-TN Protects Student’s Right to Read Bible at School

 

[pknopp]

I think that our Founding Fathers were aware of issues like this, and came up with 'Separation of Church and State'
to be put in the First Amendment. It's the protection of the person from the government.

The "Founding Fathers" never came up with that and it's not in the 1st. I expect you know that though.

"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My mistake, but if that's the biggest issue with you, you have nothing

It's a huge issue.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

And?

Like I say, some folks are capable of carrying out their official duties in a neutral manner, and some are perfectly capable of abusing the power of their position to impose their beliefs on others. With the Roman Catholics, as with some other groups, many, if not most, choose which teachings they will follow and which they won't.

You and no one else brings her (selective) Catholicism to the table. Double standard. You lose credibility.

You are either naive or deliberately obtuse if you think that all Catholics support every teaching of the Roman Church. The question remains as to whether Barrett will rule based on her beliefs or do her duty to rule neutrally on behalf of the American People. This issue is even more important because of the extremist opinions she has voiced and the issue that has arisen as to whether she is a member of an extremist Catholic cult.

Having once been a member of the Roman Church, I have a different perspective. My supposed "(selective) Catholicism" doesn't exist. I quit the Roman Church around the age of 14 for several reasons, and later events have shown that I made the right decision.

 

[wamose]

Democrats don't like anything they can't rig. That's why they love mail in voting and that's also why a judge like Barrett will naturally annoy them. Vote straight Republican for prosperity and security.

 

[candycorn]

One of the great mysteries in my life is why Bill Maher has a platform. What in the hell has this guy ever done? I'm happy to say that I have only watched his show once or twice; it was enough to make me pass on watching it again. These updates on this message board serve to let me know I'm not missing anything.

 

[Unkotare]

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.'

 

[Lysistrata]

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.'

So do you, the guys who run the Roman Church, those who follow them, and members of some other faiths and denominations. No bigotry or hatred is involved in insisting that no religious faith should be imposed on someone who does not choose to follow this particular faith. Imposing a particular faith on others is overreaching and antithetical to the right to religious liberty. As I explained in my post, I decided to leave one faith and go elsewhere. Many people have done this, as is our right.

 

[beautress]

Since when is Bill Maher a democrat? He's a Commedian....And relies on being brutal!

Fox should not have given him the time of day, which only promotes him and his tongue! And hurts Amy and her family....imo


I will say that this joke below.... was kinda funny...



Trump has appointed a quarter of the entire federal bench and -- unlike his wives -- that's for life. ...

Not necessarily. Supreme Court justices can retire if they wish, and go fishing and traveling in their old age like other people do. Many are the soul of discretion and honor. Did I say many? My bad. Most scotus justices are top drawer. I love them.

 

[daveman]

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.'

So do you, the guys who run the Roman Church, those who follow them, and members of some other faiths and denominations. No bigotry or hatred is involved in insisting that no religious faith should be imposed on someone who does not choose to follow this particular faith. Imposing a particular faith on others is overreaching and antithetical to the right to religious liberty. As I explained in my post, I decided to leave one faith and go elsewhere. Many people have done this, as is our right.

Can you explain why you believe Barrett will try to impose her faith on others?

 

[Meister]

I think that our Founding Fathers were aware of issues like this, and came up with 'Separation of Church and State'
to be put in the First Amendment. It's the protection of the person from the government.

The "Founding Fathers" never came up with that and it's not in the 1st. I expect you know that though.

"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My mistake, but if that's the biggest issue with you, you have nothing

It's a huge issue.

The government cannot deny Amy her position on the Supreme Court because of her religion.
Again, I will say it, the separation between church and state is to protect the individual from the government,
not protect the government from the individual.
true story

 

[pknopp]

I think that our Founding Fathers were aware of issues like this, and came up with 'Separation of Church and State'
to be put in the First Amendment. It's the protection of the person from the government.

The "Founding Fathers" never came up with that and it's not in the 1st. I expect you know that though.

"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My mistake, but if that's the biggest issue with you, you have nothing

It's a huge issue.

The government cannot deny Amy her position on the Supreme Court because of her religion.
Again, I will say it, the separation between church and state is to protect the individual from the government,
not protect the government from the individual.
true story

I never argued that they could.

I just read where she ruled against qualified immunity for police officers so if she gets confirmed there is that to look forward to.

 

[Unkotare]

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.'

So do you, the guys who run the Roman Church, those who follow them, and members of some other faiths and denominations. No bigotry or hatred is involved in insisting that no religious faith should be imposed on someone who does not choose to follow this particular faith. Imposing a particular faith on others is overreaching and antithetical to the right to religious liberty. As I explained in my post, I decided to leave one faith and go elsewhere. Many people have done this, as is our right.

Your specious arguments in defense of your disgraceful and transparent bigotry only serve to further expose with every post what a hateful, irrational low-life you are. Stop applying more makeup because it's not helping, pig.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

And?

Like I say, some folks are capable of carrying out their official duties in a neutral manner, and some are perfectly capable of abusing the power of their position to impose their beliefs on others. With the Roman Catholics, as with some other groups, many, if not most, choose which teachings they will follow and which they won't.

You and no one else brings her (selective) Catholicism to the table. Double standard. You lose credibility.

You are either naive or deliberately obtuse if you think that all Catholics support every teaching of the Roman Church. The question remains as to whether Barrett will rule based on her beliefs or do her duty to rule neutrally on behalf of the American People. This issue is even more important because of the extremist opinions she has voiced and the issue that has arisen as to whether she is a member of an extremist Catholic cult.

Having once been a member of the Roman Church, I have a different perspective. My supposed "(selective) Catholicism" doesn't exist. I quit the Roman Church around the age of 14 for several reasons, and later events have shown that I made the right decision.

You are a lawyer. Can you point to any judicial decision Judge Barrett has made where her Faith trumped the Law?

Thank you.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

And?

Like I say, some folks are capable of carrying out their official duties in a neutral manner, and some are perfectly capable of abusing the power of their position to impose their beliefs on others. With the Roman Catholics, as with some other groups, many, if not most, choose which teachings they will follow and which they won't.

You and no one else brings her (selective) Catholicism to the table. Double standard. You lose credibility.

You are either naive or deliberately obtuse if you think that all Catholics support every teaching of the Roman Church. The question remains as to whether Barrett will rule based on her beliefs or do her duty to rule neutrally on behalf of the American People. This issue is even more important because of the extremist opinions she has voiced and the issue that has arisen as to whether she is a member of an extremist Catholic cult.

Having once been a member of the Roman Church, I have a different perspective. My supposed "(selective) Catholicism" doesn't exist. I quit the Roman Church around the age of 14 for several reasons, and later events have shown that I made the right decision.

So you concur that Pelosi’s hypocritical selective Catholicism gives her an alibi.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

And?

Like I say, some folks are capable of carrying out their official duties in a neutral manner, and some are perfectly capable of abusing the power of their position to impose their beliefs on others. With the Roman Catholics, as with some other groups, many, if not most, choose which teachings they will follow and which they won't.

You and no one else brings her (selective) Catholicism to the table. Double standard. You lose credibility.

You are either naive or deliberately obtuse if you think that all Catholics support every teaching of the Roman Church. The question remains as to whether Barrett will rule based on her beliefs or do her duty to rule neutrally on behalf of the American People. This issue is even more important because of the extremist opinions she has voiced and the issue that has arisen as to whether she is a member of an extremist Catholic cult.

Having once been a member of the Roman Church, I have a different perspective. My supposed "(selective) Catholicism" doesn't exist. I quit the Roman Church around the age of 14 for several reasons, and later events have shown that I made the right decision.

You are a lawyer. Can you point to any judicial decision Judge Barrett has made where her Faith trumped the Law?

Thank you.

A look at Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s notable opinions, votes

There is also the matter of her membership in a secretive Catholic cult that worships the penis even more than the main church does and requires women to "submit" to their husbands. Would the real Justice Barrett actually be Jessie Barrett?

Amy Coney Barrett: spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise

Prospective Supreme Court nominee puts spotlight on People of Praise

The amount of people who support her because they think that she would vote against Roe v. Wade suggests a belief that she would vote according to her extremist Catholic beliefs and not as a neutral jurist.