Feinstein Targets Trump Christian / Catholic Judicial Nominee As Threat To Lib Abortion Agenda

[MisterBeale]

But it's ok for a member of the liberal minority to impose his faith / beliefs on others, for an atheist, a Muslim, a Vegan, etc to do so?

Because liberals say so...

Example?

AGW.

That's nuts. Climate change has nothing to do with religion, no matter hat hannity tells you.

I'm not sure what a talk show host has to do with this conversation.

But. . . that is your opinion.

Let's go to a definition;
Definition of RELIGION
Definition of religion

1. 
   1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religionb (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4. 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

According to Merriam, AGW fits the definition under section 1, subsections 2, 3, and 4.

It is all a matter of perspective. Frankly, I think yours needs a bit of a revision, just look at your avatar, it is as embarrassing as the one posted by the board bigots. Don't you think you have more class? Or are you as monstrous as the monster you claim to oppose?

AGW is a religion « JoNova

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

neo-neocon » Blog Archive » AGW: when a scientific theory becomes a religion…

Religion of AGW

You are nuts. Acceptance of scientific evidence is not religion. I know you are trying really hard to portray it that way. but, like I said, you're nuts

 

[Spare_change]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

Well, actually they are .... if you don't believe our laws are steeped in the JudeoChristian culture, you are seriously deluded.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Children are our future.....well unless you are a Democrat

 

[BULLDOG]

Example?

AGW.

That's nuts. Climate change has nothing to do with religion, no matter hat hannity tells you.

I'm not sure what a talk show host has to do with this conversation.

But. . . that is your opinion.

Let's go to a definition;
Definition of RELIGION
Definition of religion

1. 
   1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religionb (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2. 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3. 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4. 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

According to Merriam, AGW fits the definition under section 1, subsections 2, 3, and 4.

It is all a matter of perspective. Frankly, I think yours needs a bit of a revision, just look at your avatar, it is as embarrassing as the one posted by the board bigots. Don't you think you have more class? Or are you as monstrous as the monster you claim to oppose?

AGW is a religion « JoNova

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

neo-neocon » Blog Archive » AGW: when a scientific theory becomes a religion…

Religion of AGW

You are nuts. Acceptance of scientific evidence is not religion. I know you are trying really hard to portray it that way. but, like I said, you're nuts

 

[OKTexas]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a *****.


.

 

[BULLDOG]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

Well, actually they are .... if you don't believe our laws are steeped in the JudeoChristian culture, you are seriously deluded.

Our laws are steeped in many cultures. Bearing false witness, murder and stealing are universally condemned in every major culture, modern and ancient. If you are considering the 10 commandments as part of your argument, we don't use the other 7 and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are banned by the constitution. I know you always heard our laws are based on the bible. I heard the same thing, and believed it too, until I actually read it and studied what was said.

 

[SmokeALib]

If only Feinstein had been aborted.....

 

[DOTR]

Nothing as shrill as a Democrat when faced with the possibility of one less abortion.

 

[DOTR]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

Well, actually they are .... if you don't believe our laws are steeped in the JudeoChristian culture, you are seriously deluded.

Our laws are steeped in many cultures. Bearing false witness, murder and stealing are universally condemned in every major culture, modern and ancient. If you are considering the 10 commandments as part of your argument, we don't use the other 7 and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are banned by the constitution. I know you always heard our laws are based on the bible. I heard the same thing, and believed it too, until I actually read it and studied what was said.

Our laws are based on Christianity. That they may be sentiments in common with other religions doesn't mean we didn't imbibe them through ours.
But what difference does it make? Blasphemy against the diety is as universally condemned. Is "thou shalt not steal" ok simply because it seems like a good idea to another religion besides Christianity? thats a strange religious test you have.
And you are confused about the Ten Commandments. The first four describe how man approaches God. Perhaps not in the interest of governments (though most states required monotheism as a condition of holding office for most of our history and Sunday closing laws always part of our culture ).
The last six describe how men relate to each other. And those are the ones we relied on. The Moses frieze on the Supreme Court wall shows him holding the stone tablets with commandments six through ten for this reason.

 

[BULLDOG]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

Well, actually they are .... if you don't believe our laws are steeped in the JudeoChristian culture, you are seriously deluded.

Our laws are steeped in many cultures. Bearing false witness, murder and stealing are universally condemned in every major culture, modern and ancient. If you are considering the 10 commandments as part of your argument, we don't use the other 7 and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are banned by the constitution. I know you always heard our laws are based on the bible. I heard the same thing, and believed it too, until I actually read it and studied what was said.

Our laws are based on Christianity. That they may be sentiments in common with other religions doesn't mean we didn't imbibe them through ours.
But what difference does it make? Blasphemy against the diety is as universally condemned. Is "thou shalt not steal" ok simply because it seems like a good idea to another religion besides Christianity? thats a strange religious test you have.
And you are confused about the Ten Commandments. The first four describe how man approaches God. Perhaps not in the interest of governments (though most states required monotheism as a condition of holding office for most of our history and Sunday closing laws always part of our culture ).
The last six describe how men relate to each other. And those are the ones we relied on. The Moses frieze on the Supreme Court wall shows him holding the stone tablets with commandments six through ten for this reason.

So which other laws do we have based on the bible instead of universal acceptance by all societies? Our laws have nothing to do with the bible, other than they agree in a few specific cases.

 

[BULLDOG]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a *****.


.

It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.

 

[DOTR]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

Well, actually they are .... if you don't believe our laws are steeped in the JudeoChristian culture, you are seriously deluded.

Our laws are steeped in many cultures. Bearing false witness, murder and stealing are universally condemned in every major culture, modern and ancient. If you are considering the 10 commandments as part of your argument, we don't use the other 7 and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are banned by the constitution. I know you always heard our laws are based on the bible. I heard the same thing, and believed it too, until I actually read it and studied what was said.

Our laws are based on Christianity. That they may be sentiments in common with other religions doesn't mean we didn't imbibe them through ours.
But what difference does it make? Blasphemy against the diety is as universally condemned. Is "thou shalt not steal" ok simply because it seems like a good idea to another religion besides Christianity? thats a strange religious test you have.
And you are confused about the Ten Commandments. The first four describe how man approaches God. Perhaps not in the interest of governments (though most states required monotheism as a condition of holding office for most of our history and Sunday closing laws always part of our culture ).
The last six describe how men relate to each other. And those are the ones we relied on. The Moses frieze on the Supreme Court wall shows him holding the stone tablets with commandments six through ten for this reason.

So which other laws do we have based on the bible instead of universal acceptance by all societies? Our laws have nothing to do with the bible, other than they agree in a few specific cases.

You make a false choice as I said. Because a Christian idea of good law is accepted by a Confucian doesn't mean I didn't learn it in Sunday school and base my trust in it on trust in my religion.
You also confuse "Bible" with "Christian".
But an example...polygamy. We banned it. Hindus and Muslims didn't unless they fell under Christian colonial influence. Confucians and buddhists don't give a damn either way as far as I know but I could be wrong on those two.

 

[DOTR]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a *****.


.

It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.

Unless that religious belief is enshrined in law.
We create laws to express what we believe as a culture. Feinstein and her ilk have dismantled the laws. She wants to stamp out the culture that created and informed them now.

 

[Windparadox]

Fake Squaw ha started touting her Deep christian faith.....like obama did

`
Ummm, you are mistaking Feinstein for Warren.....but that's OK. I understand.

 

[DOTR]

Her goal is a country where Christians can't influence laws. Cultural genocide. Her group was responsible for dismantling laws passed by the people of a Christian nation and now she has to make sure they don't regain a position to fix that.
Circular.

 

[easyt65]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a *****.


.

It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.

Which is why judges sometimes recuse thrmselves from cases...but again, you seem to feel that an Atheist can be a judge and let their beliefs influence thrir decisions....or a Muslim, or a Vegan, or a Climate Change fanatic, etc...

The entire reason Feinstein and Dens singled out this Catholic is because they threaten one of their prized issues - abortions, but when it's their turn to nominate judges they have no problem choosing liberal judges who are 'pro' to their prefered causes and who believe in legislating from the bench.

 

[easyt65]

Her goal is a country where Christians can't influence laws. Cultural genocide. Her group was responsible for dismantling laws passed by the people of a Christian nation and now she has to make sure they don't regain a position to fix that.
Circular.

Buh-Bam

 

[theHawk]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Damn those people with moral principles.

 

[OKTexas]

Feinstein to Catholic judicial nominee: I'm concerned that the dogma lives loudly within you - Hot Air

"This makes twice in three months that a prominent Democratic senator has grilled a Republican nominee for being a tad more religious than they’re comfortable with. There’ssomething in the Constitution about that, if I’m not mistaken.

Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. Many Democrats would quite like the idea of a judge refusing to order an execution because it offends their Christian faith, but a judge who’ll do that might also recuse herself rather than uphold a petitioner’s right to kill her unborn baby. Feinstein’s “concerned” that Barrett’s moral disgust at abortion would lead her to be derelict in following a law of utmost importance to the left. You would think, as a politician with decades of experience, she could find a more politic way to say that than by insisting it’s “of concern” that a devout Catholic is a devout Catholic, but oh well. “Try to imagine the reaction to this comment in the context of any other religion and federal post,” says Lachlan Markay of the Daily Beast. “A Muslim at CIA, say. Or a Jew at the Fed.” The apology would have already been issued"

Feinstein basicly stated:
'Christians, especially Catholics, are a threat to the Liberal agenda...'

Our laws are not determined by your interpretation of the bible.

And the supreme law of the land precludes religious tests for holding office. Ain't that a *****.


.

It also precludes a judge from basing his rulings on his religious beliefs instead of the law.

Really, you have no problem when Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor does it. Do you have any examples of this particular judge doing it in the past?


.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

"Lets be perfectly clear" Christians are not welcomed in the Troglocrat Party.