How'bout a test on Human Reproductive Biological FACT?
XX + XX = FAIL
XY + XY = FAIL
XX + XY = Human
Posted on 09/09/2017 10:18:12 AM PDT by DeweyCA
Reply with “please explain your godless communist dogma to me”
Dems want no Christians in government, and are pushing for as many muzzies as possible to be in public office.
They want to eliminate Christianity, and replace it with a sick, violent death cult.
Orthodox Christians are catholic, but Catholics are not orthodox :-P
And they will continue unabated until someone very publicly calls them out for their obscene behavior. Trump may, but I don’t see any pubbies with the stones to do so.
To the question “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”, the best response would be “Is this the religious test portion of this hearing?”
Except for radical Muslim immigrants. They are just fine.
Or, “Senator, do you consider yourself to just be of lower intelligence for asking such a stupid question, or would you say it makes you a complete frigging moron?”
“Are you now or have you ever been a card carrying Orthodox Catholic?”
How'bout a test on Human Reproductive Biological FACT?
XX + XX = FAIL
XY + XY = FAIL
XX + XY = Human
We all stand condemned, Senator. But I have some good news :-)
Go back to Sunday School!
Relearn, if you ever did, the fable about Noah and the ARK.
But wasn’t Elizabeth Fauxcahantas Warren recently boasting about her “deep Christian faith”? So is Christian faith good or is it bad? It’s hard to keep up with the ever-changing liberal dogma.
Just another piece of the ‘Great Falling Away’. First they went after the Jews and now they are after the Christians.
Soros is sticking to ‘The Plan”.
THIS.
As a flip side for the typical Democrat who tries to skate through with "I don't recall", I think Republicans should just endlessly respond with "Is this a religious test for the office?" as many times as it takes until the questioner just drops it and goes away.
Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber sent the following letter Friday to the Republican chair and the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
September 8, 2017
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:
I write, as a university president and a constitutional scholar with expertise on religious freedom and judicial appointments, to express concern about questions addressed to Professor Amy Barrett during her confirmation hearings and to urge that the Committee on the Judiciary refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views.
Article VI of the United States Constitution provides explicitly that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This bold endorsement of religious freedom was among the original Constitution’s most pathbreaking provisions. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), holding that the First and Fourteenth Amendments render this principle applicable to state offices and that it protects non-believers along with believers of all kinds, is among the greatest landmarks in America’s jurisprudence of religious freedom. Article VI’s prohibition of religious tests is a critical guarantee of equality and liberty, and it is part of what should make all of us proud to be Americans.
By prohibiting religious tests, the Constitution makes it impermissible to deny any person a national, state, or local office on the basis of their religious convictions or lack thereof. Because religious belief is constitutionally irrelevant to the qualifications for a federal judgeship, the Senate should not interrogate any nominee about those beliefs. I believe, more specifically, that the questions directed to Professor Barrett about her faith were not consistent with the principle set forth in the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause.
I am sympathetic to the challenges that your committee faces as it considers nominees to the federal bench. In my book The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process (Princeton University Press, 2007), I argued that your committee need not defer to presidential nominations, and that the Constitution permits senators to probe the judicial philosophies of nominees. It is, however, possible to probe those philosophies without reference to the religious affiliation or theological views of a nominee, and Article VI insists that the Senate observe that restriction.
The questions asked of Professor Barrett about her Catholic faith appear to have been provoked in part by her co-authored article, “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases” (1998). I have read that article, and I believe that the views expressed in it are fully consistent with a judge’s obligation to uphold the law and the Constitution. As a university president committed to free speech, academic freedom, and religious pluralism, I must add that, in my view, Professor Barrett’s qualifications become stronger by virtue of her willingness to write candidly and intelligently about difficult and sensitive ethical questions: our universities, our judiciary, and our country will be the poorer if the Senate prefers nominees who remain silent on such topics.
I am deeply concerned by the harsh and often unfair criticisms that are now routinely levelled from both sides of the political spectrum against distinguished judicial nominees who would serve this country honorably and well. On the basis of her accomplishments and scholarly writing, I believe that Professor Barrett is in that category. She and other nominees ought in any event to be evaluated on the basis of their professional ability and jurisprudential philosophy, not their religion: every Senator and every American should cherish and safeguard vigorously the freedom guaranteed by the inspiring principle set forth in Article VI of the United States Constitution.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher L. Eisgruber
cc: Senator Orrin G. Hatch
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator Dick Durbin
Senator John Cornyn
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Michael S. Lee
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Ted Cruz
Senator Al Franken
Senator Ben Sasse
Senator Christopher A. Coons
Senator Jeff Flake
Senator Richard Blumenthal
Senator Mike Crapo
Senator Mazie Hirono
Senator Thom Tillis
Senator John Kennedy
Contact links
Contact Us
Accessibility
Advanced People Search
Media Inquiries
Website Feedback
Visiting links
The Democrat party voted God out of their party platform. It took arm twisting to get it back in, and even then it was booed by the members.
““...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article VI”
THIS is the correct answer to any such question.
“Orthodox Christians are catholic, but Catholics are not orthodox”
Actually Orthodox Christians are neither catholic nor orthodox, but Catholics are catholic and orthodox. Just ask the Estonian Orthodox, or the Ukrainian Orthodox, or the EP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.