Law & Court News

Faith leaders on Kavanaugh: Defender or destroyer of religious liberty?

President Donald Trump introduces Judge Brett Kavanaugh, center, his Supreme Court nominee, and his family in the East Room of the White House, on July 9, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

WASHINGTON (RNS) — As Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a District of Columbia appellate court judge, headed to Capitol Hill to meet members of Congress who will determine his fate, religious leaders and experts weighed in on whether he should be named the replacement for retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

One group of evangelical Christians, mostly men, is hailing President Trump’s nomination as someone who will protect “the God-given dignity of every human being,” while a group of evangelical women is seeking a more centrist Kennedy successor who will help mitigate the culture wars. As those debates over faith and culture continued Tuesday (July 10), secular leaders worry Kavanaugh could be a “disaster” for the principle of church-state separation, while some conservatives think he will be a staunch defender of religious liberties.


RELATED: Trump names religious liberty ‘warrior’ Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court


Here’s a sampling of responses from faith leaders and organizations concerned about the role of religion in U.S. society:

Paula White, senior pastor, New Destiny Christian Center, Apopka, Fla.

“If President Trump hit a home run with Justice (Neil) Gorsuch, in the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh he’s hit a grand slam. President Trump has done it yet again, fulfilled a promise exactly as he said he would. In Judge Kavanaugh, we literally could not have asked for more. His excellent legal mind, along with his impeccable character and temperament, will serve the Supreme Court and all Americans well for years to come, regardless of political ideology.”

Tim Wildmon, president, American Family Association

“Judge Kavanaugh’s reasoning on religious liberty, Obamacare and issues concerning life have proven to be of major concern. For these and other reasons, we are calling on citizens to urge their senators to firmly oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as a justice on the United States Supreme Court.”

John C. Dorhauer, general minister and president, United Church of Christ

“The slow, painful and incredibly important work over decades to advance a woman’s right to control her reproductive options is now likely under threat. The United Church of Christ will do all it can to protect that, committed to making sure that the advancements made recently in LGBT justice and worker rights, as well as matters related to climate justice, are not threatened by a new justice to the Supreme Court.”

Tony Perkins, president, Family Research Council

“From the day Justice Kennedy retired, the Left has sought to make this vacancy all about abortion — even though many other significant issues are at stake including religious freedom and free speech. Under the Obama administration, we saw a growing assault on religious freedom, and the courts became a battleground for secularists seeking to remove faith from the public square. Judge Kavanaugh resisted this trend in at least two instances — an HHS contraceptive mandate case and in an opinion supporting inauguration prayers.”

Rachel Laser, president and CEO, Americans United for Separation of Church and State

“Judge Kavanaugh fails to understand that only the separation of church and state can guarantee religious freedom for all Americans. Instead, Judge Kavanaugh appears to be intent on eviscerating this fundamental American value. That fact alone should disqualify him for a seat on the Supreme Court.”

Robert Jeffress, senior pastor, First Baptist Church, Dallas

“Evangelicals are ecstatic because in less than two years, President Trump has filled a second Supreme Court vacancy with a second conservative — just as he promised. The fact that the president chose another conservative justice is more important than the name of that justice. This is a huge win for President Trump.”

Farhana Khera, president and executive director, Muslim Advocates

“Given President Trump’s notorious and well-documented hostility toward Muslims, immigrants, people of color, the LGBTQ community and women, Americans need — and deserve — a Supreme Court justice who will protect all Americans and not be a rubber-stamp for the President’s discriminatory and bigoted policies. Unfortunately, Kavanaugh will only further threaten to erode our nation’s promise of freedom, justice and equality for all.”

Kathy Khang, author of forthcoming book “Raise Your Voice”

“Criminalizing abortion has become the culture war’s rallying cry but the core of the culture war has always been about white supremacy, for example protecting segregation as a matter of religious freedom. I hope my fellow evangelicals will call on our senators to support a more centrist nominee.”

Russell Moore, president, Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission

“I fully support President Trump’s choice to replace Justice Kennedy. I am confident Judge Kavanaugh will be a strong defender of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially our First Freedom of religious liberty. I pray that Judge Kavanaugh will serve for decades to come with a firm and unwavering commitment to our Constitution’s principles.”

Stosh Cotler, CEO, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action

“President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, is an affront to the values and priorities of a vast majority of the American Jewish community. From workers’ rights to civil rights, from reproductive rights to LGBTQ rights and immigrants’ rights, this nominee’s track record is hostile toward the issues our community has fought for over generations, and he has no business serving on the court.”

Kim Colby, director, Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom

“Judge Kavanaugh’s private life further demonstrates that he understands and values the important role that religious organizations play in American society as they minister to the needs of the most vulnerable in their communities. His practical experience and appreciation of the contributions to American civil society made by diverse religious congregations and religious organizations across our nation is a valuable asset for a justice to bring to the court.”

Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor, executive directors, Freedom From Religion Foundation

“If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will unquestionably eviscerate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It seems unlikely the cherished wall of separation between state and church protecting true religious liberty could survive intact. Many of our hard-won freedoms would be gutted.”

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO, First Liberty Institute

“As a group dedicated to defending religious freedoms, we are thrilled to have a Supreme Court nominee who has such a solid history and commitment to protecting the religious freedoms and First Amendment rights of our citizens. Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated in his time on the bench a deep respect for the proper role of the judiciary. His opinions have consistently adhered to our founding principles that government exists to protect the God-given rights of the people and the Constitution exists to prevent government from infringing on those rights.”

Samuel Rodriguez, president, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference

“As our duly elected president, the selection of Justice Kennedy’s replacement is President Trump’s decision, and his alone, as mandated by the Constitution. I urge the Senate to not unnecessarily delay or obstruct, but as polling demonstrates the majority of Americans want, to move ahead with a timely and honest confirmation process. I pray for our country in this process, that instead of yet another vitriolic and divisive political battle, the confirmation process would instead be a reaffirmation of the strength of our democracy and its institutions.”

About the author

Adelle M. Banks

Adelle M. Banks, production editor and a national reporter, joined RNS in 1995. An award-winning journalist, she previously was the religion reporter at the Orlando Sentinel and a reporter at The Providence Journal and newspapers in the upstate New York communities of Syracuse and Binghamton.

183 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • It all depends on how you’re defining “religious liberty.” In recent years, some far-right Christians have tried to claim that business, and even government, discrimination against any part of the public they dislike is a matter of “religious freedom.” And for that kind of bigotry, Kavanaugh is indeed a dream nominee.

    For ACTUAL liberty, of course, he’s a poor choice.

  • If Republicans finally achieve their long-awaited goal of tearing down the wall of separation between church and state that the founding fathers envisioned, the next question then becomes, “Okay, now who gets to decide which version of Christianity will be the official one taught in schools as the official State Religion?” The answer of course is he who wins the war. Like they say, history is written by the victors, but there’s no guarantee that the victor is always honorable, just victorious.

    Republicans should think very carefully about what they’re wishing for – they just might get it, and by then it will be too late – the damage will have been done, and it might end up being irreversible. That is the precarious moment in which we currently find ourselves, and it’s frightening.

  • Way too much hysteria coming from the Libbies and Democrats on this one. Keep it sane, folks.

  • How come Hispanics are stuck with a guy like Rodriguez who always waffles around like he was representing the Chamber of Commerce or the Heritage Foundation?

  • That it is now or ever was a Republican goal of “tearing down the wall of separation between church and state that the founding fathers envisioned” is pure fantasy.

    But it is apparent you’ve been drinking at the propaganda well again.

  • It’s not their religion, but how they will use their interpretation of it it interpret the Constitution.

  • some don’t think that there is a wall of separation between church and state in spite of the clear words of the supreme court in everson v. board of education of ewing tp., (1947) . but then they argue any side of any fence to make sure their side wins . such is their pure fantasy .

    then they suggest we have been imbibing propaganda, surly that we reject theirs .

  • It may not be Christianity that wins! AND that is what Christians should be concerned about. The trend is irreversible, the Nones are on the rise, and once you reject organized religion few if any go back.

  • Where in the Constitution is the term “wall of separation” ever used? Never. The 1st Amendment set three rules when it comes to religion: Congress couldn’t establish a national church, it couldn’t interfere with established state churches, and it couldn’t interfere in individuals’ free exercise of their religion — no more, and no less.

  • They always rely on their own version of the First Amendment, the one with the words in it that aren’t in the actual one.

  • Actually, it IS worse, surprisingly so. The idea used to be, look over his or her actual track record first — or at least find out their name first — BEFORE acting all crazy and foolio.

    But this time, the Democrats decided to lose their marbles even BEFORE Judge Kavanaugh was selected. That’s certainly not the Democratic Party I registered to vote for, 40 years ago.

    So far, there’s nothing there with Kav, to suggest that the Democrats’ great god Roe is in any danger. Not even any threats to Obergefell. So why the Democrat craziness?

  • If you are arguing against the separation of church and state, you are also arguing against free exercise of religion. One cannot protect the latter without the former. You are making an empty and overused argument in opposition to the very concepts of religious freedom. Wallbuilders fiction.

    “Congress couldn’t establish a national church”

    There has never been an interpretation of the Establishment clause which has been that narrow and pointless.

    “it couldn’t interfere with established state churches”

    Wrong again. No churches could be established by our government thereafter. State churches disestablished themselves after the ratification of the Constitution.

    “and it couldn’t interfere in individuals’ free exercise of their religion”

    Without separation of church and state, that is impossible. When the two are entangled sectarian discrimination is a given. Even our founders were well aware of that from the outset.

    Your entire argument is simply showing contempt for the entire notion of religious freedom.

  • You answered your own question. Today’s Christian fundamentalists want to make Christianity the official religion of this country, which is why they’re forever clamoring about how America is a “Christian nation.” It’s not – it’s a pluralistic nation in which people are free to worship whomever they choose or no one at all. But that’s not good enough for today’s fundies – they want more. Much more. And with Trump and his army of Evangelical Christian fundamentalists behind him, they’re probably going to get what they want. A few strokes of the pen to change the 1st Amendment would no doubt be ratified by the Republican majority in Congress with great glee. If you think I’m being hysterical and hyperbolic, think again. The handwriting has long been on the wall.

  • Since the younger generations are turning away from organized religion, the future may not be majority Christian. That is a irreversible as having the Greek god’s back in force.

  • It isn’t possible to make Christianity the established church, because there is no church that encompasses all of Christianity. It IS possible for Congress to give a collection of churches special legal benefits or protections that other churches don’t enjoy (or conversely to impose particular penalties), and that would indeed be a violation of the Establishment clause, but most people that talk about a “wall between church and state” go well beyond that.

  • Umm, I was actually directing my response to Arb (though you are free to jump in, of course).

    Arb automatically offers rational posts, and I’m really looking for rational posts today. Got any?

  • What is with the Chicken Little mindset that the Left has fallen into? Trumps election was hailed as the end of democracy. Cavenaugh was just announced and we have the same alarmists – Roe v Wade will fall, gay marriage will end and gays will lose their civil rights. Im far from happy about this administration but we (and democracy) will survive.

  • does not matter, what his religious views are. what, matters is his faithfulness to the constitution of the united states and it’s laws. they, should be concerned about his views on the constitution and it’s laws. nor do i perceive kavanaugh as any full blown, religious conservative.

    nor am i thrilled, that occult or pagan religions are being established and held at any higher religious standard than any other religion using tax money. as it is unconstitutional to use tax money, to establish or support any religion above another.

    abortion, homosexuality, marriage are religious issues and have no business being used as weapons against any other religion. let the occultists and pagans pay for their own religious practices. just like the protestants, catholics, and jews do as long as they do not conflict with the constitution of the united states or constitution of any state.

    as far as i am concerned, if you like your evil and wicked religions you can keep your evil and wicked religions. but i, never did like paying for your evil an wicked religions with tax money. even democrats and republicans pay for their own evil and wicked democrat religion and republican religion. nor should tax money, be used to support democrat and republican religions.

  • How are they going to change the 1st amendment? That “wall” is as porous as our border walls. We have been a defacto christian nation from the beginning. Until the last few decades Christians have gotten their way from our inception. We are still fighting to remove the Ten Commandments from public spaces with little help from the courts.

  • it take the same amount of faith, to worship budd-h, all-h, hasatan, baal hamolech, hamavereek, men, jes-s, money, material, as it does to worship ELOHEEM here in TheTorah.

  • That is a distinction without a difference. Those who seek to declare the US as a “Christian Nation” are only interested in enshrining very narrow sectarian views of Christianity (ones not shared by the entire faith).

    The sects which believe:

    1. They have a privilege to discriminate using religious belief as a pretext
    2. Oppose abortion rights
    3. Oppose marriage equality
    4. Public education should be eradicated in favor of religious schooling
    5. Government must endorse their faith through public displays and acts of fealty

    ” It IS possible for Congress to give a collection of churches special
    legal benefits or protections that other churches don’t enjoy (or
    conversely to impose particular penalties)”

    Actually no. We call that “sectarian discrimination” and is the primary reason for the separation of church and state in the first place. Good to know your entire spiel is simply for the purposes of declaring your own church/faith to have special privileges under the law to the detriment of the rest of the nation.

  • “So far, there’s nothing there with Kav, to suggest that the Democrats’
    great god Roe is in any danger. Not even any threats to Obergefell. So
    why the Democrat craziness?”

    You know that is probably the sanest thing you have posted in a long time. He was chosen because he was Kennedy’s legal clerk. It was part of a backroom deal for retirement. The whole “Who will Trump choose” was a complete load of hogwash. He was the only choice.

    But Kavanaugh is pretty bad for other reasons. Mostly the same reasons Kennedy was pretty bad. He is a corporatist, someone who values a corporation over people. He also is overly deferential to the Executive Branch. Something which will come in handy when we start talking indictments for Trump.

  • Some don’t think there is separate but equal inspire of the clear words of the Supreme Court in Plessy vs Ferguson (1896).

    The point is obvious. What one court reads into the constitution, another can read out. What matters is what IS written into the constitution — because that is the voice of the people.

  • “…that is the voice of the people.”

    what WAS written into the constitution was an uneasy compromise of the founding fathers (as no women were present) some 200 and 30 years ago . i believe that to hear the voice of the people today you have to listen to the people today . and the people today have largely accepted the jefferson phrase “total separation of church and state” as the meaning of the constitution’s construction of church and state relations .

  • “It isn’t possible to make Christianity the established church, because there is no church that encompasses all of Christianity. ”

    Do you really think the “Christian Nation” people see that as an obstacle to their ultimate goal of enshrining Christianity into the Constitution as the official state religion? Please! These people will make THEIR brand of Christianity the official one – see my earlier comment. You do realize, I hope, that polling has shown that Trump has the highest approval ratings among people who describe themselves as Christian nationalists. He is not ignorant of this fact, and as he always does, he rewards those who fawn on him most shamelessly with the best “treats.” It’s coming.

  • You write so blithely with your talk of “Chicken Little” as though the handwriting isn’t already on the wall. One by one, obstacles to Trump have fallen away, starting with the sixteen other Republican candidates for the Republican nomination. And one by one, they all fell in line after having mocked Trump in the primaries, just like Republicans in Congress, because that’s what Republicans do. No, we still have a functioning democracy now, just as people living during the Weimar Republic did before Hitler came along, but Trump is working tirelessly to undermine the system at every turn by finding weakness in the Constitution and then exploiting them, all while his Republican enablers remain mute and supine. I would urge you to re-read Martin Niemoller’s famous quote which begins, “First they came for the trade unionists….” While you mock people like me for being Chicken Littles the sky looms lower and lower, until one day it will in fact be on top of you while you scratch your head, wondering, “Duh, where did that come from?” As though you weren’t warned.

  • “abortion, homosexuality, marriage are religious issues”

    Marriage can be a religious issue or a civil one or both. People who get married at city hall receive neither blessing nor approval from any religion, they simply register their relationship with the state in order to take advantages of those 1138 statutory provisions civil marriage affords. Get your facts straight, please.

  • as a minority can block the will of the majority, no . see for reference the equal rights amendment which was shot down by the overwrought rhetoric of the likes of phyllis schlafly .

    for your ease i offer the total text of the e.r.a. :

    1. equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
    2. the Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    3. this amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

  • “what is the…mindset that the…has fallen into?”

    it is hardly the left alone . people are quietly (and some not so quietly) pealing off of the trump republican party and waiting and organizing for his departure from the scene . my thought is that you don’t heard from them because those with the money for the big megaphones are pleased with the tax cuts — the waltons and the like — and the religious ideologues — the jerry fallwell jr.’s and the like — for trump’s amusing bow to their will for traditional morality . trump gives new meaning to the word flexibility .

    yes, kavanaugh has just been announced and if one is not worried, one hasn’t read his quiet dispassionate statements that imply tossing out years of decisions which have made america a more equal and more just nation .

  • Kavanaugh — and Trump, Pence, DeVos and too many GOP lawmakers — should heed the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin: “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself: and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its adherents are obliged to call for help of the government, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” Or Madison’s majestic 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessmemts. Or Jefferson’s religious liberty section of the Virginia constitution. Or the wisdom of the 37 state constitutions that are intended to bar government financial aid to churches. Or the wisdom of the millions of voters who in 28 state referenda from 1966 to 2014 voted down by 2 to 1 all efforts to divert public funds to private church schools. Or the Supreme Court’s rulings on this from Everson in 1947 to Lemon in 1971 to the end of the 1980s. Or the wisdom of J.F. Kennedy in his 1060 speech in Texas. — Edd Doerr

  • All that means is that you’re rather stuck for adding new provisions to the constitution, on the subject of gender equality at least. Evidently not enough people want to change the social compact on that subject, although they have changed it 27 times on other subjects.

    It doesn’t mean you can’t pass an amendment adding separation of church and state to the constitution. I don’t believe it’s been tried yet.

  • Progress may get a set back, but it keeps stumbling ahead in spite of the attempts to block or reverse it. History is our proof.

  • in the years since phyllis made her historic, mistaken stand against the e.r.a., most of the principles of the e.r.a. have been enshrined in the hearts and minds of the american people . even many conservatives act as if it passed .

    by the way, most of the changes made by amendments were either the promises by madison to get the constitution passed (1 through 10), caused by war (13,14, 15, 26) or general house cleaning (11, 12, 20, 22, 23,24, 25, 27) . amendments that changed the way that government and society interacted are rare (17, 18, 19, 21), and those mostly from the progressive era of the late 1800s and early 1900’s .

  • Historic inevitablism has been a hallmark of every ism and movement of the last 130 years, including Marxism, Fasicism, and Naziism.

    History disproves it, over, and over, and over again.

  • The evidence that “the younger generations are turning away from organized religion” is open to both debate and interpretation.

    And it is not irreversible, although you apparently wish it were.

  • Again, then you should have no particular problem passing an amendment that represents “the hearts and minds of the American people. Go for it.

  • Progressives today always remind me of the smug Edwardians on the eve of WW I and the bloodiest century in human history.

  • “The idea that the Constitution should be subservient to the fleeting will of politics or progressive conceptions of “justice” pretty well sums up the left’s objections to Kavanaugh.

  • Shawnie, that is entirely your position. You went several days on why you wanted SCOTUS to be weak and subservient to Congress, aka “the fleeting will of politics” in its interpretations and applications of the constitution.

    As usual any pretense of an argument from you really amounts to “whatever works”. Hypocrisy us expected.

    Thank you for proving my point. It all really comes down to putting a spin on purely partisan results for its own sake.

  • Ironically you have claimed separate but equal was perfectly fine when it comes to open commerce. Especially when customers are gay.

    The point is obvious, we do not hold the court to standards of a century or two earlier as alleged Constitutional Originialists want. Especially if we value civil liberties. Which you do not.

  • It was the framers, and the people who ratified the constitution, who wanted a weak judiciary that was limited to interpreting and measuring laws against the constitution. It’s that pesky constitution, the blueprint of a republic of strictly enumerated and limited powers, and an amendment process that might not always get you what you want, that gives you and all the other libs so much grief.

    If you want to add to the powers of the judiciary, get an amendment going. I doubt that you can get it passed — conservatives generally aren’t in favor of enlarging government power, and liberals won’t want to enlarge it while it’s solidly liberal again, which it won’t be for the foreseeable future — but it’s better than sitting around whining.

  • Separate but equal is a 14th Amendment concept, and the 14th does not address gender. Commerce Clause jurisprudence is different — Congress can legislate on it provided there is a true INTERSTATE issue. Congress has not legislated on the subject of interstate commerce and sexual orientation, and even if they did it might not hold up to constitutional scrutiny since the SCOTUS has for a number of years been backing away from the overbroad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and I foresee that will continue.

    If Wickard vs. Filburn were decided today it would have gone the other way.

    The constitution has no expiration date, Einstein. The voice of the people stands, even for a century or two, if the people don’t see fit to change it within that time.

  • You are deliberately dodging here and arguing against historical fact. The framers position you claim was wrong and unworkable. Hence the correction was made later. You are 215 years too late to argue that. No need to change or amend what is already there. The power not only already exists but has for quite a long time. Arguing against it is to deny reality. The only one who seeks to change the system here is you.

    You are also being entirely hypocritical. A weak judiciary is one entirely subject to the changes in political will. Something you just pretended was an argument of “the left”. You are still contradicting yourself.

    So as usual you are full of it. Any argument you make is simply for convenience. Intellectual honesty or consistency is not to be found with you.

  • “Historical fact” is a redundancy.

    Any “position” of the authors of the Constitution were apprehended first by the ratifying states, which compelled the Bill of Rights, and by additional amendments.

    The mechanism you suggest is a judicially fashioned replacement for Article Five of the Constitution.

    What you call a “weak judiciary” is one which applies the laws as written.

    The activist judiciary you advocate as an AFL-CIO representative is the one subject to the changes in political will.

    So as usual you are full of it. Any argument you make is simply for convenience. Intellectual honesty or consistency is not to be found with you.

  • Separate but equal while not in our eyes “perfectly fine” appears to comport with the Constitution as written and amended.

    If the Constitution should be amended to deal with sexual proclivities, the mechanism is provided for in Article Five.

    Your addiction to judicial amendment is noted.

  • The framers position, and more importantly the people’s, was not wrong or unworkable. It didn’t work to get certain early 20th century presidents what all they wanted, of course, and thus got improperly disregarded for a long time. That time is over now.

    And the hilarious thing is, the left is about to fall in love with the weak judiciary again just as they have with states’ rights. You’re already behind the times, Tater.

  • The SCOTUS should be subservient to the law.

    That is how the Constitution was written, in the relative order of importance to a republic.

    Article One describes the Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government.

    Article Two describes the office, qualifications, and duties of the President of the United States and the Vice President.

    Article Three describes a court system, including specifically the Supreme Court.

    The sole and only functions of the Supreme Court are very clearly specificed:

    “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; – to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; – to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; – to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; – to Controversies between two or more States; – between a State and Citizens of another State; – between Citizens of different States; – between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

    “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    “Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

    The phrases “and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make” and “at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed” make clear that the Congress – the people’s representatives – is superior to the Court.

    Your argument is with the Constitution because you’re addicted to bypassing the people.

  • Too many big words for him.

    His is a child’s view of the Supreme Court — those guys in Washington that wear black robes and decide everything.

  • Still avoiding. You accused “the left” of your own position. Good luck putting a spin on that.

    You made it clear this is all just a means to an end, conservative rulings which attack civil liberties. You really hate a free society. Oh well.

  • Again, if there are civil liberties you want the federal government to enforce but which are not recognized by the constitution, kwicherwhinin and get an amendment going.

  • Not at all. It’s nowhere in the text nor drafter intent.

    It was an example of the “judicial legislation” you claimed to attack. But really a product of interpretations of the constitution in light of the arguments presenter before the court and social attitudes of the time. As SCOTUS has done for 215 years and counting (and not changing any time soon)

    The 14th amendment is very open ended. Like all amendments. Leaving specifics to both lawmakers and the judiciary. You are pretending constitutional amendments are far more narrow than reality has ever permitted.

    But its good to know you are really just looking for excuses for discrimination. Intellectual honesty or a consistent position be damned. Keep shifting those goalposts to pretend you are going anything but trying to promote legally sanctioned bigotry.

  • Interesting POV quoted in there:

    We simply cannot have another lifetime-appointed justice unleashed who, as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, acts as a “black-robed ruler overriding citizens’ choices.”

    Sounds like somebody wants a weak and subservient judiciary — when it serves their own purposes, of course.

  • Nobody said separate but equal was in the text of the 14th Amendment — if it were it would have required an amendment to get rid of it. It was simply an argument which belonged to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it concerned state laws and not individual actions. It really doesn’t relate to the Commerce Clause.

    The 14th Amendment was not “open-ended” enough to not include gender-specific language. On its face it is inapplicable to gender issues. It matters not how the unelected overlords think it ought to read now. What matters is that gender equality simply has not been enacted by the people.

    The SCOTUS since the Wilson era has made a muddled and contradictory hash of the 14th Amendment trying to use it as a power grab for the feds, and the people are history-challenged and have not held them accountable for it. However, when one reads it as what its framers actually said it was — as an extension of full citizenship to former slaves and protection from having separate codes of laws for white and black — it makes perfect sense.

    Get behind the ERA and see what you can do with it, Tater.

  • He is following the AFL-CIO line verbatim.

    Kagan’s characterization given the track record until Kennedy’s retirement and her record was a real knee-slapper.

  • “abortion, homosexuality, marriage are religious issues and have no business being used as weapons against any other religion.”

    All of these are personal issues. Religions are free to have opinions about them. These opinions can sometimes control the behavior of their own members. No religion or its opinions has a moral power or, in a free society, a legal power over the rights of citizens who are not followers of that religion.

  • Well stated. This has been going on for a long time. It was during the Eisenhower Administration that ”Under God” and “In God we trust” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance and our currency. This was lobbied by both Billy Graham and big business. This collusion of the oligarchs and the Religious Right continues and is now called the Republican Party. The movement for Christian Nationalism is very strong.

  • In spite of having a Christian majority from the beginning, the founders of the Constitution created a secular government. The Christian majority has been attacking this ever since.

  • Besides protecting Christian sects from each other, the First Amendment protects the other religions and non-believers from government oppression. No religion can expect or insist that its moral or societal values can be imposed on others by the government. This is not a Christian Nation. It only remains a free nation when it is secular.

  • Put that question to President Trump’s Evangelical Counsel. It’s not likely that many, if any, Republican politicians would be brave enough to oppose them.

  • John Fitzgerald Kennedy would have said Venusians visit the earth to get elected.

    You avoid the plain text of the Constitution and its amendments in favor of various authors with various opinions for good reason.

  • all personal issues are of a religious nature not necessarily for or against G-D. all opinions, are a statement of faith based in some religion.

    everything a person says or does, is guided by their religious beliefs. whether they be, a natural creature of the fields with no limits or above the natural order of the beasts of the fields by self limitations.

    those who obey laws, have chosen self limitations religiously. those, who reject laws have rejected those limitations religiously. but all laws, are based on some religious point of origins. and differences in individual or group laws, results in diverse religious conflicts. and the greater the religious divide, the greater the religious conflicts.

    but all religions on earth today, appear to be imperfectly flawed with many more imperfect than others. as too many in any alleged religion are not what they claim to religiously be. but no matter what the religion is, it requires the same amount of leap of faith.

    but i do not operate on faith alone, but by observation, logic, and experience. as i am quite aware of the mostly negative religious miracles of pestilence, plague, and famine in the world today. that, greatly outnumber the positive religious miracles.

    but laws, can be either good or bad moral or immoral. but the power of religious morality or immorality, is largely determined by the numbers in support of it. when you support anyone or anything, you are giving your power away to religiously support them.

  • “Besides protecting Christian sects from each other, the First Amendment
    protects the other religions and non-believers from government
    oppression.”

    Which is why religious belief has always been far more active in the US than in Europe which had centuries of government established religious belief.

    Even a self identified “secular” country like France gets it wrong, a lot. Although there is lip service paid to separation of church and state, there is no guaranteed right of free exercise of religion. Which allows the government to attack religious minorities with impunity under the guise of secularism (usually to the benefit of those of the Catholic faith).

  • This reply is very confusing to a non-believer in God who follows no religion. I may not understand your concept of “religion”.

  • Sorry, Bob, ’tis you who are painfully ignorant of history and law. In 1879 the SCOTUS said that Jefferson’s 1802 statement to the Danbury Baptists captured the essence of the First Amendment. And from Everson in 1947 until after 2000 the SCOTUS honored that. You have no respect for the men who created the Constitution. And JFK was sincere in his 1960 speech, with which you are doubtless unfamiliar.

  • Now you are just weaselwording and shifting goalposts as usual.

    Your words, “Separate but equal is a 14th Amendment concept”. You are trying to split hairs here because you have set up an argument you can’t sustain on facts or even rational thought. You have tried fake appeals to authority and empty declarations of what you want to be true (but isn’t).

    “The 14th Amendment was not “open-ended” enough to not include gender-specific language.”

    Of course it is. Nothing actually stopped it from doing so. As noted with racial discrimination, SCOTUS seldom has the last word on such things in any given case and opinions change with society’s. Its not Fundamentalist Bible Study.

    “The SCOTUS since the Wilson era has made a muddled and contradictory
    hash of the 14th Amendment trying to use it as a power grab for the feds”

    That is your opinion. One which you have not really supported in any rational, logically consistent or factually honest fashion. Especially since your real goal here is just partisan ends to SCOTUS rulings and not preservation of rule of law or constitutional liberties

  • Nope. That is not how those things work. One does not leave the rights of political minorities in the hands of the majority. EVERY DISCRIMINATORY LAW WAS PASSED BY A MAJORITY VOTE. Meaning we do not use the political process ever to determine what are liberties really are here. That would be like adopting China or Russia’s form of government.

    We have the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment specifically because we could not entrust such things to Congress or the President. We entrust the judiciary to do so as a curb on their power. Your contempt for civil liberties and ultimately a democratic government is obvious. You are going into spewing autocrat territory here.

    Plus you are still a lying fool who accused others of your position.

  • Sorry, Edd, you and your fellow anti-Catholic buddy Blanshard are the ignorant ones, Blanshard in particular sucking on the JFK lemon.

    The SCOTUS NEVER said that Jefferson’s 1802 statement “captured the essence of the First Amendment”.

    They cited it in 1947, referencing an earlier opinion, as an apt analogy. Apt analogies don’t replace the actual amendment as written.

    Playing that game allows one to avoid the actual cases like Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. __ (2017):

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-577/

    which it make it clear that the SCOTUS does NOT see a wall of separation between church and state and never has.

  • One leaves the constitutionally protected rights of everyone in the hands of the Constitution.

    Any rights of minorities not mentioned in the Constitution are in the hands of the majority.

    That majority, for example, adopted the 14th amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

    Those simple facts make it clear who is a lying fool.

  • What a truckload of argle-bargel to say you disagree but don’t have any facts to support that disagreement.

  • Poor ignorant Bob seems unaware of the SCOTUS’s 1879 ruling in Reynolds v US. And I dare say that he has never actually read a book by Paul Blanshard.

  • You know, Edd, when I lived in Maryland I found you as cluelessly annoying in person as you are on-line.

    I know exactly who Paul Blanshard is, who you are, and why you’re dancing away from Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. __ (2017) and pretty much every other substantive decision of the SCOTUS on the First Amendment.

    And so do you.

  • You are trying to split hairs here — No, Einstein, I’m not. The “equal” in separate-but-equal refers back to the equal protection clause. Part of the 14th Amendment. It has nothing to do with the interstate commerce clause upon which private racial discrimination was based. Turn off the TV and pay attention, please.

    That is your opinion. One which you have not really supported in any rational, logically consistent or factually honest fashion — I could explain the gobbldeygook of “substantive due process” and “selective incorporation” to you, and I have seen Bob already try to explain to you the mess that is Establishment/Free Exercise jurisprudence (the precedents that are tried, tweaked, moved toward and moved back from, abandoned for new formulas, and so on and so forth ad infinitum) but I doubt that you could grasp it any better than you have grasped federalism, which is more important than all of it.

    You’re in over your head. Try the kiddie pool.

  • “Meaning we do not use the political process ever to determine what are liberties really are here.”

    I’m afraid you have no other choice, Einstein. You are already on the record as repudiating the idea of natural law and rights (upon which the ALL of the framers relied in putting together the constitution, incidentally). Therefore in your world all civil liberties must necessarily be the creation of the people, and since our social compact requires a supermajority of states in order to enshrine any right into the constitution (otherwise it remains the business of the states), THAT is where you must get your civil liberties from (such as the right to vote, the right to citizenship, the right to not be a slave, etc). Or rely upon your own state for them.

    You’re cracking me up with this, Tater. This is the very reason why Bob keeps asking Ben for his case for non-natural law and non-majority vote minority rights and poor Ben hasn’t produced it yet. Because he can’t, and Bob knew that he couldn’t, otherwise he wouldn’t have asked.

    You’re welcome to try your hand at it, however. I’ll go make some popcorn.

  • The founders specifically warned against tyranny of the majority. Stop oppressing LGBT+ people and trying to outlaw abortion.

  • That sounds very funnily like a “framers’ intent” argument. Hey Tater….!

    Except that Jefferson was not a framer, and the people never relied on his ideas when ratifying the Bill of Rights. Hence the fatal flaw of the Everson case and everything that is built upon it.

    Whatever the essence of the 1st Amendment is should have been written into the 1st Amendment. Shoehorning it in after the fact without authorization is what has created the 1st Amendment jurisprudence mess that we have now.

  • But have you ever read a book by Blanshard. He was a good friend, a respected journalist, worked by NY Mayor La Guardia, attended much of Vatican II. What have you ever accomplished — other than annoying most people?

  • Says the virgin-birther who hates women, gays, and everyone who disagrees with him.

  • You just hate gay people. I guess your own sex life must be totally vanilla and boring.

  • Have you actually ever read a Supreme Court decision involving church and state relations?

    For those interested in Paul Blanshard:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Blanshard

    There is not much to admire unless you’re an anti-Catholic and card-carrying member of a group like Protestants and Others United for Separation of Church and State.

  • You rely on the bible, the one with words in it that aren’t supported by actual facts.

  • Dishonest, malicious, insane, gish gallop, weasel-wording, goal-post shifting…all shorthand for “I don’t know what you’re talking about but I hate it.”

  • Exactly.

    I’ll let Edd fill you in on his “career”, but all this non-ratified nonsense by this, that, and the other author belongs in a history book, not First Amendment decisions.

  • Hardly. You are the one stumping for changes to the system after 215 years of success. Not I.

    Your views as to how laws are interpreted by the judiciary are neither honest nor supported by facts/history.

    You are trying to treat the interpretation of law like you do Bible scholarship. Selectively ignore parts which are inconvenient to you. Flat out lie about the meaning or intentions of sections. Give self-serving declarations and try to pawn them off as statements which must be taken at face value.

    BTW you are still a liar. You tried to ascribe to “the left” your own position concerning the courts.

    “You are already on the record as repudiating the idea of natural law and rights (upon which the ALL of the framers relied in putting together the constitution, incidentally).”

    Now you are deliberately misconstruing and exaggerating positions. Natural law and natural rights are two very different concepts. One I have addressed with you at length. The other I have not. But I guess making stuff up is far better than owning up to your real motivation here. I see you went with some elaborate nonsense to avoid the meaning of “equal protection under the law”.

    “why Bob keeps asking Ben”

    Bob is also a liar who has no regard for our current form of rule of law and frequently deliberately misquotes SCOTUS decisions. His word on any given subject is so worthless I have him blocked.

  • Get back to me when you are willing to address your obvious lie about what “the left” expects out of the judiciary. You derogatorily ascribed to others, your own position.

    We already know you do not like the system of checks and balances in place, hate civil liberties and do not have any regard for a functional judiciary. But to ascribe those beliefs to others in such a fashion was beneath you.

  • Ah yes, Ben’s thesis on minority rights.

    Of course he can’t produce one, his position is simply unsupportable.

  • BTW you are still a liar. You tried to ascribe to “the left” your own position concerning the courts. — You are a leftist. You are on the record as having no problem with judicial legislation. You hate the lawful processes outlined within our constitution. Fully twenty-five percent of people who voted for Trump did so because of your views and those of your party on judicial legislation. Good job — see if you can keep it up through 2020.

    Natural rights are based in natural law, Einstein. Ben can’t find their source, so you try it. Go! The popcorn is now ready.

    Bob has misquoted exactly nothing. Unlike you, who quite blatantly misquoted the Mastepiece decision and have not corrected it yet. And the reason you blocked Bob is because you got tired of repeatedly having your ass handed to you — the same reason you once blocked me (and feel free to do so again, by all means).

  • Of course it is. And if Ben can’t do it Tater is SOL.

    One does not ask one’s opponent a question without knowing what the answer is going to be — in this case crickets.

  • You are not even trying to deny it at this point anymore. Whatever. Ten posts later to get to the obvious.

    “Leftist” to you means anyone who doesn’t act like the supporting cast of A Handmaids Tale. The religious right has given up any pretension of representing values, morals or even American principles. As usual they are just the back up singers for autocracy.

    Your tirade is noted and disregarded. Judicial legislation is a made up term. One I can neither agree about or disagree about. It is a fiction by those who do not value a strong democratic government representing it’s entirety. Something which has only meant, “decisions I don’t like but have no rational legal argument against”. Not even “constitutional originalists” on any sitting bench do as you claim or ascribe to the ton of contradictory nonsense you throw out there. You made up your own idea of how our government works and expect people to take it seriously. Nope.

    “Natural rights are based in natural law”

    Two different terms with far different meanings. As usual you are trying to stretch a point to ridiculous levels to fit prior lying.

    Bob lies about cases as easily as he breathes. He quote mines and then repeats false assertions even after being caught doing it. His input is worthless. So he gets ignored. You bull crap artists have to stick together I suppose.

  • Admit it, Bob, you have never read a book by Blanshard. And the name POAU was dropped over 60 years ago.

  • You need to read the SCOTUS Reynolds v US of 1879 and also Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. You appear to be as woefully ignorant as Bob and to share his intense dislike for our country’s founders.

  • Feel ever so free to disregard me, especially after you have followed me for several days now with your insubstantial nonsense.

    It is a fiction by those who do not value a strong democratic government representing it’s entirety — For the third time now, Einstein, we do not have a democracy. We have a federal republic. Too bad so sad for you. Either work to change the constitution or move someplace that embraces oligarchy.

    You don’t know what anyone, constitutional originalists or otherwise, ascribe to — although you’ll shortly find out. You’ve never read the constitution, the Federalist Papers, or evidently anything more challenging than a movie review. You are an ignoramus who simply wants what he wants and cries when someone doesn’t produce it for him. End of story.

    “Two different terms with far different meanings.“. So you’ve said, with neither citation or explanation—- because none exists. If Ben (who at least has the good sense to know when to decamp) can’t produce it, you have no hope of doing so. But do try anyway. I dare you. This should be fun.

    Now don’t tell me, let me guess: Why bother?

    Here lies Tater. He couldn’t help it.

    Everybody that doesn’t agree with you is supposedly a liar, which identifies you as the biggest liar in the woodpile and ipso facto your input worthless. Got any more SCOTUS quotes truncated by ellipsis for us?

  • Blanshard, like yourself and other early founders and joiners of the POAU, was a rabid anti-Catholic.

    He at least had an excuse – he wasn’t raised Catholic.

    The “PO” was removed because it made it all-too-clear what the agenda was.

    Why not relate to the folks the nature of your falling out with the church of your youth?

  • Given your light acquaintance with reality, and complete disconnect with the legal system, “Bob lies about cases as easily as he breathes” is high praise indeed.

    You’re not finding that cr-p you’re cutting and pasting from the AFL-CIO and DNC all that helpful anymore, are you?

  • Reynolds is a great example of what I’ve been talking about. Swing one way with Reynolds, swing the opposite way with Sherbert, swing back the other way with Smith, swing back yet again with Hobby Lobby… the SCOTUS doesn’t have a clue what they’re doing on this, and a big part of their confusion stems from the dissonance created by taking an amendment which was meant as a protection for the states from the feds and turning it into a club for the feds to use against the states.

    The Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments was not incorporated into the constitution…and I have it on good authority from our resident legal ignoramus that founders’ intent “doesn’t matter.”

    You guys would be a lot more effective if you could ever get your positions straight.

  • I am not the one who not only described their own view in a negative light but also ascribed it to others. That was all you. Its telling how with all the nonsense you have been throwing up there, you didn’t even try to address that. Oh well. I guess its better to bury a lie than address one.

  • Indeed. Like I often say, if Tater were telling me how great I was THEN I’d be a mite concerned.

    Before I blocked Not-Applicable et al I noticed that Tater frequently upvoted her. Tells you all you need to know about the education and IQ of both, even if it weren’t already obvious.

  • Nobody has to ascribe anything to you. You’ve outed yourself all by yourself. You have no problem with judicial legislation. Save the lame protests that it’s a “made up term.” If you think the judiciary has any business making up constitutional law that isn’t in the constitution, or changing what is there into something the people never agreed upon, then you have repudiated the balance and separation of powers that is the cornerstone of our republic as per Article I Section I of our constitution:

    ALL [emphasis mine] legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

    Anyone who pretends that someone other than our own duly elected representatives should make our laws is unworthy of the name “American.” Too much blood has been spilled over that fundamental principle.

    Know what you didn’t bother to address? The challenge to produce the source of non-natural and non-majority-vote minority rights. How about a triple dog dare? I can’t wait to see this…

  • Jimmie Shortbeard!!!!!! You’re back, puny beard and all! Still haven’t been able to grow that puny scruff or comb it, have you…no surprise there. How did your woolly matrimony with Edward work out?

    Now get back to work on that puny scruff of a beard. You know what to do: CHIN DOWN, BEANS IN.

    The rapture capsule will leave without you if you don’t get that tiny scruff down past your knees. Stop your typing and get chowing down on those BEANS now!!!!

  • RED FLAG –> “…evangelical Christians, mostly men, is hailing President Trump’s nomination…”.

    Evangelical Christians have had a recent track record of supporting horrendous people. Religious fervor turns off their bad-guy radar, apparently. Is it safe to say the United States Executive branch is a theocracy? Especially since Trump’s “best-people” are the “worst-people” that can be imagined for a secular government founded by enlightenment principles.

  • “Nobody has to ascribe anything to you.”

    Because I don’t try to fob off my own position as the beliefs of others. Like you did. I also have been keeping a consistent and rational view here in line with the preservation of our free democratic way of life for all its citizens. You simply look for excuses to treat others badly under color of law.

  • Just to show you how well I comprehend what I read, from “You can’t comprehend what you read Bob.” I comprehended that you can’t comprehend what you read.

  • For the fourth time, Einstein, we don’t have a democracy. We have a constitutional, limited, federal republic — that thing you don’t understand but you know you hate it.

    While you’re trying to preserve something that doesn’t exist, how’s about you also try explaining the mysterious non-natural and non-majority source of minority rights, without which your “rational and consistent” view of what you WISH our government were, but is not, disappears altogether. We’re all waiting…

  • wow! sounds like your, having a personal reality challenge problem. and you, can’t stand that i am not made in your more perfect than thou image. for truly i never, knew you or your lust for edward.

    as you, are a testament that not all rapture is in the up positive mass transit direction. but then truth, logic and reality, are not your mental expertise. when your truth and reality train, has been derailed.

    for your love or hatred of me, is your internalized eternal choice. but if you like your pagan religions, you can keep your pagan religions until oblivion finite s you. immortality is not a shoe-in for those who believe they, are the whole truth.

    for in the very next resurrection of the physically dead, i shall be there again waiting to judge you all for the fourth and quite possibly the last time. for those who, cannot handle the reality of just WHO’S Physical Story of The Creation we are all here in again. in this world running on three-quarters empty. and they, reject the offer of refueling.

    for obviously somebody, made you forget how This Physical Story goes for all Seven Days again. because your g-d/s, are liberal/s that deceives the woman to deceive men. forget about The Story ELOHEEM gives, and believe in the liberal stories of that same old subtle talking devil/s critter/s of the fields again. for you chose the false realities, that are not from YEHOO VHEE or THEIR Son/Daughter… remember, remember, remember-

  • Still won’t address your obvious defamatory lying. You have a nasty habit of making up positions for people and arguing against that. Classic strawman burning. This was no different. Whatever.

    You are stumping for autocracy. Making it a distinction without difference.

    You have been unambiguous about supporting a privilege by government to effectively declare war on its citizens based on their membership in various classes.

    You are the one stumping to change a system which has worked effectively for centuries. Trying to handwave changes over time through fictional assertions grousing and denial.

    You want to pretend 50 years of civil rights decisions should be ignored, why?

    Because you have no faith or trust in a free society and are a genuinely terrible and malicious person.

  • “You have a nasty habit of making up positions for people and arguing against that. Classic strawman burning.” — That describes your above post to a tee. You did not understand one word of anything I have written, because you don’t understand what federalism which underlies all of it, and hence the assortment of strawmen above. You fail.

    And no source for non-natural/non-majority-vote minority rights? Of course not. Because none exists. You fail again.

    Here lies Tater. He couldn’t help it.

  • whose religious liberty are we talking about pagan, occult, cult or true believer?

    do the pagan, occult, cult religions have the right to suppress the religion of true believers? does the federal government, have the right to suppress or establish any religious pagan, occult, cult, or true believer’s church? and use tax money, collected from all religions to suppress, support, or establish any one of them?

    if any religion, rejects your pagan worship of baal hamolech. does the government have the right to establish, or support their religion of abortion on all religions?

    can you even force them to accept, their religious occult gay marriage from hamavreek(lucifer) according to the constitution? when we, are talking about religious beliefs here, that the constitution/s federal and states forbid them to judge, establish, support, or judge.

    and as for kavanaugh, i do not see where he is that strong of any true believer. but does that really matter when all that matters is knowledge adherence, to the constitution. i, see him as no more than a slightly liberal believer. since compared to me you are all liberals following, the subtle talking beast of the fields again. which, has it’s origins with the three angels pouring their sins upon this world again. for which you, were all not prepared.

  • “whose religious liberty are we talking about–pagan, occult, cult or true believer?”

    Under the law, they are all exactly the same. And they deserve the exact same treatment: benign indifference.

  • Poor Shawnie trying to weasel out of her obvious defamatory lying. You tried to pawn off your position as both derogatory and belonging to others. You got caught. The rest of your postings since then has been triggered arglebargle from there to bury the act. How funny.

    Have a nice weekend.

  • Everything pertaining to the constitution is argle bargle to the ignorant who do not understand federalism — because the constitution IS federalism.

    And have a nice weekend yourself, but remember to find time to work on the assignment over the source of non-natural and non-majority-vote minority rights, because I intend to ask for it again… and speedily dismantle what you come up with.

  • well since the pagan, occult, and cult churches can teach their religions in your schools. now you claim they have no rights to also teach their religions in your public schools?

    now i am not exactly thrilled with christianity or judaism, but it sounds a lot imbalanced to me. when all you want taught in your schools, are the pagan, occult, cult, or secular church principals of hasatan, baal hamolech, or hamavreek.

    now what, was it that the lizard in the tree was actually saying to the woman? forget about the teachings from G-D, and listen to my liberal teaching instead. so please do not tell me, that is not actually what you are all doing today. exactly what, the more subtle than any other mr lizard lips has commanded again. that, resulted in the loss of limbs to become the snake.

    are the alleged as jews or christian’s perfect? no! not likely but everything, beyond that sucks even worse and worse. they, are nasty more than enough without getting any nastier. for the way they tell The Her Story, is really quite liberal distant to The Way ELOHEEM is commanding IT. and everything else, is even liberally further and further.

  • You have not been discussing the Constitution.

    Just giving your wild, historically inaccurate, entirely bad faith, views of what you wanted it to be interpreted as. Something entirely different from how it has been done or even likely to be done. Using fictional terms, blanket declarations, false appeals to authority and handwaving inconvenient facts and just silly genetic fallacy (I didn’t like Woodrow Wilson, therefore I deny the existence and effect of what was done during his presidency. If only the Middle East could rely on that argument, sigh.)

    Have a nice weekend defamatory liar.

  • but that is not what, is actually happening today is it? one, should be cautious about stirring up any religious hornets nest.

    if all of the christians, get even half as much organized as the religious secular pagans it could get even more ugly than wwii. then it becomes, a matter of who ELOHEEM or HaMosheeach shall favor.

    for if the christians and jews get organized, it won’t be like wwi or wwii, where christians were suckered into murdering each other and jews too.

    but as for now the whole world, is headed toward bubble bubble no more trouble again. but this is the way The Her Story goes given Moshe. even if all the heretics and pagans in the world, do not believe the same old prophecy happening again.

    since once ELOHEEM takes off for The Day of Rest again, with HaMosheeach in charge. it shall be, too late for any change in The Prophecy. for then it shall, continue to physically happen as it is already written.

  • Uhh, “religious secular pagans “? I think you may be the only one who knows what you’re talking about here.

  • Ben Franklin got it right when he wrote: “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; but when it does not support itself and God does not take care to do so, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” Yes the SCOTUS has wobbled a bit, but from Everson through Lemon and Roe to the end of the 20th century it did fairly well.

  • When I was a guest on a Boston talk show years ago, the host brought up my change in religious affiliation. I replied that a large number of people find it necessary to change affiliations as they grow spiritually. The Catholic monsignor who was the other guest on the show agreed with me.

    When I was on the AU staff for many years my secretary was a Catholic latina and I’m the guy who hired her. The PO was removed because it did not reflect the fact that AU had Jewish, Catholic and other faith members who were not Protestants.

    As for Blanshard, he was a scholar, a civil servant under La Guardia, a lawyer, as state dept big wheel, and a prolific writer. His criticisms of some features of Catholicism were very similar to those expressed by many Catholics. You still have not indicated that you have read a single one of his many books.

  • Well, that deftly avoided telling the story of the switch.

    Sometimes when people have an unpleasant experience, or don’t get what they want when they want it how they want it, they decide to give whatever organization they are in the one finger salute.

    Unfortunately they sometimes go the other way and wind up one issue zealots dedicated to harming their former digs.

    There were a number of folks like Blanshard who were founders and early members of the Protestants and Others United for the Separation of Church and State.

    They were vehement anti-Catholics. The organization remains rife with the same type.

    Those interested in knowing more about Blanshard’s magnum opus would be better off reading this Wikipedia article on it and save both time and money:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Freedom_and_Catholic_Power

    It is in the same vein and scholarship level as the late Jack Chick’s comic books:

    http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/

  • I have a problem with your use of the word “religious”. I do agree that in a secular sense morality is determined by the numbers in support of it.

  • awww, poor little snowflake. It’s not ‘anti-Catholic’ to point out that even today, there is no policy in the Vatican to prevent child sexual abuses. In the parishes, yes. But the home office, pedophile central, NO. Yet we let the Curia and the pope, and the Catholic hierarchy, via Timothy Dolan from NYC, heavily influence our government.

    It’s not anti-catholic to call our the morally bankrupt hierarchy, which is the USA is deeply tied to the GOP and the Evangelical right in imposing a theocracy in the USA. Kavanaugh is of that ilk and Gorsuch, with his natural law nonsense is, as well.

  • I am an interfaith minister now retired. The good Catholics I served know there is no ‘rabid anti-catholicism’. You paranoid fascists are so far out of the mainstream of how Catholicism is lived in the parishes that it’s pathetic. Your extremism excludes you from being able to speak for Catholics.

  • wha-wha-wha.
    Are you saying Catholics are under attack??
    No, it’s humanists, atheists, and agnostics who are under attack and scapegoated by the zealots of our time.
    Your paranoid rants are biased and make you look the fool.

  • I don’t think floydlee has done any pu$$y grabbing. He lives vicariously thinking of Trump and the peepee tapes.

  • Kavanagh has a record of opinions against voting rights, environmental justice, human rights, immigrant rights. He’s a time bomb planted by Trump to erupt over the next 5 decades. There are photos of Kavanaugh with Karl Rove, his mentor during the Bush 43 administration. Hundreds of thousands of emails will be looked at, if democrats in the Senate have their way, which will show he is 1) highly politicized and rightwing, and 2) extremely loyal to the extremist rightwing agenda of Rove and his successors.

  • Marriage is a CIVIL event. You can get married in a high church and blessed by every priest or pastor you can find but the marriage is NOT a legal marriage until it is filed with the town or city clerk where the marriage took place. Religious mumbo-jumbo and all the spectacle and the blessings, etc. etc. do not make one married. It’s the certificate of marriage which the celebrant files at City hall on Monday morning.
    That celebrant is more and more likely to be a humanist celebrant. ‘God’ has no part of it of it. It’s a human event.

  • “Kavanagh has a record of opinions against voting rights, environmental justice, human rights, immigrant rights”

    Aside from his take on gay rights, Kennedy was hot garbage on those same issues as well.

    “if democrats in the Senate have their way, which will show he is 1) highly politicized and rightwing, and 2) extremely loyal to the extremist rightwing agenda of Rove and his successors.”

    I fully agree there.

  • Thank your for portraying a zany band of 1-2% of the population as scapegoats.

    It is everything we expect from you and less.

  • I was under the impression you were a Wiccan.

    Blanshard was a rabid anti-Catholic.

    He was also in favor of eugenics and forced sterilization of those who he believed were “unfit”.

    In short he was your kind of guy.

  • Of course there is a “policy” – it is both in Canon Law and in that denomination’s moral teachings.

    I believe what you’re referring to is that church’s declining to genuflect to some self-appointed anti-religious ninnies at the UN.

    I appreciate your demonstrating the truth of my comments with the paranoid fantasy second paragraph.

  • Lots of people were rabid anti-Catholics, anti-Semites, anti-Islam, anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant. It takes a real bigot like you to pretend that Blanchard has any power to effect change.

  • Blanashard, not Blanchard, sweetie.

    I never suggested he had any real power, although Edd Doerr seems enamored of him.

    So, how are things in the Wiccan World? Bewitching?

  • Jimmie Shortbeard!!!!!! You’re back, puny beard and all! Still haven’t been able to grow that puny scruff or comb it, have you…no surprise there. How did your hairy matrimony with Edward work out?

    Now get back to work on that puny scruff of a beard. You know what to do: CHIN DOWN, BEANS IN.

    The rapture capsule will leave without you if you don’t get that tiny
    scruff down past your knees. Stop your typing and get chowing down on those BEANS now!!!!

  • ELOAHEM AHEM AHEM Jimmie Shortbeard! You never got anywhere close to growing that puny scruff of yours to the required BEARDBUN length. Stop wasting time blabbering. Get those BEANS in and get growing, or you’ll miss the rapture capsule for sure.

  • Shawnie, you always remind me of a rancid, despicable, bigoted old cow -because you are one.

  • Bob, we know what position you take for your hero Carrot Top. Do you wear kneepads for it?

  • Well, Bobose, facts are completely foreign to your own posts, and you wouldn’t know them anyway.

  • ELOAHEM AHEM AHEM AHEM how bout those BEANS, Jimmie Shortbeard!!!!!

    ELO has no command over IT. That’s the sysadmin’s job, dummy. Now get that puny scruff of a beard combed or no rapture capsule admittance for you!!!!!!!

  • Why? Abortion demonizes the innocent unborn in this country. To the tune of almost 70 million already and you now you try to be funny and sneak it under the guise of “women’s health care” thinking people are ignorant! What a JOKE! An unborn baby is NOT a part of a woman’s body, a baby has its OWN body. THEY are the ones who are DEMONIZED! WHEN will you destroyers of unborn human life all get that? DON’T want to be pregnant? There’s birth control on every corner, much of it under five dollars. FREE at every clinic. Exert yourselves and USE it. OH…and life begins at conception. FACT.

  • No citation, Einstein?

    Don’t tell me – it was a PEW survey.

    You’d think after the 2016 election folks would be a bit less gullible about surveys.

  • Christians hate contraception almost as much as they hate women’s health care, by putting the term in quotes. You fail to recognize the prevalence of rape in American society, preferring to demonize rape victims as sluts and whores. Thinking people are sick of your shenanigans.

  • not my problem if you, are a religious illiterate or imbecile. but nice going there verifying you, are at least a pagan.

  • You seem to think that the Supreme Court is there to stop your feelings from getting butthurt.

ADVERTISEMENTs