From their founding by a racist slave owner till the 1970s Democrat politicians viciously attacked Blacks.
Today Democrat politicians only attack "uppity" Blacks who don't follow the Democrat party line. Thats different though since Blacks who don't do what White Democrats tell them to do aren't really Black according to Joe Biden.
But even as they've toned down their attacks on Blacks, while continuing racist policies like ignoring the thousands of Blacks shot each year in Democrat run cities, they've upped their anti-Catholic rhetoric.
When Amy Coney Barrett was up for a job on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals back in 2017 Diane Feinstein said:
“The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”Translation: You can't be a good Catholic and be trusted to have a role in government. As an aside the fact that Feinstein is perfectly comfortable with Joe Biden shows that at least in her mind he's not a good Catholic.
More recently Democrat Senator Hirono said that asking ACB about her faith was fine. Note ACB has said that, unlike RBG, she would never let her personal beliefs impact her decisions. So either Hirono is saying that ACB can't be trusted as a Catholic or that Catholics are unfit for government even if their beliefs don't impact their work.
The ugly bigotry of Democrats was even more blatant when NYT writer Elizabeth Bruenig wrote:
It's unclear what part of the American ethos is in conflict with Church teachings for centuries. It can't be abortion since that's only been legal since 1972. Perhaps she's invoking the old canard that Catholics aren't loyal Americans?
It's clear that for Democrats Catholic is the new Black. Where as they used to both oppress and verbally condemn Blacks but now only oppress them Democrats today hurl the same type of bigoted hateful lies at Catholics that they used to hurl at Blacks.
Unless of course the Catholic makes it clear that they take their marching orders on morality from the DNC not the Catholic Church. That's why Democrats are all enthused about Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi; they both love God so long as He minds His place.
Posts
14 comments:
yes, Catholics are the new Blacks. Catholics are treated just like Black people during segregation. If you ignore the Catholic presidential candidate, the Catholic SCOTUS nominee, Catholic speaker of the house, Catholics being heavily over-represented in congress, etc etc etc.
> “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
Right, because when ruling on cases she needs to tune out the dogma entirely.
Your claim is farcical. People don't have a problem with Barrett because she is Catholic. They have a problem with her positions. And her claims of separating her religious beliefs from her rulings are laughable. If she derives her "morality" from the church then her decisions will be influenced by the Church (and her particular interpretation of the Church's teachings).
The real persecuted groups today are the Muslims and atheists who are vastly underrepresented in public office and are widely maligned. Only 5% of Americans would refuse to vote for any Catholic president but that jumps to 40 and 43 percent for Muslims and athiests.
This comparison is offensive.
What's odd is that I said that Catholics are verbally attacked like Blacks used to be. I never said that Catholics faced the same discriminatory policies that Democrats used against Blacks.
RBG didn't tune out her dogma. In fact it motivated many of her decisions. But that didn't bother you. I know it's hard for you to empathize with an honest person like ACB but we don't actually break the law in order to impose our beliefs on others.
And of course since they attack her beliefs without being able to point to a single case where ACB did in fact rule based on her faith not on the law it is the fact that she's really Catholic that bothers them.
Oh dear you're offended. I'm shocked. Really.
You basically say that we can't trust a Catholic to not base rulings on their faith while applauding activist judges for basing rulings on what they'd like the law to say and you're offended that I point that out.
Amazing.
> I never said that Catholics faced the same discriminatory policies that Democrats used against Blacks.
Except in the title? You could've written this post without trying to connect your perceived slights against Catholics with the very real plight of Blacks. Apparently you are incapable of any level of moderation. If something bad is happening to Catholics it must be just like what happened to Blacks. Except it's nothing like that.
> You basically say that we can't trust a Catholic to not base rulings on their faith
I certainly don't trust ACB. I trust some Catholics. Expecting ACB to rule on abortion without letting the Catholic teachings enter her thoughts is unreasonable and ACB even agreed at one point when she suggested Catholics recuse themselves on death penalty cases.
>applauding activist judges for basing rulings on what they'd like the law to say and you're offended that I point that out.
That is not what I said was offensive. I said your comparison of Catholics plight today to Blacks in the 60s is offensive because it's nowhere near similar. How you got this wrong confuses me.
> RBG didn't tune out her dogma. In fact it motivated many of her decisions.
I'd be interested in hearing an example where her religion influenced her decision. Obviously I would object to that similarly.
Shocker; titles don't have the same information content as the full article.
I suppose I could have titled it Catholic is the new Black vis a vis democrats vitriolic comments but I suspect that would be too 18th century.
Given that both the article and my response to you delineated what was intended the fact that you still harp on it is a sure sign you can't actually deal with the main point.
Why don't you trust ACB? Can you point to even one ruling where she put her personal beliefs ahead of what the law says? No I didn't think so. So you don't trust her because she's a sincere Catholic so thank you for proving my point. :)
I'm sorry but it appears you're saying that it's ok if RGB's personal beliefs influenced her decisions so long as those personal beliefs weren't based on her religion. Is that what you're saying? If so it proves my point again!
Apparently you think that her replacing the law with her personal beliefs is ok so long as her personal beliefs aren't based on her Judaism and they agree with your personal beliefs.
Amazing.
Every time you post you end up providing support for my points. It's great.
It's like having a personal troll; but a friendly one. :)
> Shocker; titles don't have the same information content as the full article.
Yeah the body of the article also suggests Catholics today are getting similar treatment to Blacks of the past. Also, none of the criticism of ACB is really catholic specific. A radical protestant would have equal problems. But I imagine even you would think saying "christians today are persecuted like Blacks were in the 1960s" would sound a bit rich.
> Why don't you trust ACB? Can you point to even one ruling where she put her personal beliefs ahead of what the law says?
She knows very well she cannot explicitly cite her faith in decisions but that does not mean it does not influence her judgement. Looking at her record seems awfully convenient for a conservative Catholic.
And again I point out that ACB herself noted that
>> litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense
Sounds to me like she is agreeing with my position.
> It's like having a personal troll; but a friendly one. :)
Could you not find an example of RBG using her religion in her decisions? I mean honestly I wouldn't be that surprised if it happened. But you said it had happened so I'd like to see it. Or do you just make things up?
Did you read the post? Because it says the following: "Today Democrat politicians only attack "uppity" Blacks who don't follow the Democrat party line. Thats different though since Blacks who don't do what White Democrats tell them to do aren't really Black according to Joe Biden.
But even as they've toned down their attacks on Blacks, while continuing racist policies like ignoring the thousands of Blacks shot each year in Democrat run cities, they've upped their anti-Catholic rhetoric."
It clearly delineates between attacks and policies so no the article if actually read doesn't suggest that Catholics today get the same full spectrum of hate that Democrats had for Blacks in the past.
Once again you can't cite any ruling where there is any evidence of her bias being a factor. You just assume she can't be trusted because she's Catholic.
Context for your quote from her? Because she's said that if there was an issue where her faith would force her to be biased she'd recuse herself.
The point isn't that RBG used her religion but whether or not she injected her personal beliefs.
That you still can't see how your comments clearly show you're an anti-religious bigot--it's ok for secular biases to be used in decisions but not religious biases-- is truly amazing.
Well let's look her ruling that gender is sex is clearly not based on the law since Democrats tried to change the wording congress 10 times and failed so they understood that the intent of the people who passed the law wasn't that sex and gender are identical.
Oh and then when she voted to redefine marriage even though the Constitution says that the Federal government has no authority to make any rules about marriage.
But it doesn't matter since the point is that you think that activist judges are ok so long as they're not motivated by religion which shows just what sort of person you are.
> That you still can't see how your comments clearly show you're an anti-religious bigot--it's ok for secular biases to be used in decisions but not religious biases-- is truly amazing.
This is a secular country. If you don't like that you can leave.
I'm sorry but being a secular country doesn't mean that people have to leave their religious beliefs at home.
The Constitution, you should read it some time, says that we have the right to exercise, that is live, our religious beliefs.
Once again you prove my point. To you it's wrong for people of faith to push their beliefs but it's fine for atheists to push theirs.
Have you ever considered that if atheists are right and Jesus is just a man then he's no less of a man than say any man whose ideology leftists like yourself push?
> I'm sorry but being a secular country doesn't mean that people have to leave their religious beliefs at home.
It means religion should be disconnected from the governance of the country. The right is always complaining about "sharia" law but when christian principles are employed apparently there is no issue.
> To you it's wrong for people of faith to push their beliefs but it's fine for atheists to push theirs.
Anyone may push their secular beliefs.
> Have you ever considered that if atheists are right and Jesus is just a man then he's no less of a man than say any man whose ideology leftists like yourself push?
Did jesus say anything about abortion? And if he is just a man then much of the new testament is wrong so basing things off it is surely unwise.
So what you're saying is that if I oppose abortion because of my faith I should shut up but because you support abortion due to your belief it's ok to kill some innocent human beings you can speak out?
I note you ignored my point that if Jesus is a man then everything Christians believe is by definition secular.
> So what you're saying is that if I oppose abortion because of my faith I should shut up
If your support of some law is entirely backed by your faith then yes you should shut up about it. The law does not exist to enforce your religious beliefs.
> I note you ignored my point that if Jesus is a man then everything Christians believe is by definition secular.
What? One thing Christians believe is that he is not just a man. Are you claiming the belief that Jesus is god (or whatever the phrasing) is a secular belief? This is nonsensical.
You seem to be saying that people of faith are second class citizens.
Your morality comes from you and you say that therefore you can express it in the public setting but since my morality comes form my religion I have to shut up.
My logic is as follows vis a vis Jesus.
I believe He is God.
But if I'm wrong he's still a man just like say Nietzsche
According to you for someone to use moral beliefs based on Nietzsche in the public square
If I'm right and Jesus is God then clearly His views on morality are infinitely better than those of any person
If I'm wrong and Jesus is just a man then his views are just as valuable as Nietzsche's
In both cases I should have the right to express my views if you have the right to express yours
Now I do agree that the law shouldn't be used to impose religious disciplines, like having to go the Mass on Sunday, but you're going against the Constitution that people of faith can't use their faith based morals to try and structure the law.
> You seem to be saying that people of faith are second class citizens.
No, you have exactly the same rights anyone else does.
> If I'm wrong and Jesus is just a man then his views are just as valuable as Nietzsche's
Only if his arguments remain valid without the authority of him being god. Then yes you are correct. Unfortunately jesus didn't often really provide arguments for his teachings. I mean why bother when you are also claiming to be god? Much more problematic are the inherited laws of the old testament which provide almost no justifications.
So you cannot cite the bible (for example) to defend one-man one-woman marriage. You cannot use the description in the bible of the end times to influence foreign policy. Just the same way Muslims cannot use Muhammad's words to ban the collection of interest on loans.
Laws must be based on secular philosophy argued from first principles or else we will just end up with warring religious philosophies.
You apparently don't know what equal means. If I can't try to incorporate my morality into the law because it's based on religion but you can try to incorporate your moral beliefs into the law because they're based on your personal opinion then we're not equal.
You seem to be missing the point. The point is that if Jesus is just a man then what He says is moral has the same authority as which ever human authority, including yourself, that you invoke.
Why can't I cite the Bible if Jesus is human for moral teachings if you can cite books written by people?
The only OT laws that still bind are the natural law, essentially the Ten Commandments. So you're saying that the command to not murder has almost no justification?
Why must laws be based on secular philosophy? I know that's what you'd like but if you're claiming that secular people don't disagree about what the law should be then you're clearly wrong. Remember Nazism and Communism are both secular philosophies.
Post a Comment