I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State
- Thomas Jefferson
Seems the Founding Fathers wouldn't approve of picking Supreme Court nominations based on their religious beliefs.
Looks like I'm having to give free lessons on the US Constitution again. Must be embarrassing.
One racist leftist is saying she adopted black kids to shield herself from accusations of racism.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/ibram-kendi-attacks-amy-coney-barrett-children
Lol these people are deranged
Originally posted by BackFire
Pretty much.Sure would like an atheist on the Supreme Court. Tired of stupid dogmas getting their fingers everywhere.
Then you want the majority underrepresented. The vast, vast, majority believe in some form of religion.
The Washington Post tries to underplay 40 percent of white Christians as a "minority", but compared to the number of atheists in total that's actually a tremendous number. Not to mention it's hypocritical of the post to dismiss 40 percent of the population, while championing a mere 1 percent to 12 percent of minority representation as something of concern to the entire country.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
- Thomas JeffersonSeems the Founding Fathers wouldn't approve of picking Supreme Court nominations based on their religious beliefs.
Looks like I'm having to give free lessons on the US Constitution again. Must be embarrassing.
No one picks them because of their religion. She was picked I assume because she is a constitutional conservative like Scalia was.
The fact she also happens to be catholic has nothing to do with it. So, no, you are not educating any of us on the Constitution so you can kindly get over yourself, jaden.
One other thing: nearly every single one of our founders (including Jefferson) were deeply religious people. That was actually a very good thing.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No one picks them because of their religion. She was picked I assume because she is a constitutional conservative like Scalia was.The fact she also happens to be catholic has nothing to do with it. So, no, you are not educating any of us on the Constitution so you can kindly get over yourself, jaden.
One other thing: nearly every single one of our founders (including Jefferson) were deeply religious people. That was actually a very good thing.
If she interprets law based on her Catholicism then that goes against separation of church and state.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
If she interprets law based on her Catholicism then that goes against separation of church and state.
Although the primary requirement that a republican president has for nominating someone to the SC is for the chosen person to be a Conservative, it is a nice bonus when that person also has Christian religious beliefs which is usually the case as it is here.
Of course, I would've preferred an actual fundamentalist Christian, Baptist, protestant, or evangelical over a Roman Catholic but it's still better than getting an atheist or a Muslim.
The fact is the majority of the country prefers for their leaders to have Christian beliefs. It is what it is whether you like it or not.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
This is too complex for them, mark my words.
Do you really think an orthodox jew or Muslim will completely ignore their beliefs?
Is it even reasonable to expect this?
Separation of church and state only means no state condoned churches. It does not mean an individual must throw aside their religious beliefs when acting on behalf of the state, any more then it means they must set aside all personal bias.
This is both unreasonable and impossible to expect.