[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"How Europe Fell Behind"

"The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight"

Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick

Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat?

A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land?

US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking

DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: This Dogma Won't Hunt
Source: Christianity Today Magazine
URL Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ed ... ban-sanders-and-new-relig.html
Published: Sep 10, 2017
Author: Ed Stetzer
Post Date: 2017-09-10 15:04:59 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Bible Study Ping*     Subscribe to *Bible Study Ping*
Keywords: None
Views: 6709
Comments: 36

This Dogma Won't Hunt: Feinstein, Durbin, Sanders, and the New Religious Test for Office So much for Article VI of the U.S. Constitution | ED STETZER

Excerpt :

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is the most recent, joined by Dick Durbin, and preceded (most famously) by Bernie Sanders. In all cases, their comments are catching notice on the right and left, and appropriately so. Furthermore, the frequency with which we are seeing it occur is beginning to cause concern for those who hold to religious beliefs today.

Feinstein admonished Amy Barrett, a Trump nominee for a judgeship on the 7th Circuit, saying that Barrett’s Roman Catholic “dogma lives loudly” within her. Lest her words be out of context, here is the context of her statement:

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that— you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

Dogma is defined by Merriam Webster as, “a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.” In other words, these are things that people of faith have settled upon in terms of doctrines or beliefs.

This, perhaps, might remind us that dogma lived loudly in many of the nations founders. And it might also remind us of Article VI of the United States Constitution that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.”

More:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ed...t-feinstein-durban-sanders-and-new- relig.html

Click for Full Text!Subscribe to *Bible Study Ping*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

#12. To: redleghunter (#0)

Feinstein admonished Amy Barrett, a Trump nominee for a judgeship on the 7th Circuit, saying that Barrett’s Roman Catholic “dogma lives loudly” within her.

I wonder (not really) if Feinstein approves of whatever lives loudly within, and comes out in opinions of, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-14   4:03:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: nolu chan (#12)

I wonder (not really) if Feinstein approves of whatever lives loudly within, and comes out in opinions of, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan?

That's a good point. However, the counter argument will always be that political ideology is not a 'religion' and is accepted in secular society.

Our elected and appointed officials have a very infantile understanding of what Jefferson meant by 'separation of church and state." We have some who actually believe such a statement exists in our Constitution.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-09-14   14:03:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: redleghunter (#14)

However, the counter argument will always be that political ideology is not a 'religion' and is accepted in secular society.

One's religious belief should not be dispositive. The Judge should answer the question of what the Government has been delegated power to do lawfully, or what it cannot do. For example, deciding whether the power to decide the issue of abortion has been delegated to the Federal government is a legal question. It is not a moral question of whether abortion should be legal or criminal, but a question of who has the power to decide the issue, the States or the Federal government.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-14   18:30:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#16)

It is not a moral question of whether abortion should be legal or criminal, but a question of who has the power to decide the issue, the States or the Federal government

The entire issue has been mucked up by design.

Q: Why isn't the act of abortion BOTH a moral AND legal question??

Square ONE: The REAL question is with respect to defining when "LIFE" begins. IF it begins (at which most sane people believe -- when the heart beats), then "abortion" thereafter is clearly MURDER.

Who shall be the arbiter for this issue? Science? Common Sense? A single Judge? Nine SCOTUS Judges? Or We The People?

Ergo, with respect to "authority," does the State OR fedgoob have the moral or legal right to sentence a fetus to death?

Liberator  posted on  2017-09-15   14:59:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#24)

It is not a moral question of whether abortion should be legal or criminal, but a question of who has the power to decide the issue, the States or the Federal government.

Q: Why isn't the act of abortion BOTH a moral AND legal question??

It is both depending on context, but in a court it is not a moral question. We have courts of law, not courts of morality.

When taken to Federal court, the first question to address is whether the Federal government possesses the power, delegated from the people, to decide the matter, or whether said power has not been given and is reserved to the states, or to the people.

If the Federal court lacks jurisdiction to decide an issue, the case muswt be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Square ONE: The REAL question is with respect to defining when "LIFE" begins. IF it begins (at which most sane people believe -- when the heart beats), then "abortion" thereafter is clearly MURDER.

If the government has not determined that some act satisfies all the elements of what it defines as the crime of murder, it ain't murder.

If left to the States to decide, it could, and likely would, be murder in some states and perfectly legal in others.

When the Federal government is elevated to impose someone's morality on everybody, you may not always be satisfied with the version of morality they choose to impose. If SCOTUS decides on constitutional grounds, then the only available legal pathways to change are (1) an amendment to the Constitution, or (2) another SCOTUS opinion overturning the previous one.

In deciding whether abortion is legal or criminal, the court should look to the law. If the law says abortion is legal, the court has no authority to say it is a crime. The court may strike down a law as unconstitutional, but it has no legislative power to enact a criminal statute.

Who shall be the arbiter for this issue? Science? Common Sense? A single Judge? Nine SCOTUS Judges? Or We The People?

The Courts are delegated the authority to be the arbiter of legal issues.

Individuals do not get to impose their morality on others.

If you feel is wrong under any circumstances, you are free to choose not to get an abortion. You are not free to prevent someone else from getting a lawful abortion. You are free to work to get the laws changed.

The people of the United States do not decide to do anything in a collective, consolidated sense. The members of the union are the States, not the people. In a presidential election, the popular vote does not elect the President.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-16   1:20:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: nolu chan (#26)

We are ruled by what has become an amoral system. No one person can change it. Since it was corrupted the system will just get worse and worse.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-16   1:41:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 28.

        There are no replies to Comment # 28.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com