Feinstein's anti-Catholic remarks and line of questioning, as well as Sen. Dick Durbin, who asked during the same confirmation hearing if Barrett was an ‘orthodox Catholic.'

libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...cgi?ArtNum=52690&Disp=All

---

Religious Test for Office So much for Article VI of the U.S. Constitution

There's a difference between a religious test for office, and concerns that she'll consult the Vatican prior to rendering decisions.

Durbin came closest to asking the relevant question, will she be calling Pope Francis often while deliberating cases?

President Trump and the GOP elite leadership are afraid to question the judicial rulings of Francis. Thank God, Dianne Feinstein has to balls to do so!

Feinstein would love for Catholics to get Frank's approval as he is of the same cloth.

Also redleghunter is an outstanding human being. You not so much. You just whine a lot and offer nothing of value to this chit chat channel.

tyrannical religious freak such as "redleghunter"

Interesting.

From this day forward you are required to call me "Tyranus."

From this day forward you are required to call me "Tyranus."

What the HELL are you going to do if I don't comply? Manifest more tyranny to save your belief system?

Answer this post, "Tyranus."

These mutant anarchists and fascists now obviously and arrogantly feel they control the narrative and public opinion and discourse to the degree that their PR and MSM muscle will win the day.

Ironic that these lying fascists feel entitled to exercise their tyranny and bigotry AS the Constitutional Rights of Christians are clearly abused. TYRANTS accusing others of "tyranny." Hitler pulled this crap. Pure projection and lies -- the usual Game Plan from the usual insane, evil suspects.

What's *your* dogma," Bucky? I mean besides your "Ain't No God!" shtick? supporting the principles and ethics of Baal?

You're running out of time to straighten out your spiritual confusion. Some of us have tried to help you and a few others here -- you all have the same 'tude. Is your anger, vanity, bitterness at God, and refusal to understand and embrace the Gospel worth the gamble? You'll only be foolishly spiting yourself.

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." ~ 1 Corinthians 2:9

When the Almighty peers down at your name and shakes His head, the sentence won't be "Eternal Life". It'll be your worse nightmare for all Eternity. Think about *that*.

From this day forward you are required to call me "Tyranus."

Lol...

Feinstein would love for Catholics to get Frank's approval as he is of the same cloth.

Cloth....that reeks of sulfur and rotting flesh. This fake Pope NEVER promotes the Gospel. Yet...no one seems to care that the "Vicar of Christ" is anything but.

I find it amazing the the vast number of RCCs haven't revolted. But then most of them are RCINO.

The Vatican has run the biggest shell game in history. The day the so-called revered Pope Paul kissed the Koran -- a Satanic Book of Death -- was THE day you knew the entire RCC was a deceptive, anti-Christ charade and cult.

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?

Ironic that these lying fascists feel entitled to exercise their tyranny and bigotry AS the Constitutional Rights of Christians are clearly abused. TYRANTS accusing others of "tyranny." Hitler pulled this crap. Pure projection and lies -- the usual Game Plan from the usual insane, evil suspects.

And the committee chairmen let the Dims get away with it too.

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.

And the committee chairmen let the Dims get away with it too.

Outlaw Comittees. Outlaw gubmint.

At what point are outlaw Reps arrested?

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.

The day the so-called revered Pope Paul kissed the Koran...

You mean this event? As best I recall, it was May 14, 1999 when Pope John-Paul II smooched that Koran.

From this day forward you are required to call me "Tyranus."

I'm a little confused.

Do you mean Tyranus as in Count Dooku (Darth Tyranus) from Star Wars?

Or Tyrannus from the Book of Acts?

You mean this event? As best I recall, it was May 14, 1999 when Pope John-Paul II smooched that Koran.

Uh, yeah. Dat wuz it.

Should have been world-wide outrage from Christians. AS WELL AS PAGANS! That book as you well know is an instruction manual on MURDER.

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

Yes. Simply because the Secular Humanist MAKE THE RULES. They have shrewdly established a technicality that has advanced their subversive agenda.

Truth in advertising: Secular Humanism is INDEED a "religion" by any definition or metric. They merely believe Man = God.

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.

Oh, I believe most indeed "know" the difference; It just a matter of feigning ignorance and semantic contortionism that allows their secular humanist cult to displace legit faiths/religions (AS defined and intended by the Founders.)

Yes -- then there are the ignorant and willful useful idiots who DO believe such a statement exists in our Constitution. (Thank the Left's Secularists of so-called "Academia" for that monumental lie which found universal traction in our subverted culture.)

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?

What can we say further to each other? You clearly operate from the material world in which we both live. The world we see is a lie. We either love the lie and willfully live by that lie; or we reject the lie for the Truth of the world we cannot see which is in Christ Jesus and His Promise. A Promise most sure which Christ demonstrated in His life, death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven to be seated at the Right Hand of Power.

It comes down to these two ‘worlds.’ The one we currently live in which is a lie. It is a world of bloodshed, corruption, greed, lust, cold-heartedness, and covetousness. Best summed up by the apostle Paul:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

We have to ask the question. Where do we put our hope? In the world of sin and hate, or is our hope in Christ and His Promise?

Instead of giving you an interweb sermon I prayed for you this morning because I used to love the lie of this world. It is a prison cell. The lie of the fallen world is self-perpetuating. It is a world of death. Yet so many love it and live by it.

However, there is Hope. And this will be my prayer for you Bucky….to have the heart to accept the Truth which is Christ Jesus.

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.

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.

I think we discussed criminal statutes before.

I brought up the fact some states have fetal homicide laws for a fetus which can also be selectively aborted.

For example, a woman on her way to have an abortion is shot in the abdomen while at an ATM getting money for an abortion. She survives but the human fetus dies. In some states the shooter can be charged under fetal homicide laws even if the woman wanted to kill the child herself.

I would consider such both a legal and moral inconsistency.

A pro-Fascist, pro-Tyranny Atheist claims the High Ground!!

Naw. I just call the shots based on my perspective which is not influenced by religious zealotry, such as your Tammy Fayes, et.al.

I have never claimed to be an atheist; moreover, how anyone can take away from my brief posts such a concept is puzzling. I believe you are caught up in semantics because of your own zealotry, that is to say, any deviation or variation from your personal belief system leads to charges such as your silly post cited just above.

Bucky, the “Tyranus” deal was a joke.

No it wasn't as it was a classical Freudian slip, Tyranus. In other words, you blew it, Tyranus and you did so in publick among your peers; this is why you are backtracking on your earlier post, calling your rampage a mere "joke."

What can we say further to each other?

Not much but I want to point out, your communication skills literally "suck." Your formal education must have been horribly supported to you by your parents.

You clearly operate from the material world in which we both live. The world we see is a lie. We either love the lie and willfully live by that lie; or we reject the lie for the Truth of the world we cannot see which is in Christ Jesus and His Promise. A Promise most sure which Christ demonstrated in His life, death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven to be seated at the Right Hand of Power.

You deny reality, Tyranus. You live here, just as I do; in time, energy, space and matter, as it abounds for all living creatures; yet, you suggest some sort of game as, "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD" because you believe in some mystical property designed especially for you. Let me explain beliefs in a few brief words ... you are operating without fact based evidence to support your decisions and as a result, you will fail despite your conviction. You are akin to a sleepy little child waking up from sleep, rubbing his eyes with nothing more than hope of and about the tooth faerie.

It comes down to these two ‘worlds.’ The one we currently live in which is a lie. It is a world of bloodshed, corruption, greed, lust, cold-heartedness, and covetousness. Best summed up by the apostle Paul:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

You don't, "get it." There are not "two worlds." There is an infinity of worlds in reality. Reality is not based on "two worlds" or even three, four or five. The world around us is complex and cannot be simplified to your silly misunderstanding of a "two worlds" concept, Tyranus.

We have to ask the question. Where do we put our hope? In the world of sin and hate, or is our hope in Christ and His Promise?

I don't have to ask that question nor do I have a need to ask the question; nor is there a need for an answer. You are an absolute idiot, Tyranus.

Instead of giving you an interweb sermon I prayed for you this morning because I used to love the lie of this world. It is a prison cell. The lie of the fallen world is self-perpetuating. It is a world of death. Yet so many love it and live by it.

How precious!

However, there is Hope. And this will be my prayer for you Bucky….to have the heart to accept the Truth which is Christ Jesus.

Astounding! Yet, your tyme is spent on worthless pursuits. You must have fact based evidence to support or otherwise substantiate your thoughts, ideas, motivations and ACTIONS.

1) Redleghunter quotes the definition of "dogma" from Merriam Webster...then buttresses the case for the the reader that the Founders held that, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.” This exposed the State of California as hypocrites and anti-Constitutionalist.

2) Buckeroo partial retort: "A tyrannical religious freak such as 'redleghunter' discussing "dogma."

3) Liberator: "A pro-Fascist, pro-Tyranny Atheist ['Bucky'] claims the High Ground!!"

4) Buckey: "I just call the shots based on my perspective which is not influenced by religious zealotry, such as your Tammy Fayes, et.al.:

Bucky, first you deny your cheap shots and name-calling, then claim you're some kind of Yoda: "I just call the shots based on my perspective which is not influenced by religious zealotry, such as your Tammy Fayes, et.al...

CHALLENGE: Then back up you YOUR OWN claims. IF YOU CAN.

Exactly what "semantics" would YOU use to describe or define Red's "religious zealotry"? (OR the term, "religious zealotry" for us in YOUR words?)

Moreover, What does Tammy Faye Baker have to do with Redleghunter's faith?

Bucky: "I believe you are caught up in semantics because of your own zealotry, that is to say, any deviation or variation from your personal belief system leads to charges such as your silly post cited just above.

Go ahead and tell us, Oh great Yoda -- DEFINE "religious zealotry"; And exactly WHICH specific religion "zealotry" do you regard as "silly"? As well as how it "deviates from Red's personal belief system"? (Do you *know* what Red's "belief system" is??)

Take ALL the time you need in answering the bell. Thanks.

Let me explain beliefs in a few brief words ...

...you are operating without fact based evidence to support your decisions and as a result, you will fail despite your conviction. You are akin to a sleepy little child waking up from sleep, rubbing his eyes with nothing more than hope of and about the tooth faerie.

Tell us Bucky: WHAT ARE THE "Facts"?? (according to you?)

Which "evidence" of Red's faith must he dismiss in your opinion as "insufficiently proven"?

"NOR [is] there a need for an answer."

An answer which children often give to avoid admitting the truth.

You must have fact based evidence to support or otherwise substantiate your thoughts, ideas, motivations and ACTIONS.

Red has repeatedly over the years presented and substantiated "thoughts, ideas, motivations and ACTIONS"; And also the consequence for ignoring the obvious. It's your own free will that allows you to accept or deny or dismiss the obvious.

Baseline FACT #1: YOU WERE CREATED. Baseline FACT #2: ALL CREATION HAS A MAKER. Baseline FACT #3: ALL CREATION HAS FUNCTION, PURPOSE AND REASON.

NONE of these three obvious baselines can be denied if one is intellectual honest.

Subsequent factual Baselines are the realm of those who seek the truth and way.

I have never claimed to be an atheist; moreover, how anyone can take away from my brief posts such a concept is puzzling.

You waddle. You sport an orange beak. You quack. Yet you expect us who read your posts to believe otherwise?

Ergo -- are you lying to US? (You refer to Christian beliefs as ("faerie tales"); OR, are you lying to yourself?

OR...Are you indeed admitting and testifying here and now that you believe The Almighty? Or some other Deity? State your specific faith.

Moreover, What does Tammy Faye Baker have to do with Redleghunter's faith?

Beats me. Perhaps she is a goddess that is revered by Tyranus? Are you Tyranus' spokesperson? Seems to me, Tyranus hit the road and won't make another comment on this thread.