Of course it was, just as Feinstein’s crack was, just as Harris’ crack was, just as Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s were. Progressives can’t stand Catholicism because it is a religion that claims authority to teach what’s right and wrong. Progressives want to invent their own right and wrong, and it’s opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church in very important ways.yeah, it was about religion
what he supports tell us what he is, not labelsAnd isn’t Durbin a Catholic?
I saw this and immediately thought . . . “Yep. The progressives can’t stand that because it clashes with their own religion.”Progressives can’t stand Catholicism because it is a religion that claims authority to teach what’s right and wrong.
Nice summary post on the progressives Ridgerunner.Progressives want to invent their own right and wrong, and it’s opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church in very important ways.
You are predicting the future again. Neither questioning her qualifications nor examining her associations is a smear, by the way.is the smear campaign that Amy Coney Barrett is going to be put through
May we stick to the subject? I’m not very familiar with the group.Wow. You do know that even the Church Herself has been “criticized by former members for being a cult”?
questioning her religion is not proper as Durbin admitsNeither questioning her qualifications nor examining her associations is a smear, by the way.
Well, it was not done when she became a judge. I don’t think her religion will be questioned now, either.questioning her religion is not proper as Durbin admits
Nepperhan’s response?is the smear campaign that Amy Coney Barrett is going to be put through
There will be much more than questioning her qualifications Nepperhan.You are predicting the future again. Neither questioning her qualifications nor examining her associations is a smear, by the way.
This depends. Is it relevant to her legal performance?. . . nor examining her associations . . .
Bold mine.Maher said. "Religion – I was right about that one too. I’m sorry, but Amy [Coney] Barrett, Catholic – really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic . . .
The issue of Barrett’s Catholicism predates her nomination to the Supreme Court.
During her appeals court confirmation hearing in 2017, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told the prospective judge that “when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.
“And that’s of concern,” Feinstein added, “when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.”
I see this heading in a very dangerous direction.I would expect nothing less from the party of death, anti-Catholic/anti-Christian bigots, and communist authoritarians. Make no mistake, Democrats do not want Catholics in this world and if you do not conform to their ideology they will try to eliminate you in whatever way they can.
It was done during her senate hearing. So yeah, he / they will do it againWell, it was not done when she became a judge. I don’t think her religion will be questioned now, either.
My guess is the Dems won’t resort to outright anti-Catholicism in her hearings. There are too many Catholic voters who have not yet learned the Dem party is the enemy of their religion. What they will attack is her association with the charismatic movement.It was done during her senate hearing. So yeah, he / they will do it again
Depends on your scale of reference.Most democrats are quite moderate.
I was surprised years ago when my sister, who is a clinical psychologist, explained this to me. At the time she said she had to teach clients by rote to accept certain things and ignore others, both of which seemed equally real. That was before the meds used for it now.The other day, I woke up and was scared I was not a human in an actual life, but a character in a giant video game. I had to go ask my loving support people if this was true, or my illness. They said it was my illness and I was able to incorporate that helpful data and I calmed down. They help me a lot. So grateful.
How do you know this? You are in effect smearing the senators who will question her.There will be much more than questioning her qualifications Nepperhan.
Research ‘the appearance of impropriety’ as it applies to jurists.This depends. Is it relevant to her legal performance?
The real “association” the left is concerned about or at least the main association, is of course the Catholic Church.
Now, there’s an idea!Why not just use actual facts based in reality?
why is giving an opinion smearing anyone? it is a good prediction of what they will do based on what they have done. it isn’t telling the future, it is reading the past.? You are in effect smearing the senators who will question her.
Its not exactly giving someone the benefit of a doubt but slamming their professionalism before he or she does a thing. That’s a smear.why is giving an opinion smearing anyone?
The odd thing is that no one, including Trump has come up with an anti-Catholic smear. That stuff about Durbin asking Bennett if she was an ‘orthodox Catholic’? He was quoting her writing!it is a good prediction of what they will do based on what they have done. it isn’t telling the future, it is reading the past.