Amy Coney Barrett has seven children and believes in God-Alarm! Alarm! Alarm!

[Mac1958]

I would have precisely the same concern for anyone.

Why the "oops"?

But somehow, for a strange and unknowable reason...this "concern" only very suddenly manifests when it's a conservative...funny that.

Conservatives are much more likely to leverage their religion as a weapon, like Jihadis.

I don't require your agreement on that, nor would I expect it.

Lefties have replaced religion with things like AGW activism and Identity politics.

Example 1: Bake this cake or else!

Yes. And Cancel Culture.

The ends of our political spectrum are killing us with their jihads.

How is this Catholic group a "jihad"

So far the worst that can be said against them is the pick men as the spiritual leaders of the family.

They're engaged in a righteous struggle. They are convinced their god is on their side. They are convinced that their faith justifies their actions.

And?

Sorry, but for true "Jihad" as we use the term you have to cross over into violence and force.

Watering down Jihad just to use the word because it sounds dangerous is intellectually dishonest.

Jihad, (Arabic: “struggle” or “effort”)also spelled jehad, in Islam, a meritorious struggle or effort. The exact meaning of the term jihād depends on context; it has often been erroneously translated in the West as “holy war.” Jihad, particularly in the religious and ethical realm, primarily refers to the human struggle to promote what is right and to prevent what is wrong.

Jihad | Meaning, Examples, & Use in the Quran

Jihad, in Islam, a meritorious struggle or effort. Although in the West it is sometimes erroneously translated as ‘holy war’ and understood as referring exclusively to military combat, Islamic texts yield a broader array of meanings connected to moral and ethical struggles.

www.britannica.com

Anything else?

Yeah...nice try....

Jihad (English: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ jihād [dʒɪˈhaːd]) is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with God's guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, proselytizing, or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ummah,[1][2][5] though it is most frequently associated with war.[6]

In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers,[2][3

Looks like there may be more than interpretation.

I gave you the interpretation that I used.

And?

 

[Mac1958]

Evidently it's unreasonable to be concerned that a Supreme Court Justice might base decisions on what her god is "telling" her.

Why would anyone be concerned about that?

Except she has never said that, but why stop a good lie, right?

Perhaps you don't know what the word "might" means.

That's okay, Trumpster, I'm used to this from you folks.

Don't pretend that you do not know what the secular arguments against things like abortion are.

It makes you look like a fucking demagogue, yourself.

Huh?

Typical.

I'm actually not surprised that a demagogue like you is afraid to actually engage in an dialogue about unacknowledged arguements that run counter to their own.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

You really need to calm down.

 

[easyt65]

How do you know she is a good mother?

Prove she isn't.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

You really need to calm down.

Any calmer and I will be asleep.

Trump approval continues surge, hits 53%, highest in year

 

[DukeU]

Reason and logic.

Those two things don't happen by chance. It is reasonable and logical to conclude there is intelligence behind the trillions of bits of information contained in human DNA.

 

[easyt65]

I heard she ran "Rape trains"

The only 'Rape Trains' involved here will be all the Democrats lining up to despicably F* her over during their character assassination onslaught, Just as they tried to do with Kavanaugh...and failed.

 

[Mac1958]

Reason and logic.

Those two things don't happen by chance. It is reasonable and logical to conclude there is intelligence behind the trillions of bits of information contained in human DNA.

Could be. I don't claim to know for sure.

 

[Chuz Life]

Evidently it's unreasonable to be concerned that a Supreme Court Justice might base decisions on what her god is "telling" her.

Why would anyone be concerned about that?

Mac, this is something you and I can actually agree upon.
If ANY Judge or Lawmaker decides to use RELIGIOUS arguments to attempt to undermine or overturn Roe, I will JOIN you in speaking out AGAINST it.

I have no problem with Justices (or lawmakers) being religious and using their religion(s) to guide their gut feelings. . . After that, it becomes their Constitutional duty (per the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment) to frame and pose any and all of their arguments in a factual and secular manner that COMPELS even in the complete absence of any religious agenda.

No response?

Not even a "Like?"

 

[skye]

A successful working Christian breeding Conservative Mom.

A nightmare for the Democrat filth.

I wonder who they are going to come up with to claim that she raped?

Maybe she force a boy to kiss her in a 6th grade Spin the Bottle game.

Wonder no more ....because the DemonRats are capable of anything

We all know how demented they are.

 

[Mac1958]

Evidently it's unreasonable to be concerned that a Supreme Court Justice might base decisions on what her god is "telling" her.

Why would anyone be concerned about that?

Mac, this is something you and I can actually agree upon.
If ANY Judge or Lawmaker decides to use RELIGIOUS arguments to attempt to undermine or overturn Roe, I will JOIN you in speaking out AGAINST it.

I have no problem with Justices (or lawmakers) being religious and using their religion(s) to guide their gut feelings. . . After that, it becomes their Constitutional duty (per the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment) to frame and pose any and all of their arguments in a factual and secular manner that COMPELS even in the complete absence of any religious agenda.

No response?

Not even a "Like?"

I'd rather their gut were guided by the Constitution. I'm not so sure you'd have quite the same tolerance for Muslim lawmakers and judges.

A person's religion can guide them in their private lives all they want, if that's what they need. But when it starts to profoundly affect the lives of others, no.

 

[BlueGin]

Someone should tell her it's not a clown car.

Alec Baldwin’s wife pops out kids like a rabbit. Do you idiots have an issue with her too?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'd rather their gut were guided by the Constitution. I'm not so sure you'd have quite the same tolerance for Muslim lawmakers and judges.
A person's religion can guide them in their private lives all they want, if that's what they need. But when it starts to profoundly affect the lives of others, no.

So you think we should only appoint atheist at this point?
Being religious is now a vice?

 

[Mac1958]

I'd rather their gut were guided by the Constitution. I'm not so sure you'd have quite the same tolerance for Muslim lawmakers and judges.
A person's religion can guide them in their private lives all they want, if that's what they need. But when it starts to profoundly affect the lives of others, no.

So you think we should only appoint atheist at this point?
Being religious is now a vice?

Two straw man questions there.

I'm confident that a reasonable, intelligent, lucid adult can separate their religion from the Constitution.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'd rather their gut were guided by the Constitution. I'm not so sure you'd have quite the same tolerance for Muslim lawmakers and judges.
A person's religion can guide them in their private lives all they want, if that's what they need. But when it starts to profoundly affect the lives of others, no.

So you think we should only appoint atheist at this point?
Being religious is now a vice?

Two straw man questions there.

I'm confident that a reasonable, intelligent, lucid adult can separate their religion from the Constitution.

Then why allude that they can't?

 

[Mac1958]

I'd rather their gut were guided by the Constitution. I'm not so sure you'd have quite the same tolerance for Muslim lawmakers and judges.
A person's religion can guide them in their private lives all they want, if that's what they need. But when it starts to profoundly affect the lives of others, no.

So you think we should only appoint atheist at this point?
Being religious is now a vice?

Two straw man questions there.

I'm confident that a reasonable, intelligent, lucid adult can separate their religion from the Constitution.

Then why allude that they can't?

I didn't. That is merely your warped interpretation. I can't help that.

 

[BlueGin]

Evidently it's unreasonable to be concerned that a Supreme Court Justice might base decisions on what her god is "telling" her.

Why would anyone be concerned about that?

Joe Biden is a practicing Catholic.

Oops!

So is Nancy Pelosi.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I'd rather their gut were guided by the Constitution. I'm not so sure you'd have quite the same tolerance for Muslim lawmakers and judges.
A person's religion can guide them in their private lives all they want, if that's what they need. But when it starts to profoundly affect the lives of others, no.

So you think we should only appoint atheist at this point?
Being religious is now a vice?

Two straw man questions there.

I'm confident that a reasonable, intelligent, lucid adult can separate their religion from the Constitution.

Then why allude that they can't?

I didn't. That is merely your warped interpretation. I can't help that.

Haha... you need a new game. If you don't think you alluded to that... mmmkay... lol

 

[Mac1958]

I'd rather their gut were guided by the Constitution. I'm not so sure you'd have quite the same tolerance for Muslim lawmakers and judges.
A person's religion can guide them in their private lives all they want, if that's what they need. But when it starts to profoundly affect the lives of others, no.

So you think we should only appoint atheist at this point?
Being religious is now a vice?

Two straw man questions there.

I'm confident that a reasonable, intelligent, lucid adult can separate their religion from the Constitution.

Then why allude that they can't?

I didn't. That is merely your warped interpretation. I can't help that.

Haha... you need a new game. If you don't think you alluded to that... mmmkay... lol

Well, you could claim that I inferred the Earth is shaped like an alto saxophone.

That would be a misinterpretation of my position on the shape of our planet, but you're certainly free to run with it. No harm, no foul.

 

[Chuz Life]

Evidently it's unreasonable to be concerned that a Supreme Court Justice might base decisions on what her god is "telling" her.

Why would anyone be concerned about that?

Mac, this is something you and I can actually agree upon.
If ANY Judge or Lawmaker decides to use RELIGIOUS arguments to attempt to undermine or overturn Roe, I will JOIN you in speaking out AGAINST it.

I have no problem with Justices (or lawmakers) being religious and using their religion(s) to guide their gut feelings. . . After that, it becomes their Constitutional duty (per the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment) to frame and pose any and all of their arguments in a factual and secular manner that COMPELS even in the complete absence of any religious agenda.

No response?

Not even a "Like?"

I'd rather their gut were guided by the Constitution. I'm not so sure you'd have quite the same tolerance for Muslim lawmakers and judges.

A person's religion can guide them in their private lives all they want, if that's what they need. But when it starts to profoundly affect the lives of others, no.

Dumbass, that's what I just said.

 

[GHook20]

In her last hearings, Barrett tried to make the case that a believing Catholic could be an impartial Justice on the Supreme Court, and got the shit beat out of her for that tactic.

The Senate hearings are going to be great theatre.

I do expect that Barrett has 4 out of 5 chances to be confirmed.

She actually made the opposite claim that a judge has to rule on the law and the case presented in front of them and leave their outside convictions to the side. But you can make up facts... you could be the next Chris Homo or Don the Lemon!