Senate calls out Kamala Harris for her religous bigotry

a reply to: burdman30ott6


You are free to believe that atheism is a belief that has no belief in gods.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Blaine91555

So, lets see the "real" oath that Knights of Columbus take, then. Otherwise, I don't believe that this oath has been effectively refuted or debunked.

I have no idea if the real oath is in print, but like others I'm sure, I learned about it in Civics class.

They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes

Note: See page 62.

Common knowledge for those who studied history or paid attention in Civics. At least when I took Civics in about 1971 it was. Mainly due to it being used by Catholic haters against Kennedy.

ETA from the book -

The Knights of Columbus oath is one of the most famous of all the fake anti-Catholic quotes made use of by American bigots. In 1913, a special committee of Congress branded the “oath” as a fake, but it was used against Democratic candidate Alfred E. Smith in the 1928 presidential campaign, and against John F. Kennedy in the Democratic primary in West Virginia in 1960.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Refusing to choose is still a choice.

originally posted by: narrator
I feel it necessary to point out, they most definitely didn't "attack" him because of what religion he is. They don't like the fact that he's a member of the Knights of Columbus, which is a group that opposes same sex marriage and a woman's right to choose.

So does most of ISLAM


Let's see them comment about that ..... no didn't think so...

They Are Hypocrites!

True Fact.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Technically it's a common belief system of faith that no God(s) exist. Shutting the possibility without proof is faith just as much as the other. Whether many actively gather in solidarity and preach their non belief I do not know.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

"Of" has a totally different meaning than "from" and "freedom from religion" does not exist in the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
NOWHERE in there does it say America or our representatives, or even their decision making, must be free from religion. It simply states that the nation's law makers can't pass a law declaring a religion be considered a national religion. The bastardization of the amendment, trying to turn it into some horsecrap that says America's government must be totally atheistic, is a relatively new putridity dumped on the country by an activist SCOTUS and then championed by childish imbeciles over the years.

This was not to take religion out of the Government but to take the Government out of religion. We need to remember that the premise of all this comes from our forefathers coming from a country that had a state sponsored religion. Nothing more or less here other than to prevent any future state sponsored religions.

originally posted by: IanForge
Actually, in all seriousness, the whole thing isn't the fact the Knights are a religious organization, it's the Knights' pro-life stance. It's actually one of the four main categories Knight activities are based around.

pjmedia.com...

You know what's funny? The so called "Women's" March openly excludes women's groups that are too white, too conservative, too religious in the "wrong" way, but at the Pro-Life March, which was held today, you will see anyone who wants to march for a pro-life position accepted, including secularists, atheists, and liberal activists like Father James Martin whose views are controversial to say the least.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
so many other things make Her Trash, why do the snowflakes focus on "Anti-Christianity" when according to the "Constitution" Religion has no place in politics anyway...


not knowing her Religion, it seems you have to either be a fundamentalist or you are "Anti-Christianity"

The United States Constitution Also Upholds Freedom of Religion . Every Attack Against ANY Faith in this Country is therefore Unconstitutional . The People of Faith Also have a Right to Defend themselves leaving the Possibility of Many Deceased Anti Religion Advocates Finally Meeting the Maker they Surely Believe Does Not Exist ...........

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

To be clear on what you are saying here, are you saying that it's OK to consider religious affiliation in appointments and further OK to deny a seat as a Justice for being Catholic?

How does that equate with this?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The Senate said no unanimously because clearly it would violate the Constitution.

NO.

I'm saying religion, or lack of, should not ever be brought up in regards to any politician.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

To be clear on what you are saying here, are you saying that it's OK to consider religious affiliation in appointments and further OK to deny a seat as a Justice for being Catholic?

How does that equate with this?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The Senate said no unanimously because clearly it would violate the Constitution.

NO.

I'm saying religion should not ever be brought up in regards to any politician.

Then why do they do it?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

To be clear on what you are saying here, are you saying that it's OK to consider religious affiliation in appointments and further OK to deny a seat as a Justice for being Catholic?

How does that equate with this?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The Senate said no unanimously because clearly it would violate the Constitution.

NO.

I'm saying religion, or lack of, should not ever be brought up in regards to any politician.

Thanks

We agree fully on that.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

To be clear on what you are saying here, are you saying that it's OK to consider religious affiliation in appointments and further OK to deny a seat as a Justice for being Catholic?

How does that equate with this?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The Senate said no unanimously because clearly it would violate the Constitution.

NO.

I'm saying religion should not ever be brought up in regards to any politician.

Then why do they do it?

Because they can.

Religion or lack of -- needs to be a non issue in regards to all politicians.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

To be clear on what you are saying here, are you saying that it's OK to consider religious affiliation in appointments and further OK to deny a seat as a Justice for being Catholic?

How does that equate with this?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The Senate said no unanimously because clearly it would violate the Constitution.

NO.

I'm saying religion should not ever be brought up in regards to any politician.

Then why do they do it?

Because they can.

Religion or lack of -- needs to be a non issue in regards to all politicians.

I agree. Religion shouldn't be, but you know as well as I do that it has become the fashion to use it as an excuse to reject an argument or position on an issue out of hand without addressing the concern directly.

"You only believe X because you are a member of religion Y!"

And upon making that statement, the argument is dismissed as wholly invalid.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
For real though. Screw Catholics. Hardly more than NAMBLA in disguise.

Leadership being shameful, is not cause to say that about followers. The people are trying to please God, sins and all as we are NOT perfect.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Common knowledge for those who studied history or paid attention in Civics.

Oh? WOW! You were taught that someone lied to Congress, in 1913, about a Catholic group's oath, the Knights of Columbus, in High School Civics! LOL Did you go to a Catholic School? Live in a predominately Catholic school district?

I can see why a group of high profile Catholic Knights would like everyone to forget all about that oath, that is a part of a 1913 Congressional record, in the 1970s. But, unless the "real" oath is revealed, I don't believe that it's "fake".

It's possible that some bishops and community elders decided to edit out some of the more blatantly violent requirements, and tone down the Christian against Christian war. But it is not possible for the Catholic Church to decide that allegiance to the US Constitution takes precedence over God and Church in a 4th degree Knights of Columbus Oath.

At least when I took Civics in about 1971 it was. Mainly due to it being used by Catholic haters against Kennedy.

I don't recall any historic complaints about JFK being a Knight of Columbus, so much as him simply being a Catholic. I don't recall any conspiracy theory that blamed the assassination of Kennedy on the fact he was member of the Knights of Columbus, or a Catholic.

I do remember the uproar about the first President of the United States owing allegiance to the Pope's authority and the Church's policies, over the US Constitution. I also remember his speech assuring American that he did not place his faith or the Pope's authority above the authority of the US Constitution and US Law.

Throughout the presidential campaign of 1960, the religious issue vexed the Democratic Party’s nominee, John F. Kennedy. The Fair Campaign Practices Committee reported that 392 different anti-Catholic publications were distributed to voters, with an estimated circulation as high as 25 million. These brochures, pamphlets, and newspapers publicized issues that went back to the days of the Know-Nothings: that a Catholic’s first allegiance is to the pope; that the Catholic hierarchy controls the lives of the faithful; that a Catholic president will establish a Catholic state; and that a Catholic president will force Catholic moral codes on the American people

On September 7, an ad-hoc group of 150 Protestants led by the renowned Dr. Norman Vincent Peale issued a statement criticizing the Catholic Church and accusing it of being a “political as well as religious organization [that has] specifically repudiated, on many occasions, the principle sacred to us that every man shall be free to follow the dictates of his conscience in religious matters.”
Later that same day, Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State (POAU) launched another political torpedo:
We cannot avoid recognition of the fact that one church in the U.S., the largest church operating on American soil, officially supports a world-wide policy of partial union of church and state wherever it has the power to enforce such a policy. In the U.S. the bishops of this church have specifically rejected the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the separation of church and state.

Kennedy and his team knew that he could not ignore these diatribes, and he decided to confront the issue at a meeting of the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. In his speech (written by Theodore Sorensen) Kennedy declared:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him…. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office….

Whatever issues may come before me as President, if I should be elected – on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

www.thecatholicthing.org...

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Refusing to choose is still a choice.

Choose what, which god not to believe in?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Atheism is void of anything religious. No diety, no book or place of worship. Nothing.

If I lived in the US, and I'm an atheist, I'd expect my freedoms from a religious group to dictate my public services. Just like if I were say a Muslim and wouldn't a Christian to push their agenda on my public services.

In theory, the notion of freedom of religion states atheism is the pinicle of the idea behind it all.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Refusing to choose is still a choice.

Choose what, which god not to believe in?

Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, the "Friend" movement in Quakers, and Taoism are all nontheistic religions... as is atheism. My point being religion doesn't require theistic positions to still be a religion.

ETA: Hindus and Buddhists are free to believe in monotheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic positions. It wasn't my intent to say all Buddhists or Hindus reject theism, but many do while still practicing their religion.

a reply to: strongfp

Still, it is a religion. Atheism is a belief structure and takes a position on the appropriate way to display (or not display) that belief in your daily lives. As I've stated, multiple religions have no "deity," I can point you to just as many books celebrating and prostyletizing on the virtues of atheism (Richard Dawkins being one of the main authors that comes to mind), and many non-Abrahamic faiths do not have dedicated places of worship or even communal gatherings for worship... yet, they are still religions. I'd say any atheist who claims they have no religion is simply struggling to justify the dichotomy of their positions.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
so many other things make Her Trash, why do the snowflakes focus on "Anti-Christianity" when according to the "Constitution" Religion has no place in politics anyway...


not knowing her Religion, it seems you have to either be a fundamentalist or you are "Anti-Christianity"

What on the world are you talking about?...

This nation was funded principally for "religious freedom", not freedom from religion... Being religious is no grounds to claim people are not qualified to hold office...

You should sit down sometime and read a document called "The Declaration of independence..."