Yup, the goal of Leftism is complete reliance on the State and so they have waged a hundred year war against the Judeo-Christian religious history and principles that this country was founded on.

No idea how war on religion is related to reliance on state. If anything it's the opposite.  If government is church and you rely on church to decide how you morally live life isn't that the definition of reliance on the state. 

At that point we are no different than isis.

@inspector and @flapp and @grovler
I swear don't blame everything on millennials.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state#:~:text=The%20most%20famous%20use%20of,between%20the%20church%20and%20state.”

Contrary to popular belief not all media is fake news.

I don't take any offense and hopefully no one here does of what I say.  I'm just an independent voter leaning libertarian in the sea of Republicans.  I'm not even atheist.

Did you read your linked article?  ALL of it?

Show me where it says religion is to be forbidden in government leaders' beliefs.

Hint:  It doesn't.

The article spells out that GOVERNMENT is not to pass laws with respect to RELIGION (i.e. the Constitution protects religion from government action).  Nothing in it about laws being void of religion or religious doctrine.

You can't wipe the memories of elected officials who pass and adjudicate laws.  As such, you also can't discriminate on the basis of religion ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof").  So, to claim someone with ANY stated religious belief is automatically forbidden from serving on the Supreme Court violates the text and meaning of the Constitution itself.

EEOC laws are also clear.

Religious Discrimination

Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion.

Religious Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Religious Discrimination & Harassment
It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion.

Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person's religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Religious Discrimination and Segregation
Title VII also prohibits workplace or job segregation based on religion (including religious garb and grooming practices), such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference.

Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation
The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies
Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).

When an employee or applicant needs a dress or grooming accommodation for religious reasons, he should notify the employer that he needs such an accommodation for religious reasons. If the employer reasonably needs more information, the employer and the employee should engage in an interactive process to discuss the request. If it would not pose an undue hardship, the employer must grant the accommodation.

Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship
An employer does not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.

Religious Discrimination And Employment Policies/Practices
An employee cannot be forced to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination

@omnigun

I don't know where you attended school, nor how many grades you were able to  get passing grades in, but you've absorbed some pretty messed up, and not uncommon, beliefs and misinformation.

It's not so much that you don't know.  It's that much of what you know just isn't so.

@omnigun

I don't know where you attended school, nor how many grades you were able to  get passing grades in, but you've absorbed some pretty messed up, and not uncommon, beliefs and misinformation.

It's not so much that you don't know.  It's that much of what you know just isn't so.

Reputable private school and I got high 3's GPA.

Did you read your linked article?  ALL of it?

Show me where it says religion is to be forbidden in government leaders' beliefs.

Hint:  It doesn't.

The article spells out that GOVERNMENT is not to pass laws with respect to RELIGION (i.e. the Constitution protects religion from government action).  Nothing in it about laws being void of religion or religious doctrine.

You can't wipe the memories of elected officials who pass and adjudicate laws.  As such, you also can't discriminate on the basis of religion ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof").  So, to claim someone with ANY stated religious belief is automatically forbidden from serving on the Supreme Court violates the text and meaning of the Constitution itself.

What??  I haven't said leaders or anyone shouldn't be religious now you making shit up.  I said a judge who has pre-existing bias because of her religion who has spoken of said bias should not be in a position where she decides the laws of the whole nation.  There are different levels of bias and how much people have.  No one is perfect, but I expect if your a judge you should be more un-bias than most.  How you got everyone must be ashiest is a ridiculous.

Reputable private school and I got high 3's GPA.


What??  I haven't said leaders or anyone shouldn't be religious now you making shit up.  I said a judge who has pre-existing bias because of her religion who has spoken of said bias should not be in a position where she decides the laws of the whole nation.  There are different levels of bias and how much people have.  No one is perfect, but I expect if your a judge you should be more un-bias than most.  How you got everyone must be ashiest is a ridiculous.

Now YOU'RE making shit up.

Where did Barrett say she "has pre-existing bias because of her religion who has spoken of said bias?"

You're reading into her statements what you want to see/hear.  She never said she would decide cases based on her religion -- in fact, she said just the opposite.

Barrett is a Textualist / Constitutionalist who believes we should apply the Constitution AS WRITTEN AT THE TIME.  She disagrees that new, more modern times changes the meaning of the Constitution.  If the times require a different reading, then it may require an amendment, but twisting it to apply to cases that they were never intended to address is incorrect.

If you can't see that she's not a religious nut, nobody can help you.

Now YOU'RE making shit up.

Where did Barrett say she "has pre-existing bias because of her religion who has spoken of said bias?"

You're reading into her statements what you want to see/hear.  She never said she would decide cases based on her religion -- in fact, she said just the opposite.

Barrett is a Textualist / Constitutionalist who believes we should apply the Constitution AS WRITTEN AT THE TIME.  She disagrees that new, more modern times changes the meaning of the Constitution.  If the times require a different reading, then it may require an amendment, but twisting it to apply to cases that they were never intended to address is incorrect.

If you can't see that she's not a religious nut, nobody can help you.

I literally linked one where she said no Catholics (herself) can rule on death penalty.
The one where she quoted about the kingdom of god....do you need me to research more for you?

Fake news media say ACB was the only one DJT interviewed and did so twice. Barbara Lagoa would be a smart move to get the Latino and Florida vote. Democrats  tearing her apart would anger Latinos and Floridans.

Are their no female asian conservative judges? Why Asians always gotta be underrepresented?

I literally linked one where she said no Catholics (herself) can rule on death penalty.
The one where she quoted about the kingdom of god....do you need me to research more for you?

Nope. She actually said the opposite regarding recusal for death penalty cases based on being Catholic alone. 

Your reading comprehension needs work. 

Read the last line and tell me again that "she said no Catholics (herself) can rule on death penalty."

You may not understand, but death penalty cases have many phases, and not all of them involve sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming.

The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind.
While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to
enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters.
Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose
convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without
acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may
be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the
authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their
consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason
for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital
punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact
reasons for not participating.

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/

As for the Kingdom of God quote, what about it concerns you? 

You should read this whole article:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/21/has-the-smear-campaign-against-amy-coney-barrett-already-begun-n948943

If nothing else, read this part of the articel:

Yet many conservatives — and even some pro-Biden political observers — rightly castigated Charles and others for attacking
Barrett’s faith. Barrett, who taught at Notre Dame Law School for 15 years and who is a practicing Roman Catholic, was merely
using a common term in Jewish and Christian circles, meant to reference doing justice and following God’s will in her work.

“I hate to break it to you, Ron, but all believing Jews and Christians think that our purpose is to build the kingdom of God,” Yoram
Hazony, an Orthodox Jew and president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem, tweeted in response to Charles.

Patrick Brennan, a former writer for National Review, noted that “All Christians devote their lives to building the Kingdom of God.”

“This kind of cheap, ignorant misinterpretation of Barrett saying she believes what Catholics believe — here, just that we must effect
justice and peace in this world — is a preview of things to come,” Brennan warned. [referring to the confirmation hearing and main stream
media attacks]

Andrew Figgy, a law school student who describes himself as a “left-conservative for Biden,” condemned the attacks on Barrett as
“ignorant and malicious.”

“We’re all called to build towards the Kingdom of God and that has nothing to do with ‘theocracy’. See: Romans 14:17, Matthew 6:33,
John 18:36,” Figgy tweeted.

The Kingdom of God is a central concept in Judaism and Christianity. Judaism established the idea that the awful power that created
the entire universe was also the giver of the moral law, the one who speaks through conscience. God chose Israel as His chosen people.
When the people of Israel asked for a king, God described Himself as offended — God Himself was their king, speaking through the
judges and the prophets.

The prophet Daniel envisioned a future in which the God of Heaven would establish a kingdom that would forever abide (Daniel 2:44).
The prophet Zechariah predicted that “the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be one and his name one”
(Zechariah 14:9). The prophet Habakkuk, writing amid the oppression of the Babylonian Empire, predicted that empire’s fall, saying,
“for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea” (Habakkuk 2:14).

These Kingdom of God prophecies looked forward to a time when true justice would become the order of the day — when the God who
cares for the widow and the orphan would stand up for the weakest members of society and establish justice.

Have you ever been to Sunday School or studied the Bible in an academic classroom?  If you had, you would not be making the comments you made.  They appear to be from complete ignorance since you are taking her comments out of the context of religion vs. a theocracy.

Are their no female asian conservative judges? Why Asians always gotta be underrepresented?

Agreed, well in general, not just for judges.  Hate crimes on Asians increased due to the Chyna Virus, but little media attention. Black dude who's acting a fool gets shot by a white guy and it's all over the news for weeks.  But same could be said about black on black shootings.

Reputable private school and I got high 3's GPA.

. I'm an honor grad, but had easy ass classes. Band, weight training, art, and just enough math (no calculus) to get into UH.

. I'm an honor grad, but had easy ass classes. Band, weight training, art, and just enough math (no calculus) to get into UH.

Honors for Participation 

. I'm an honor grad, but had easy ass classes. Band, weight training, art, and just enough math (no calculus) to get into UH.

I cannot believe that you and omni both passed spelling in high school...

I cannot believe that you and omni both passed spelling in high school...

is this CMO in high school?

Agreed, well in general, not just for judges.  Hate crimes on Asians increased due to the Chyna Virus, but little media attention. Black dude who's acting a fool gets shot by a white guy and it's all over the news for weeks.  But same could be said about black on black shootings.

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was unavailable for comment.

However, he has been quoted as saying:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Democrat Senators, who have a responsibility to the public to vet Supreme Court nominees, are refusing to meet with Amy Coney Barrett ahead of the confirmation hearings.

They don't care if she's qualified for the job of Supreme Court Justice or not.  They only care about her political beliefs.

The Dems can't win elections every time, so they rely on "Liberal activists in robes" to make law when the House and Senate refuse to pass their SJW/Socialist/Leftist agenda.. 

I'll just leave this here....inb4 fake news
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

I'll just leave this here....inb4 fake news
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

In a statement to the Guardian, the White House said: “As Judge Barrett said on the day she was nominated, ‘A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.’”

The statement appears to reflect an acknowledgment that Barrett’s personal views on abortion could hurt her chances at confirmation.

First part is a statement.  Assuming captured properly, is FACT.

Second part is an opinion. That latter part is what I hate about biased media these days, that weak minded folks will tend to remember and connect both as facts, when not true.  At least not necessarily. 

Yeah, I get that unbiased news is rare these days, but there are so many Americans that will just take what a "trusted source" reports as the truth.  It's no different than the propaganda machines of countries that many Americans think we're above. 

First part is a statement.  Assuming captured properly, is FACT.

Second part is an opinion. That latter part is what I hate about biased media these days, that weak minded folks will tend to remember and connect both as facts, when not true.  At least not necessarily. 

Yeah, I get that unbiased news is rare these days, but there are so many Americans that will just take what a "trusted source" reports as the truth.  It's no different than the propaganda machines of countries that many Americans think we're above.

True, I think the most important part of this article is the fact she signed off. All judgements should be based on that fact not the authors opinion.

Second part is an opinion. That latter part is what I hate about biased media these days, that weak minded folks will tend to remember and connect both as facts, when not true. 

And there we have the description of the low information voter, or low-info types as i call them.