Right On: Democrats’ unconstitutional religious test

Composite image, St. George News

OPINION — “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”

Asking that question is unconstitutional for any government official interviewing a job candidate.

The Constitution’s Article VI couldn’t be clearer. “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” That applies to every government employee from the president to the custodian in a remote federal building.

The Constitution didn’t inhibit Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, a lawyer and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He asked that very question of Amy Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor, during a hearing considering her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

His question would have been equally offensive had Barrett been an “orthodox evangelical” or “orthodox Mormon” or “orthodox Jew” or “orthodox Muslim.”

Durbin wasn’t alone. Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California lectured the law professor on the difference between the law and religious dogma. She said:

I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.

Judging from her statement, Feinstein’s liberal dogma and the Constitution are “totally different.” Her liberal political dogma “lives loudly” within her.

For liberal Democrats like Durbin and Feinstein, the Constitution is like a smorgasbord where they pick and choose which provisions to follow.

Feinstein referred to a paper written by Barrett and a colleague, ignoring the authors’ clear and unambiguous statement in that paper. “Judges cannot – nor should they try to – align our legal system with the church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge,” Barrett wrote.

Responding to Feinstein’s question about what judges should do when the law conflicts with their personal moral views, Barrett answered they should recuse themselves.

David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator, said “the tenor of questions by Democratic senators seemed designed more to challenge the ideas of Catholic orthodoxy – a subject more fitting for a theological debate than a Senate hearing.”

Durbin and Feinstein’s questions bring back haunting memories:

  • John Kennedy’s 1960 campaign for the presidency. More than one Protestant preacher wondered aloud if Kennedy would be taking orders from the pope.
  • Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s “Red Scare” of the 1950s; “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Merely asking the question tainted the accused.

Democrats’ preoccupation with Barrett’s religion is surprising given the religious affiliations of today’s Supreme Court justices. Six of the justices are Catholics – although Gorsuch attends a Protestant church – while the remaining three are Jewish. None were asked if they were “orthodox.”

Durbin and Feinstein have every right to inquire into a nominee’s legal record and willingness to support the law and legal precedents on issues, including abortion and same-sex marriage. Done with any sense of discretion, such a line of questioning can reveal a nominee’s political and moral biases. But openly pontificating – double-entendre intended – about how a nominee’s religion is likely to distort legal rulings crosses the constitutional line.

Liberal Democrats like Durbin and Feinstein have their own dogma, squelching dissent within the party on contentious social issues. For example, Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez declared that every Democratic candidate for office must support abortion. Another example, pro-life groups were not allowed at the January 2017 Women’s March while “sex workers” were.

As a result, while they see themselves as inclusive, Democrats are now philosophically the “small tent” party. They’ve abandoned those who don’t genuflect to strict progressive dogma:

  • Only 18 “Blue Dog” Democrats remain in the House of Representatives, down from a peak of 54 in 2009. Sayonara to the likes of Utah’s Jim Matheson.
  • Michael Wear was the 2012 Obama campaign faith outreach director. He is a theologically conservative evangelical Christian, opposed to both abortion and same-sex marriage. Today he paints a scathing portrait of the Obama administration and is persona non grata in the Democratic Party.
  • Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, is an “orthodox Catholic” and continues to say he’s personally opposed to abortion. Nonetheless, after becoming a senator in 2012, he drank the liberal Kool-Aid and votes as an abortion supporter. But for liberal Democrats, it’s all or nothing and he is treated with suspicion within the party.

Are progressive ideals equivalent to a political religion? Is a progressive judge any more likely than a Catholic to render impartial decisions when abortion or same-sex marriage issues are on the docket? Would a progressive judge recuse herself if handed a case on these issues?

Liberal Democrats have continually shifting moral compasses, tossed by the winds of ever-evolving moral relativism. They are inherently uncomfortable with any claim of universal truth, especially ones espoused by religion. Hence, baby step by baby step, inch by inch, they work to eliminate orthodox believers from public office and religion from the public square.

Karl Marx called religion the opiate of the masses. Liberal Democrats find orthodox religion, if not an opiate, at least inconvenient and want it to embrace their sociopolitical agenda. For orthodox religious believers, be they Christian, Jew or Muslim, liberals represent a mortal danger to their rightful, public and constitutional place in our society.

Howard Sierer is an opinion columnist for St. George News. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @STGnews

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2017, all rights reserved.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • comments September 21, 2017 at 7:20 am

    The thing is… it isn’t really the “ultra liberal” democrat politicians that push these ultra leftist moral relativism agendas. They cow to their masters. Media, hollywood, etc, and those that control it craft our culture far more than any democrat politicians. They wanted a post xtian society where moral relativism is king. They’ve been working at it for a very long time. People keep absorbing and buying the filth they create. What’s to be done? Once again, the problem is far deeper than “ultra liberal” democrat politicians. Notice how the r-party with full control of our gov’t right now can’t manage to accomplish even the simplest things. They are also fully controlled and 1/2 of the problem.

    • ladybugavenger September 21, 2017 at 10:45 am

      You know the problem is far deeper but do you know who their master is? It’s the devil

      That’s how deep the rabbit hole is it goes all the way to Satan. It goes all the way to hell.

      Choose Jesus

  • comments September 21, 2017 at 7:32 am

    after they got their homosexual “marriage” pushed thru… well, it may be too late to turn back. Moslemism is a stronger culture than the post xtian hedonistic society that “the west” is becoming. It may well move in and fill the vacuum left by an overall fading and dying of xtianity in “the west”. But then again, are all these HISPANICS, with their massive birth rates, still catholic enough to keep their HISPANIC children firmly believing in that religion? I kind of doubt it. Time will tell. And mormonism? LOL, sorry but you’re still a tiny fringe religion in the scheme of things. Moslemism or “islam” is the world’s dominant and most forceful religion/cult at thing point.

    • comments September 21, 2017 at 7:34 am

      correction: Moslemism or “islam” is the world’s dominant and most forceful religion/cult at *this point.

  • Bob September 21, 2017 at 8:58 am

    It’s funny how many people still buy into the religion con. When will people wake up and realize that it’s all a made up story and the proof is right in front of them, they just need to take the wool off their eyes to see it. Religion was created to control the people, don’t believe me then read your history. Only when you truly open your mind will see the the truth. We are a creation of nature and not some God with almighty powers. Stick to the job of doing what is right for the country and its people and leave your beliefs at Sunday school.

    • desertgirl September 21, 2017 at 10:53 am

      You sure are part of the problem. You believe your opinions and ideas are all that matter; no respect for others and their beliefs. The forefathers protected both religion and free speech within the Constitution as they knew there would always be those who want a government to rule like arrogant, ignorant, dictators. Well Bob, hopefully Americans, not people longing for past and present nations historically failed government ideology rule the world, will succeed in forcing folk like you, the anti-United States constitution politicians, and judges out of the way of true success and human welfare. I suggest you should move to Russia, Cuba, China, Vietnam, a long list of other nations that believe in the world being ruled by politicians that live in luxury while the rest…well….don’t. None that sound like you actually ever move to these places where you don’t have to live people who don’t think like you, don’t believe anything but rule of thugs, and practice my way or no way; instead you wreak havoc in the one place on the planet that allows you to freely be a disrespectful, ignorant, hateful ass. There are a few names for you, Bob, none I can state here.

      • Bob September 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm

        You have nothing better to do than bash my comments. Did you read them? Did I say my opinions are all that matter, no I just said leave them out of the government. You say I am a ignorant hateful ass, how do you come to that conclusion? I never attacked anyone for their beliefs, I made my opinion like the freedom of speech that I fought to protect along with many others and said “stick to doing what is right for the country and its people and leave religion out of it” How is that statement disrespectful. You were disrespectful in calling me names telling me to leave the country. You made the comment that I believe the nation should be ran by politicians that live in luxury while the rest of us suffer, I don’t see that in my comment either. I hope people read your comment for what it is, which is an attack on my free speech! Almost forgot you state you want to force anti-constitution people like me out of the country as well? Pretty sure it reads like this “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This tells me that religion has no place in government because it can infringe on the rights of people (U.S. Citizens) who don’t practice your religion.

        • comments September 21, 2017 at 6:16 pm

          Bob, you need to calm yourself. relax. ur gonna give urself a stroke

          • .... September 21, 2017 at 10:13 pm

            Do worry about Bob he loves to dish it out but he gets upset when someone does the same thing to him

  • theone September 21, 2017 at 9:25 am

    The sooner religion and it’s imaginary god fade into the background the better off humanity will be. The age of reason is pushing back at these religious dogmas that create and pass laws of hate on the people. Religion is not the means of a moral high ground, evolution is our source of morals through, discussion, thought, reason, identifying mistakes and moving forward.
    Religion and it’s imaginary god are nothing but hate and bigotry derived from Greek Mythology. Grow up already.

    • theone September 21, 2017 at 10:31 am

      Here is one example of governing from the delusional concept of a personal god.


    • desertgirl September 21, 2017 at 10:55 am

      The sooner people like you are weeded out of humanity the better off the world will be, Adolf, or is it Joe Stalin? How about not just growing up, but act and sound like a real human being.

      • theone September 21, 2017 at 12:03 pm

        Good thing we are the fastest growing sector in the world, age of reason trumps your dark age nonsense and inhumane dogma. Ta ta religion.

  • ladybugavenger September 21, 2017 at 10:18 am

    God and religion should not be in the same paragraph. God is not a religion. Jesus is not a religion. Religion can’t save you. Going to church can’t save you….only Jesus can.

    • .... September 22, 2017 at 6:22 am

      Yeah coffee and ice cream should not be in the same paragraph either

  • bikeandfish September 21, 2017 at 10:28 am

    Mr Seier’s claim that the line of questioning was unconstitutional is specious. The “religious test” clause explicitly follows and is related to “Oaths Clause” of Article VI. It does not stand alone or isolated. As such, Feinstein’s and Durkin’s line of questioning, no matter how tone def to religious followers, actually makes sense. The theme of their question was whether or not Amy Burret’s personal religious beliefs were subordinate to the mandate to uphold the law as the sworn duty of a judge. Burret’s words do give some relief that she advocated the need to recuse oneself but it does expose the fact that as a judge her personal beliefs exceed her willingness to enforce the law and constitution. If that is the case then it is fair to wonder if she is ultimately the best fit for a job explicitly meant to uphold the law and constitution. Seier can disagree with that interpretation but calling their line of questioning unconstitutional is fallacious and problematic. The clause is rooted in a specific history (largely made useless by newer amendments) about “religious tests” that forced individuals to swear allegiance to a specific religion to take office. It doesn’t bar asking relevant questions about religion that affect ones willingness to “be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.

    And the comparison to McCarthy is absurd in scale and content. The use of that example and then the conclusion that liberals pose a “mortal danger” to practitioners of orthodox religion is, ironically, a scare tactic wholly unsupported by Seier’s essay or fact.

    Seier also presents mistruths about the Women’s March on Washington as the facts are inconvenient to his fallacious thesis. The pro-life groups were allowed to march, as their was no litmus test for individual participation that prevented participation. The nuance Seier glossed over is the fact that the pro-life groups we denied “partnership” by the organizers. Most major organizations will choose partners that align with their stated values, which for the Womens March on Washington explicitly included access to abortion. The falsehood Seier posits originates from the sloppy and unsupported headline in the Blaze article he cites.

    There are plenty of meaningful ways to dissect the hearing of Barret but Seier’s diatribe here is not one. Its a platform that exposes an ideological need to fear monger instead of a truthful expose on the problematic way the Senators proceeded. Its a real shame as the tension between some religious doctrine and some liberal practitioners is real but it takes a complex analysis to understand the roots and impacts. The sloppiness of this article doesn’t do that inquiry any justice.

  • ladybugavenger September 21, 2017 at 10:31 am

    In theones world there is no good, there is no evil, there is no right, there is no wrong, there are no morals- except for what his own mind deems appropriate. In his world, we live, pay bills and die with no accountability on earth except for what his own mind (and people alike) deems appropriate while here on earth. Sounds like a bunch of dictators to me.

    You know I ❤️You Theone ? But that sounds like a miserable life full of crime, drug addicts, murders, and suicide….oh snap! Yep- that’s the world. I prefer my life with Jesus with accountability, morals, judgement, love, peace, and joy all in spite of the crazy world y’all have destroyed (there are millions and millions and millions of people like you but as you know, there is only one ladybugavenger ?)

    • ladybugavenger September 21, 2017 at 10:41 am

      I said millions of people like you but it’s probably billions and billions of people like you…. Have a blessed day Theone!

    • theone September 21, 2017 at 11:39 am

      Another delusional moment in the life of bug. Let me remind you that a belief in your god and jesus doesn’t in any way prevent pedophilia, rape, murder, drug addiction and suicide.
      In fact there is plenty of documented history of believers behaving badly. I personally have done none of the above because I know that my actions are held in accountability by my fellow citizens whether they be beneficial or detrimental in consequence. Born agains like yourself also use a little loophole created for those who do fall. Murder, ask for forgiveness and accept jesus as your savor and your in. Might I remind you that secular values brought an end to the Crusades and the Inquisitions.
      I think your moral compass is of kilter bug.

      • ladybugavenger September 21, 2017 at 12:13 pm

        . Even Satan believes in God. That’s right even murderers can go to heaven if they repent and accept Jesus. There will also be people that go to church every Sunday not make it in to heaven….only God knows who’s name is written in the book of life. Only God knows a persons heart. Jesus doesn’t even know who’s name written in the book of life. This life is pretty serious isn’t it?

        You’re one of my favorites Theone. I wouldn’t have you in my house to eat but I’d certainly would have fun toasting a beer with you (I said a beer-maybe 2 but not 6 lol) and playing pool- bring your lunch money ? Oh and don’t drink and drive

        • ladybugavenger September 21, 2017 at 12:29 pm

          There’s no no doubt Ladybug is jacked up and a little bit crazy- not psycho killer crazy but a fun crazy ? I’m surprised I’ve survived what I’ve been through without ever taking an anti depressant, sleeping pills or opioids. I probably would have hurt somebody with more than my mouth if I was prescribed either one. Glory be to God that I sit here today with peace of mind and no thoughts racing through my head. Sometimes I think I have too much peace and wonder wow! This is different. I have a completely different life than I had 10 years ago and I sit here in awe of all the blessings I have received. It blows my mind! So we do agree that Ladybug has issues and at least we agree on something ?

        • theone September 21, 2017 at 12:45 pm

          Only if there was a satan, I’d hang with him over jesus, but alas they’re both but a myth.

          • ladybugavenger September 21, 2017 at 6:48 pm

            You’re already hanging with satan….

            I already know how that ends

            God Bless you Theone

          • theone September 22, 2017 at 8:56 am

            Prove satan exists, then prove I’m hanging with him.

  • John September 21, 2017 at 10:43 am

    Legally, they are not allowed to ask and if they do they violate your constitutional rights. You do not have to answer and they are not allowed to hold that against you either. Constitution says so..that’s why !

  • NickDanger September 21, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    Atheism is a cancer. Just like the mutation that occurs within our bodies’ cells when cancer strikes, the introduction of atheism into the mind and spirit opens the path to decay and death.

    I enjoy arguing with atheists. They never win, their only real argument is that they can’t see God, therefore he doesn’t exist. I can personally lay out several convincing logical arguments that God not only exists, but that he is the God of the Hebrew/Christian texts. And I’m not even a professional apologist.

    Atheism can never transcend the First Cause argument, and they rarely try to do so.

    Instead they rely on the U.S. Constitution to advance their morally repugnant agenda – a Constitution which absolutely does guarantee freedom of religion but makes no promise regarding freedom FROM religion. An atheist is perfectly entitled to lash out at the Christian society that exists all around him, just like a sociopath in a padded cell is perfectly entitled to lash out at the walls.

    As Christians, all we can do is hold fast to our unquestionable belief that a loving Creator with an interest in our spiritual welfare is a much more logical answer to the proverbial Big Question than “The universe created itself.” We should expect nothing less than what we are currently witnessing in the political arena, we are promised persecution, war, famine, disease, poverty, crime, and death in the Last Days. Nothing more, except the sacred promise that Jesus will come to reclaim this forsaken planet and his people.

    So we can express our opinion in the voting booth, and forums like this. We can argue with atheists, but as Jesus said, “No man may come to me except he is drawn by the Father who hath sent me.” – John 6:44. These are not God’s people, they’re agents of Satan. Who else would spend his time trying to convince the masses that no-explanation-whatsoever for the universe and our existence is better than the one we have had for all of recorded history, the one passed down by our ancestors who knew God, and Jesus, the one that can be and has been successfully argued from many logical viewpoints for millennia?

    There’s a reason the liberals managed to pull defeat from the jaws of victory in the last election. Even secular Americans are sickened and repelled by their agenda to ensure that sexual mores are destroyed. What’s next on their list of disgusting things to try to normalize? Pedophilia. Bet on it.

    For my Christian brethren, here’s a morsel for you. Enjoy as Professor William Lane Craig makes a quivering pile of sweaty manflesh out of the shining star of the so-called “New Atheist Movement” in formal debate:


    • comments September 21, 2017 at 6:36 pm

      Atheism is a vacuous black hole. The real hardcore militant type atheists usually have deep mental problems and are maladjusted in some way. They ARE trying to normalize pedophilia, although i think they realize they may have to push it onto us slower than they did the homosexual/trans agenda. Hollywood and media continues to produce material aimed at sexualizing children at younger and younger ages. Seems the whole entertainment industry has gotten very pornographic, if not outright, then with scenarios and language they use in the filth of today’s entertainment. This is all no accident. It’s planned and it is an agenda. LOL, enough said, and I’m not even a Xtian. That always frustrates the atheists quite a bit b/c they can’t even have a discussion w/o attacking the bible, so always they lose the debate. I wish they’d turn some of their anger and venom to attacking moslemism–make themselves useful for once. lol

    • theone September 22, 2017 at 9:03 am

      Atheists never win?? Seriously you present a kook like William Lane Craig as a source of reasonable evidence?
      Not only does an atheist not see your god, we have never seen you provide sufficient evidence for it.
      Give me somethning or sit down

  • bikeandfish September 21, 2017 at 5:24 pm


    Do you read your own citations? You state “case law over two centuries has validated my interpretation” but the heritage foundation essay you link states:

    ” Despite much litigation over the constitutional border between church and state, there have been no judicial decisions involving the religious test ban….but no federal official has ever been subjected to a formal religious test for holding office.”

    Which is it? Is there case or are there no judicial decisions?

    You are trying to conflate a line of questioning directly related to the Oath Clause to, via your Huffingtonpost essay, the “accepted wisdom that governments in the United States cannot constitutionally deny individuals the right to hold public office because they do not believe in God.” Being forced into a religious test is vastly different than being asked in a senate hearing about religious opinions. You do your own view a disservice by ignoring that distinction.

    Your “increaselearning” link actually distinguishes you claim further from what the intention of the Religious Test clause. Ellsworth, a drafter of the clause, clarifies that ““A religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be made, relating to religion (such as partaking of the sacrament according to certain rites and forms, or declaring one’s belief of certain doctrines,) for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissible to a publick office.” He went further and stated that in America this might look like “f any test-act were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable would be one, requiring all persons appointed to office to declare at the time of their admission, their belief in the being of a God, and in the divine authority of the scriptures.” Your claim doesn’t align with any of those and is an argument to absurdity.

    The “commentary magazine” link uses a Madison quote that doesn’t align with your extreme claim of unconstitutionality either. Madison states, rather ironically to your point, that the Religious Test element “had a higher object; to cut off forever every pretense of any alliance between church and state in the national government.” Mark that. It was designed to eliminate allegiance to church.

    Your “College Conservative” link is from a undergraduate sophmore who studies political science and economics. Its an opinion piece and no more and its not even from a specialist.

    You cite no case law and even one of your sources claims there is none. You cite essays that I used and that disagree with your conclusion. You cite a college amateur’s opinion that has nothing more than your own cherry picked quote without the greater context to the legal framework. The fact is the only legal analysis in your citations actually supports my critique, ie that “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person “to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” You ignore the specificity of that to distort the truth. Its not about prohibiting a senator from asking about how a judge’s personal religion can affect their sworn duty (Oath Clause) but about not being able to force a judge to profess a belief. Those are fundamentally different.

    We can agree that asking the religious questions were problematic but the claim of being unconstitutional requires substantial evidence of which you have none. Your opinion piece is a prime example of misinformation that is polluting our political discourse.

    • Howard Sierer September 21, 2017 at 6:18 pm

      Give it up. Please try the various links in my second reply as well. Take your argument to Princeton’s president and the HuffingtonPost. All serious commentary on the Senate hearing called it unconstitutional. I have not found one that uses your reasoning to claim that it was indeed constitutional. If you’ve got sources, please reply with them. But before you do, please stack them up against the distinguished list I’ve referenced.

      Your entitled to your opinions but I will defend my facts. Thanks for your interest in this subject.

      • comments September 21, 2017 at 6:41 pm

        “Give it up.”

        lol, got to agree. There comes a point when it’s just rambling. wish he’d be more concise. 😉

        • bikeandfish September 21, 2017 at 7:24 pm

          I could definitely be more concise. Might you consider ending your use of conspiracy theories and rather unfounded fascination with claims of pedophilia?

      • bikeandfish September 21, 2017 at 7:18 pm

        You clearly don’t read your sources thoroughly and scale you conclusions accordingly.

        Your opinion piece stated that “asking that question is unconstitutional for any government official interviewing a job candidate.” You source states that ““the questions directed to Professor Barrett about her faith were not consistent with the principle set forth in the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause.” Not once in his letter did Eisgruber level the claim of the questioning being unconstitutional. He did ask Feinstein to “refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views.”

        Do you see the difference? Do understand the difference in content and scale of a expert saying “not consistent with the principles”, ie even what I have been agreeing on, and your emphatic, and unsupported claim about constitutionality? You have a former SCOTUS clerk and constitutional scholar who hasn’t gone nearly as far as you and who is using language of “principals” not laws and especially not constitutionality. He also referenced Torcaso v. Watkins, a SCOTUS case about a state employee, which supports my historic definition of a religious test, ie the employee “was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God”. I have stated multiple times now the historic definitions and rationals for the religious test clause. Show how that is inaccurate, gonna be hard since your own citations support my definition, or stop adhering to an intellectually dishonest claim. A rather important note, Torcaso v Watkins never even dealt with the Religious Test clause as was explicitly stated in the SCOTUS case footnotes, “Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant’s contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.”


        Remember, by your own byline you are engineer and manager not a constitutional scholar. Don’t you think you should actually trust the words and context of the experts you choose to cite? Logic and principals, which I think Feinstein misused (ie the NYTimes article and professor you cite), are fundamentally different that the legal limitations of the Constitution.

        You should admit when you are wrong and do so publicly. Your position as an opinion contributor here comes with responsibility. Your opinion is one thing but you have gone into the realm of verifiable fact which your own citations either invalidate or are just add more sophomoric conjecture. Maybe also avoid the fallacies of shifting the burden of proof and the gish gallop (by hyperlink proxy).

        I also assume you admit mistakes with the issue with the Women’s March comments you previously made given you haven’t tried to counter my arguments.

        PS…you also claimed “Take your argument to Princeton’s president and the HuffingtonPost. All serious commentary on the Senate hearing called it unconstitutional” An outright falsification on your part for both sources.

  • commonsense September 21, 2017 at 9:44 pm

    Whether religion is fact or fiction is really not the point. Religious beliefs are protected by the constitution. Would Ms Fienstein allow questions about sexual preference? Liberals certainly employ a double standard.

    • dodgers September 22, 2017 at 5:06 am

      Thank for some common sense. It’s that simple.

  • dodgers September 22, 2017 at 5:16 am

    Howard-Thank You. Well explained, the growing constitutional issue we are facing today. Even in the reader comments it’s evident some have a strong disdain for religion, for religious freedom, for contrary thought and belief.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.