{"id":29507,"date":"2020-09-26T13:54:39","date_gmt":"2020-09-26T17:54:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=29507"},"modified":"2020-09-26T14:03:34","modified_gmt":"2020-09-26T18:03:34","slug":"the-left-launches-withering-attacks-on-amy-coney-barretts-faith-religion-and-spirituality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=29507","title":{"rendered":"The Left<\/i> Launches Malicious Attacks on Amy Coney Barrett’s Faith, Religion and Pro-Life Stance"},"content":{"rendered":"

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry<\/h1>\n

By TYLER O’NEIL
\nPJ Media<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

President Donald Trump will nominate a woman to succeed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday, and observers expect him to choose Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n

On Friday, after news outlets reported that Trump would choose Barrett, HBO host Bill Maher savaged the potential nominee for her Roman Catholic faith. Yet perhaps no one has given a better response to such anti-religious bigotry than Barrett herself.\u201c<\/p>\n

Apparently, the pick is going to be Amy Coney. We\u2019re going to be saying the name a lot because she\u2019s a f***ing nut. Religion, I was right about that one, too,\u201d Maher said<\/a>.\u201c<\/p>\n

Amy Coney Barrett. Catholic. Really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic, like speaking in tongues. She doesn\u2019t believe in condoms, which she has in common with Trump, because he doesn\u2019t either. We learned that from Stormy Daniels,\u201d Maher quipped.<\/p>\n

<\/section>\n

Rather than just attack Catholicism, he attacked the broader Christian trend of believing that people still speak in tongues due to the Holy Spirit (a controversial position in Christianity, but one that extends to a broad swath of Christians).<\/p>\n

He even suggested that Barrett could not be trusted because of \u201creligion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet\u00a0Barrett is an originalist<\/a>, which means she aims to uphold the original public meaning of the Constitution, rather than reinterpreting it in order to unilaterally amend the Constitution, writing her policy preferences in law as the Supreme Court did in\u00a0Roe v. Wade<\/em>\u00a0(1973), creating a new \u201cright\u201d to abortion.<\/p>\n

Maher was far from the first to attack Barrett for her faith.<\/p>\n

Other attacks on Barrett\u2019s faith<\/h4>\n

During Barrett\u2019s confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals,\u00a0Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)<\/a> notoriously imposed something of a religious test. \u201cThe dogma lives loudly within you,\u201d Feinstein said, suggesting that Barrett\u2019s religious convictions disqualified her from service on the federal bench.<\/p>\n

After Ginsburg\u2019s death, some on the Left have rushed to demonize Barrett.\u00a0Washington Post<\/em>\u00a0book critic Ray Charles suggested that there was\u00a0something nefarious<\/a>\u00a0to Barrett\u2019s statement that she intends to pursue \u201cthe kingdom of God.\u201d On the contrary, the \u201ckingdom of God\u201d is a common Christian phrase that has more to do with loving your neighbor as yourself than bringing about some kind of theocracy.<\/p>\n

Similarly,\u00a0Newsweek<\/em>\u00a0ran a story<\/a>\u00a0claiming that Barrett belonged to a secret cult-like organization that inspired Margaret Atwood\u2019s book\u00a0The Handmaid\u2019s Tale<\/em>. In truth, the pentecostal group to which Barrett belonged, People of Praise, had no connection with People of Hope, the group Atwood seized upon.\u00a0Newsweek<\/em>\u00a0corrected the story but did not retract it.<\/p>\n

Last year at an event with Hillsdale College, Barrett\u2019s student Stephanie Maloney asked the judge \u201cWhat role, if any, should faith of a nominee have in the confirmation process?\u201d<\/p>\n

Barrett said, \u201cNone.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI mean, we have a long tradition of religious tolerance in this country. And in fact, the religious test clause in the Constitution makes it unconstitutional to impose a religious test on anyone who holds public office,\u201d the judge explained.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,\u201d Barrett added.<\/p>\n

\u201cI do have one thing that I want to add to that, though. I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone\u2019s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll people, of course\u2013 well, we hope, most people\u2013 have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,\u201d Barrett noted. \u201cAnd it\u2019s just as important for those people to be sure\u2013 I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That\u2019s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSo I think the public should be absolutely concerned about whether a nominee for judicial office will be willing and able to set aside personal preferences, be they moral, be they political, whatever convictions they are,\u201d Barrett explained. \u201cThe public should be concerned about whether a nominee can set those aside in favor of following the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cBut that\u2019s not a challenge just for religious people. I mean, that\u2019s a challenge for everyone. And so I think it\u2019s a dangerous road to go down to say that only religious people would not be able to separate out moral convictions from their duty,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n