Politico’s pretentious, error-filled hit against Amy Coney Barrett

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,507
55,200
Woods
✟4,584,702.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It’s open season on Amy Coney Barrett, the appeals-court judge reported to top President Trump’s list of candidates to fill the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. Barrett is a devout Roman Catholic and a member of an ecumenical charismatic community, so naturally, Democrats and their media allies are trying to cast her as Dangerous Theocrat.

But the least they can do is get the facts right. Sadly, it seems that’s too much to ask. Witness Villanova professor Massimo Faggioli’s flatulent hit piece published at Politico Thursday. Faggioli charges Barrett with membership in a “Christian group with a highly authoritarian internal structure.” This, he argues, means interrogating her religious faith is within bounds in a potential confirmation battle.

Never mind that the US Constitution bars such interrogation (“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”). It’s harder still to take Faggioli seriously when he makes three basic factual errors in a short piece.

First error: Barrett’s “community covenant” is no secret

Faggioli wants the Senate to “examine any covenant — a solemn contract binding before God — that she signed in the course of becoming a full member of People of Praise,” the charismatic community to which she belongs. “What is its nature and scope? What are the consequences of violating it?”

Actually, senators won’t need to go sleuthing in dusty Vatican archives — because they can find the PoP’s “Community Covenant” with a simple Google search. And it’s about as anodyne as you’d expect the vows of an ecumenical group devoted to living wholesome, godly lives to be: “We commit ourselves to live our lives in true righteousness and holiness. All of our lives must be worthy of the calling to which we have been called,” etc. etc.

Continued below.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/politicos-pretentious-error-filled-hit-against-amy-coney-barrett/
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Pavel Mosko

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
so naturally, Democrats and their media allies are trying to cast her as Dangerous Theocrat.

We all know that Barret's sins are being Cute, Conservative and Young. Especially Young, at 40 something she can easily do decades on the Court haunting future Democratic Legislators and presidents...
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It's really funny when you think about it. Democrats were all about diversity of background on religion when Kennedy ran in 1960, the fear then was he would be "taking orders from the Vatican" etc. but he showed himself to be an independent thinker against all the Protestant and Republican fears when he was in office.

And here we are 60 years later, and you got the same kind of thing but the parties have flipped.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RushMAN
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,573.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
We all know that Barret's sins are being Cute, Conservative and Young. Especially Young, at 40 something she can easily do decades on the Court haunting future Democratic Legislators and presidents...

Yep they're terrified of her because if she stays healthy and lives as long as Ginsburg, she has 40 years on the court ahead of if she's confirmed.

It's really funny when you think about it. Democrats were all about diversity of background on religion when Kennedy ran in 1960, the fear then was he would be "taking orders from the Vatican" etc. but he showed himself to be an independent thinker against all the Protestant and Republican fears when he was in office.

And here we are 60 years later, and you got the same kind of thing but the parties have flipped.

It's just the age old hypocrisy of Democrats. They only celebrate something if it serves their agenda. They love Biden and Pelosi's Catholicism but not Barrett's, because the former two's faith is shaped by their secularism and their political ideologies, not the other way around.

Whereas Barrett is a textualist who isn't going to warp any opinion she has serving on the Supreme Court according to political ideology one way or the other, and her conscience, I assume, is rightly formed in the faith which will guide her in distinguishing whether a case is aligned with the Constitution or not (because the Constitution is rooted in Catholic concepts of Natural Law).

If you think about it the parties didn't really flip, the Dems and the Republicans are up to the same things they've always been up to. I mean, Andrew Jackson, a Democrat was promoting arguably some of the strongest big-government policies this country has ever seen. The Republicans supported the 13th Amendment, they enfranchised black Americans with the subsequent amendments; it's a well crafted myth that developed from the 1960s onward that the parties ideologically switched. In fact, when Lyndon Johnson—a Democrat—signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 he said, "I'll have these [n-words] voting Democrat for the next 200 years."
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yep they're terrified of her because if she stays healthy and lives as long as Ginsburg, she has 40 years on the court ahead of if she's confirmed.



It's just the age old hypocrisy of Democrats. They only celebrate something if it serves their agenda. They love Biden and Pelosi's Catholicism but not Barrett's, because the former two's faith is shaped by their secularism and their political ideologies, not the other way around.

Whereas Barrett is a textualist who isn't going to warp any opinion she has serving on the Supreme Court according to political ideology one way or the other, and her conscience, I assume, is rightly formed in the faith which will guide her in distinguishing whether a case is aligned with the Constitution or not (because the Constitution is rooted in Catholic concepts of Natural Law).

If you think about it the parties didn't really flip, the Dems and the Republicans are up to the same things they've always been up to. I mean, Andrew Jackson, a Democrat was promoting arguably some of the strongest big-government policies this country has ever seen. The Republicans supported the 13th Amendment, they enfranchised black Americans with the subsequent amendments; it's a well crafted myth that developed from the 1960s onward that the parties ideologically switched. In fact, when Lyndon Johnson—a Democrat—signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 he said, "I'll have these [n-words] voting Democrat for the next 200 years."
You are right. However, it is true that the Democrats and Republicans have traded positions on a few issues, even recently. For example, unions and blue collar workers have historically been drawn to the Democrat Party. But that has been changing under President Trump. It's undeniable that corporate America had a stronger foothold in the Republican Party than the Democrat Party... until recently, that is. Today's Democrat Party would never protest WTO. But they did twenty years ago.

Still, as you say, not too much has changed. The GOP started life as the party of liberty... hence the Civil War. Today, it remains the party of liberty-minded individuals.

Anyway. Not a lot has changed but there still have been a few changes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gnarwhal
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,573.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You are right. However, it is true that the Democrats and Republicans have traded positions on a few issues, even recently. For example, unions and blue collar workers have historically been drawn to the Democrat Party. But that has been changing under President Trump. It's undeniable that corporate America had a stronger foothold in the Republican Party than the Democrat Party... until recently, that is. Today's Democrat Party would never protest WTO. But they did twenty years ago.

Still, as you say, not too much has changed. The GOP started life as the party of liberty... hence the Civil War. Today, it remains the party of liberty-minded individuals.

Anyway. Not a lot has changed but there still have been a few changes.

It's really interesting how overtly and rapidly corporate America seemed to switch sides. I mean, I'm not that old—I attended high school in the early 2000s—and I always remember hearing the liberal punks and hipsters in my classes railing against corporations as the "big evil" in our country, (i.e. "we're in Iraq because evil corporations care more about profits than American lives hurr durr") but it was always the left that vilified them and the right was evil because we deregulated things and withdrew government intervention on the economy that ultimately increased their profit margins.

Now during the Trump administration you've had more and more corporations get overtly political, and then they ramped it up to full mobilization in 2020 with the BLM activism. You have entire industries that are going out of the way to create a corporate political identity with their expressions of support for things like BLM (and by extension, Antifa).
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It's really interesting how overtly and rapidly corporate America seemed to switch sides. I mean, I'm not that old—I attended high school in the early 2000s—and I always remember hearing the liberal punks and hipsters in my classes railing against corporations as the "big evil" in our country, (i.e. "we're in Iraq because evil corporations care more about profits than American lives hurr durr") but it was always the left that vilified them and the right was evil because we deregulated things and withdrew government intervention on the economy that ultimately increased their profit margins.

Now during the Trump administration you've had more and more corporations get overtly political, and then they ramped it up to full mobilization in 2020 with the BLM activism. You have entire industries that are going out of the way to create a corporate political identity with their expressions of support for things like BLM (and by extension, Antifa).
Yep. It's also strange how the far left has embraced pointless neocon wars.

The right seems to have learned its lesson after Iraq Part II. Since then, they've embraced a more libertarian foreign policy where possible. But the left, always quick to condemn "imperialism" in the old days, has cut all ties to pacifism and embraced war in every possible way on every possible level.

It's just weird, you know?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,573.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yep. It's also strange how the far left has embraced pointless neocon wars.

The right seems to have learned its lesson after Iraq Part II. Since then, they've embraced a more libertarian foreign policy where possible. But the left, always quick to condemn "imperialism" in the old days, has cut all ties to pacifism and embraced war in every possible way on every possible level.

It's just weird, you know?

It is, I think it's more likely that I just didn't notice the warhawks on the left before Hillary took the limelight a few years ago, but again in high school I always kind of just assumed that liberals were unilaterally antiwar. Then I started to see how sneaky they were with their support of it, usually veiling it in some thin patriotic sentiment but structuring their approach in a way that benefits them personally or politically.

It's interesting that you mention imperialism because just today I was mulling it over and recognizing their strategies and tactics the past four years, and especially this aggressive political push in this Covid/post-George Floyd period as very imperialistic in nature. Invasive, confrontational, unbending, oppressive, etc. In some ways it reminds me of the Belgians in Africa, with their violent tactics used to subdue the indigenous people of the Congo and elsewhere.

Just heard Barrett is the one to be nominated. Hold on to your hats.

hold-onto-your-butts-jurassic-park.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Xenophon

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2020
689
573
29
Smithfield
✟17,906.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
It's really interesting how overtly and rapidly corporate America seemed to switch sides. I mean, I'm not that old—I attended high school in the early 2000s—and I always remember hearing the liberal punks and hipsters in my classes railing against corporations as the "big evil" in our country, (i.e. "we're in Iraq because evil corporations care more about profits than American lives hurr durr") but it was always the left that vilified them and the right was evil because we deregulated things and withdrew government intervention on the economy that ultimately increased their profit margins.

Now during the Trump administration you've had more and more corporations get overtly political, and then they ramped it up to full mobilization in 2020 with the BLM activism. You have entire industries that are going out of the way to create a corporate political identity with their expressions of support for things like BLM (and by extension, Antifa).

And almost every corporation, not only full ideological support, but also specifically funds sodomite propaganda. The only exception I'm aware of is Exxon. Anything you buy, a portion of which goes to pushing immorality.
 
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,573.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
And almost every corporation, not only full ideological support, but also specifically funds sodomite propaganda. The only exception I'm aware of is Exxon. Anything you buy, a portion of which goes to pushing immorality.

It makes me long for an Amish lifestyle, completely independent of this corporate filth.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yep they're terrified of her because if she stays healthy and lives as long as Ginsburg, she has 40 years on the court ahead of if she's confirmed.



It's just the age old hypocrisy of Democrats. They only celebrate something if it serves their agenda. They love Biden and Pelosi's Catholicism but not Barrett's, because the former two's faith is shaped by their secularism and their political ideologies, not the other way around.

Whereas Barrett is a textualist who isn't going to warp any opinion she has serving on the Supreme Court according to political ideology one way or the other, and her conscience, I assume, is rightly formed in the faith which will guide her in distinguishing whether a case is aligned with the Constitution or not (because the Constitution is rooted in Catholic concepts of Natural Law).

If you think about it the parties didn't really flip, the Dems and the Republicans are up to the same things they've always been up to. I mean, Andrew Jackson, a Democrat was promoting arguably some of the strongest big-government policies this country has ever seen. The Republicans supported the 13th Amendment, they enfranchised black Americans with the subsequent amendments; it's a well crafted myth that developed from the 1960s onward that the parties ideologically switched. In fact, when Lyndon Johnson—a Democrat—signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 he said, "I'll have these [n-words] voting Democrat for the next 200 years."
I'm confused.
What does a professor of theology at a Catholic University have to do with the Democrats?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,573.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm confused.
What does a professor of theology at a Catholic University have to do with the Democrats?

Are you talking about Barrett? She's believed to be President Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court and the Democrats are preparing an all-out assault on her character, just like they did with Kavanagh.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,162
16,006
Flyoverland
✟1,223,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Are you talking about Barrett? She's believed to be President Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court and the Democrats are preparing an all-out assault on her character, just like they did with Kavanagh.
I think he was asking about Beans. The author of the hit piece. Why would a Catholic university professor be attacking Barrett? Hank doesn't get that. Of course we know how deformed the once Catholic institutions have become.He apparently expects Catholic institutions to be Catholic. How old fashioned.
 
Upvote 0

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,573.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think he was asking about Beans. The author of the hit piece. Why would a Catholic university professor be attacking Barrett? Hank doesn't get that. Of course we know how deformed the once Catholic institutions have become.He apparently expects Catholic institutions to be Catholic. How old fashioned.

OH, of course. My bad.

Yep at this point we can count the number of trustworthy Catholic universities on maybe one hand.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums