Right On: Democrats’ unconstitutional religious test

September 20, 2017 Utah Channel 3

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: hsierer@stgeorgeutah.com

Twitter: @STGnews