• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Questioning Nominees About Their Religion. Right or Wrong? Let’s Think a Moment about Islam!

LIBERAL SCHOLAR DECRIES QUESTIONING NOMINEES ABOUT RELIGION

by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine

It isn’t often that we quote with approval presidents of Ivy League colleges. However, this letter from Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber to the chairman and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee deserves to be quoted in full and with full approval.

The letter pertains to the interrogation of Amy Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, by Democratic members of the committee regarding her religious beliefs. Eisgruber writes:

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:

I write, as a university president and a constitutional scholar with expertise on religious freedom and judicial appointments, to express concern about questions addressed to Professor Amy Barrett during her confirmation hearings and to urge that the Committee on the Judiciary refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views.

Article VI of the United States Constitution provides explicitly that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This bold endorsement of religious freedom was among the original Constitution’s most pathbreaking provisions. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), holding that the First and Fourteenth Amendments render this principle applicable to state offices and that it protects non-believers along with believers of all kinds, is among the greatest landmarks in America’s jurisprudence of religious freedom. Article VI’s prohibition of religious tests is a critical guarantee of equality and liberty, and it is part of what should make all of us proud to be Americans.

By prohibiting religious tests, the Constitution makes it impermissible to deny any person a national, state, or local office on the basis of their religious convictions or lack thereof. Because religious belief is constitutionally irrelevant to the qualifications for a federal judgeship, the Senate should not interrogate any nominee about those beliefs. I believe, more specifically, 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.

I am sympathetic to the challenges that your committee faces as it considers nominees to the federal bench. In my book The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process (Princeton University Press, 2007), I argued that your committee need not defer to presidential nominations, and that the Constitution permits senators to probe the judicial philosophies of nominees. It is, however, possible to probe those philosophies without reference to the religious affiliation or theological views of a nominee, and Article VI insists that the Senate observe that restriction.

The questions asked of Professor Barrett about her Catholic faith appear to have been provoked in part by her co-authored article, “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases” (1998). I have read that article, and I believe that the views expressed in it are fully consistent with a judge’s obligation to uphold the law and the Constitution. As a university president committed to free speech, academic freedom, and religious pluralism, I must add that, in my view, Professor Barrett’s qualifications become stronger by virtue of her willingness to write candidly and intelligently about difficult and sensitive ethical questions: our universities, our judiciary, and our country will be the poorer if the Senate prefers nominees who remain silent on such topics.

I am deeply concerned by the harsh and often unfair criticisms that are now routinely levelled from both sides of the political spectrum against distinguished judicial nominees who would serve this country honorably and well. On the basis of her accomplishments and scholarly writing, I believe that Professor Barrett is in that category. She and other nominees ought in any event to be evaluated on the basis of their professional ability and jurisprudential philosophy, not their religion: every Senator and every American should cherish and safeguard vigorously the freedom guaranteed by the inspiring principle set forth in Article VI of the United States Constitution.

(Emphasis added)

This letter will likely fall on deaf ears. So desperate are the Democrats to block judicial nominees who don’t share their ideological bent that they are prepared to ignore the Constitution’s prohibition of a religious test for office, to the dismay of liberal scholars like Christopher Eisgruber. When you’re “the resistance,” what difference does the Constitution make? 

Glenn’s comment….Life isn’t as simple as writer  Mirengoff suggests….especially when most civilized people, usually conservatives these days, are not government programmed to  predict our human future.  We are to seek it through learning the past and present.

Twenty years ago who would have believed that since morning September 11, 2001 to today,  thousands of Americans would become  murdered by religious fanatics; that today America’s religiously fanatic enemy, Iran, financially in part supported by an American President, Barack Hussein Obama,  is about to enter the nuclear weapon world within a year or two.

This Islam sympathizer Obama,  an  unreligious son of an Islamic,  would certainly have agreed with writer Mirengoff.    Perhaps he even would have  encouraged Irani immigrants to settle in here to  find employment at the Pentagon or  at the FBI when James Comie maneuvered  Obama-created   corruptions to cause  conservative Americans enough pain to make them disappear.

Seeking goodness as an American  was the America I entered in 1934.   It was then a JudeoChristian  peoples enduring the economic pain of the Great Depression. I, raised Lutheran, lived  in a predominantly Roman Catholic community.   I attended public schools of high quality teachings whose instructors until my college years were nearly all  usually well educated  old maids who loved their careers….regularly reminding me the two American principles we students were never to forget:

1.  “Accumulating knowledge will help us  become closer to God….For God Created and Knows All Matter”, I was told again and again with a finger in my face (for I was terribly dyslexic decades before dyslexia was discovered)…and 2. Because we were Americans and therefore responsible for our future,    ACCUMULATING KNOWLEDGE  WILL HELP US MAKE BETTER DECISIONS AT THE BALLOT BOX!”

Of the two billion Islamists throughout the world, it is claimed that only 20% religiously support the elimination of all JudeoChristians in the world.

Oh well, what’s 400,000,000 fewer people on Earth anyway.   Survivors wouldn’t have to worry so much about Al Gore’s Global Warming deceptions.

 

 

Advertisements