The Signal

Religious testing unconstitu­tional

- Gary CURTIS Gary Curtis is a resident of Friendly Valley.

Were you as shocked as I was to recently watch Democratic senators on the Judicial Committee question judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s religion as a modern litmus test for their approval or rejection?

Not all “dogma” is religious, and their liberal, progressiv­e dogma was very apparent in their unconstitu­tional approach and bias toward this distinguis­hed judicial nominee.

Rather than simply consider the profession­al achievemen­ts of a nominee for the federal judiciary – Notre Dame Law School professor Barrett –Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin found her “controvers­ial” and challenged her fitness to serve, mainly due to her Catholic faith.

Feinstein slyly observed that “the dogma lives loudly within” the Catholic mother of seven.

History observes that anti-Catholicis­m is one of America’s underwritt­en biases. One has to wonder whether there would have been more of an outcry if Professor Barrett had faced a similar grilling from Democrats if she were a Muslim or a Jew.

All Democratic committee members during the nomination hearing appeared to rely heavily on research done and selectivel­y provided them by a leftist, activist resource.

Apparently, they carefully presented the Democratic members with only part of the religiousl­y focused article that Professor Barrett co-wrote nearly 20 years ago, the subject of which was not selected by her but was assigned by a professor under whom she was working.

The article, “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” discussed how judges with strong religious beliefs should address death penalty cases. Specifical­ly, it related how they can recuse themselves if the law is contrary to their personal beliefs. But that never came out, did it?

The article specifical­ly stated, “Judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.” Yet somehow, Professor Barrett was treated by the Democratic Inquisitor­s as if she wanted to turn the United States into a religious society, presumably answerable to the Pope!

This is as absurd today as it was when Jack Kennedy was running as the “first Catholic” for president. This offensive religious-testing is not only illegal (Article VI, Section 3) but appears to be part of a broader effort on the left to disqualify people with strong religious views from the public square.

Senator Feinstein’s partisan approach seemed to be of the same mentality as the discredite­d, leftist Southern Poverty Law Center’s current effort to brand any nonprofit organizati­on or ministry that doesn’t agree with its uber-liberal agenda as “a hate group.”

While I admire these senior senators’ leadership in the area of national security, I submit that this distinguis­hed Notre Dame Law professor deserved better from them than repugnant religious testing and Catholic bashing.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States