A Dose Of Bigotry Would Cure The Disease

[Flanders]

Ever since 9-11-2001 I have been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

AG Barr’s little pep talk to Catholics falls far short of laying the problem on the SCOTUS where it belongs for refusing to guard the public purse as the Founding Fathers intended. Barr surely knows that a correct interpretation of:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

drives Christian religions away from the public purse along with everyone else lusting after tax dollars.

Secularism has become a religion based on freedom from personal responsibility, salvation attained by political activism and severe punishment of disobedience, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr warned Friday in a speech at Notre Dame’s law school.

While the new secular religion has inverted basic Christian morality, it has adopted practices such as inquisitions and excommunication to enforce its doctrine, Barr said:

“One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has, itself, become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It has taken on all the trappings of religion – including inquisitions and excommunication.

“Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake: social, educational and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.”

A key precept of the secularist religion is that the government is responsible for protecting people from suffering the consequences of personal misconduct and irresponsibility, Barr said:

“Today, in the face of all the increasing pathologies, instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have cast The State in the role of the Alleviator of Bad Consequences. We call on The State to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility.”

The secularist government attempts to alleviate bad consequences by advancing abortion, enabling drug use and assuming the roles of parent and spouse, Barr said. And, while promising unlimited freedom, the end result of the secularist religion is one of servitude, he warned:

“So, the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion.

“The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.

“The solution to the breakdown of the family is for The State to set itself up as an ersatz husband for the single mother and an ersatz father for the children. The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with this wreckage.

“And, while we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them.

“We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a coercive state on whom we depend.”

“Interestingly, this idea of The State as the Alleviator of Bad Consequences has given rise to a new moral system that goes hand-in-hand with the secularization of society. It can be called the System of Macro-Morality. And, in some ways, it is an inversion of Christian morality.

“Christianity teaches a Micro-Morality: we transform the world by focusing on our own personal morality and transformation. The new secular religion teaches Macro-Morality. Once morality is not gauged by their private conduct, but rather their commitment to political causes and collective action to address various social problems.

“This system allows us not to worry so much about the strictures on our own private lives, because we can find salvation on the picket line. We can signal our finely-tuned moral sensibilities by participating in demonstrations on this cause or on that.”

AG Barr: ‘New Secular Religion’ Inverts Christian Morality, Employs ‘Inquisitions and Excommunication’
By Craig Bannister
October 14, 2019 | 5:11 PM EDT

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-b...s-inquisitions

Read the transcript and you will see that 99.999 percent of everything Barr said is pure big government, organized religion, double-talk because he deliberately ignores the XVI Amendment that was designed and implemented by Socialists to enrich their own priesthood.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/a...-center-ethics

Barr’s problem with the truth is that Christian religions had exclusive Rights to the public purse until the Income Tax Amendment came along and began funding every religion and every political cause.

[Gonzomin]

[QUOTE=Flash;3032393]

[B]Ever since 9-11-2001 I have been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.[/QUOTE

How something is "defined" is irrelevant. A person's free speech and religion cannot be restricted because you choose to call it something different.

Socialism is not a religion, so that makes no sense. However, if Islam being political bothers you, then Christianity must bother you as well, That is a religion that is super political too. It has been for thousands of years. It sure as hell is in America.

[Flash]

[B]Ever since 9-11-2001 I have been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

Not defining Socialism/Communism as a religion allowed Democrats to flood the courts with their priests who rule against every litigant and criminal defendant that challenges one or more of Socialism’s tenets. So I would not object to a dose of religious bigotry if it keeps Socialists off the bench:

No definition denies first amendment protections to any group. If a president appoints a Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Socialist, Communist, and Christian to the federal judiciary that is not violating any religious or 1st amendment guarantees.

Does it violate 1st amendment rights because most judges are Christian?

[Adolf_Twitler]

Ever since 9-11-2001 I have been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

Not defining Socialism/Communism as a religion allowed Democrats to flood the courts with their priests who rule against every litigant and criminal defendant that challenges one or more of Socialism’s tenets. So I would not object to a dose of religious bigotry if it keeps Socialists off the bench:

The ugly specter of religious bigotry reared its disgusting head during Senate confirmation of the nomination of Brian Buescher for a federal judgeship. The Constitution’s Article VI, Clause 3 clearly specifies that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” but that must be news to Senators Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris.

December 25, 2018
Dem senators flirting with a religious test for judicial nominees
By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._nominees.html

Finally, very few Americans realize that Socialists paid tax dollars to proselytize continually violate the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

Democrats not only established their religion with tax dollars they are determined to deny everybody else free exercise.

NOW THAT WAS A HUGE LOAD OF SHIT!

[Flanders]

Conservative voices are defending AG Barr for various reasons:

. . . people who hate religion and want to drive it out of the public square, if not eradicate it by force — are not content to live and let live.

Devine: William Barr explains how people who hate religion are ruining our country
By Miranda Devine
October 16, 2019 | 9:56pm | Updated

https://nypost.com/2019/10/16/devine...-little-sense/

Not out of the public square —— but out of the public purse.

A Washington Post columnist found the Barr speech “terrifying” and a call for the abolition of the separation of church and state.

October 18, 2019
Hysterical reaction to AG Barr's landmark speech at Notre Dame
By Chuck Donovan

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...otre_dame.html

Ask Washington Post parasites if they want to abolish the separation of church and public purse?

Bill Barr's Extraordinary Speech at Notre Dame
Rod Dreher, The American Conservative October 16, 2019

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...me_489410.html

Not one goes to the heart of matter:

Barr’s problem with the truth is that Christian religions had exclusive Rights to the public purse until the Income Tax Amendment came along and began funding every religion and every political cause.

Finally, neither Barr nor his defenders address the absolute difference between a belief in God and a belief in an organized religion of choice. Make no mistake. Religion is nothing more than a matter of choice:

Since the day organized religion was invented every priesthood worked to make their religion the one true religion. That never-ending “competition” put the human race on a fast track to hell the day the one God notion ejaculated organized religion as it is practiced today. From the beginning the elimination of every other religion took priority over forcing everybody to believe in God. Basically, religious fanatics hate alien religious fanatics more than they hate atheists. (In today’s world Muslims and Communists are the only priesthoods who proselytize with guns.)

Incidentally, people like me who believe in God, but not religion, do not care what others believe. Did you ever hear of an individual who believed in God beating up someone because they practiced a religion? How many times has the world seen fanatical believers in one religion trying to wipe out, or convert by force, true believers in another religion?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...79#post2831979

p.s. “We all believe in the same God.” is the favorite line of horseshit put out by clerics of every stripe in order to cover all the bases. If “We’s all God’s chillun” is true I wish they would explain why every organized religions’s God is hellbent on killing off “God’s chillun” in every other religion.