https://disq.us/url?url=h...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.foxnews.com/opi" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://www.foxnews.com/o...foxnews.com/opi...
Rest of article that was truncated.

That was fully on display during the Kavanaugh confirmation when she demanded that every male just “shut up.” Even if this is her objective, and even if she is a woman, religious bigotry should not be tolerated.

As for Sen. Harris, she has 2020 White House aspirations. She would do
well to recognize that being on the left edge of the West Coast is far
from middle America. Any pathway to 2020 still takes you through Iowa
and neighboring Nebraska for that matter.

Buescher would have been in the right to blast both senators for these questions. Instead, he
calmly explained that “judge[s] must decide cases and apply the law, not
advocate for one side or the other in a legal proceeding.” Simply put,
his faith and religiously affiliated volunteerism has no bearing on his
ability to faithfully execute the duties of a federal judge. For Harris
and Hirono to insinuate otherwise is an insult to all people of faith,
whether Catholic, evangelical, Jewish or Muslim.

And remember, Harris and Hirono aren’t the only senators making these suggestions. In
2017, Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein suggested that
judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s religious belief rendered her
unfit for the bench. A few months before that, the supposedly
progressive Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., suggested that Russell Vought, an
evangelical nominee for a position in the Office of Management and
Budget, was unfit for public service because of his belief in the Gospel.

Sanders’ treatment of Vought makes clear that it’s not only Catholics who should
be alarmed by this trend among Democrats and progressives. The left
seeks to stifle any public expressions of religious belief, whether it’s
relevant to one’s job or not, and block from government anyone whose
religious beliefs run counter to the ideology of the left.

For Hirono and Harris, the target was a Catholic who disagreed with them
about abortion. For Sanders, it was an evangelical who disagreed with
him about salvation through Christ. Other senators will find other
reasons to oppose nominees of other religions. Their goal is simple: to
drive religion out of the public square, even if that means suggesting
that a nominee is an extremist for belonging to a 2-million-member
organization that raises money for the intellectually impaired, feeds the hungry and clothes the poor.

People of all faiths and members of both parties must rise up and speak out
against this rank bigotry. If you think it will stop with Catholics,
you’re already wrong. And if it’s allowed to continue, the Senate will
succeed in instituting an unconstitutional religious test.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34151&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145353

Yet the definition of religious faith is simple enough that even those from competing religions can agree. Its belief without reason. It is a demand that you believe even when you have nothing more than a claim to go on. The epistemology and etymology of the words for faith and reason pre-date the Abrahamic faiths. They meant what they mean now when they were used at the founding of these religions.

When you believe god is instructing you to do something or believe a certain way- there is no argument to change your mind other than "there is no god". It is the death of reason to accept that any religion attests to the true character of a god or gods. As soon as you accept that something is from god or god's will then you've already rejected ANY reasoning against it. If god says so- who are you to argue? I don't need to be an expert to point out a fact.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34151&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145356

But that begs the question, on what subject does God instruct us in the Bible? It isn't science - certainly not in the micro sense. I find no dichotomy between Christianity and evolutionary biology, for instance.

The purpose of the Bible wasn't to explain the mechanism of how God created the heavens and the earth. The story of God's creation was told (as a story) to ancient bronze age people in terms they could understand - to show them that God DID create them. The intricate details would have gone over their head. Frankly, I feel the really intricate details would go over our heads today. I've always likened it to a young child asking "where did I come from?" A crash course in genetics isn't what they need.

The purpose of Christianity is to teach us HOW to live, not how the physical world works. We're smart enough to figure that out, as God well knows. What we lack is the wisdom and spirit to live wisely.

So I really don't feel the need to choose between faith and reason. One is for the unseen and unknowable, one is for senses and the mind.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34151&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145357

Bullshit. You made a factually incorrect statement. Period. Now you want to air your political grievances as a catchall to cover your ass. Sorry, it isn't going to work.

And the incidents you cited, whether or not you agree with them, have NOTHING to do with Sharia Law. No sane person can argue that Kim Davis or Jack Phillips were trying to force other people to follow their religious beliefs. That is what Sharia Law does. It forces others to follow your beliefs.

I'm no fan of Kim Davis, but I am in full support of Jack Phillips. And if anyone is behaving like Sharia Law, it is the Colorado Civil Rights Commission - which was slapped down by SCOTUS for taking a decidedly Sharia-like attitude with the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34151&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145358

"I guess that depends on if you think that a simplistic caricature of Christians as unenlightened simpletons is correct."
-No. In general. Applying to all. Once you start to believe somethign is true and ceded questioning the validity of something, ESPECIALLY things you take for granted- you stop reasoning about them. Simple as that. Religion- at its core- demands blind faith.

Hint: the very people who established the country were majority Deists leaving other nations who's governments had established religions. To guarantee freedom of religion our government is under obligation to be free OF established religions and preferences. Read the Jefferson bible, show me where the dogmatic and miraculous is.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34151&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145354

Yes they were. And I don't suppose you actually know what the 3/5ths compromise was all about do you?

It had everything to do with voting power and nothing to do with the humanity of the negro slaves. The South wanted proportional representation based on their population - including slaves who were denied the right to vote. This gave the southern states more representatives and more votes in the Electoral College. By counting the slaves as "3/5th" of a person, it diminished that unfair advantage without completely alienating the South from joining the Union.

The modern day equivalent are the millions of illegal aliens in CA who are not allowed to vote - but their numbers are counted towards California's proportion of representatives in the House of Representatives and their number of Electoral College votes.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34151&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145359

"The problem (as usual) is taking Biblical scripture and using it for something it was not intended."
-I'm an Ordained Minister. I've been shoulder to shoulder with young earth creationists. The bible was very much intended to be the ONE and only book the population needed. That we try and act as if the moderate approach is correct, that we can rightfully and sinlessly put our daily lives ahead of the bible- is not biblically supported. In fact, when I was a theist, I often admired how far biblical literalness went in their lives.... believing that they would be closer to god for their piousness. I know better now. I know that how much faith you have and how much you reject what seems to be true for what the bible says is true- is an errant position. But it isnt for them. They are using the bible as the bible says to use the bible- to answer their questions, to point them to the right answer, to give them hope even when they are doubting. Belief is the death of reason and religion demands belief before ever reasoning out what it is you believe. Who are we to question god? How can someone question a religious belief? It literally against their religion- assuming they actually follow one and dont just go thru the motions with their own "idea" of what god "really" is? When I got to that point I realized it wasn't my god anymore in the bible. It was no more likely to be my god in the bible as it would be if I was reading about Krishna or Zeus. I've digressed.

A book from a prefect god is by definition perfect. Asserting the bible isnt accurate (scientifically or otherwise) is to contradict the claims made in the bible. If the bible is just wishy-washy guesses by humans... then it has no value.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34151&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145355