Sen Ben Sasse’s full statement in Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearing

CIVICS 101

October 14, 2020 | 4 Comments » | 634 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing and is something to be greatly admired when guaranteed by the government of a country.

    BUT what happens to a freedom-loving country when it is a doctrine of one of its religious groups that it must conquer and and replace all other religions because its founder taught his followers that theirs was the one and only true religion and all others were false religions which, according to their God, had to be gotten rid off and replaced. Therefore, it was their duty, as good and faithful disciples, to spread the one true religion by any means possible — by preaching, if that was sufficient to persuade the populace to convert but if preaching was not sufficiently convincing, then it was wholly justifiable for any and all types of violence to be used, including large scale acts of terrorism.

    Under such circumstances, how wise is it for a freedom-loving country to guarantee “all citizens freedom of religion”? I would call it naive, gullible and a dereliction of duty by ministers charged with the responsibility of keeping the citizens safe and protected from violence, the threat of violence or forced conversion to a religion that offers no salvation, only empty verbiage, verbose sermons and a great deal of violence.

  2. @ Apache:
    Right you ARE!
    Freedom of Religion is like Freedom to own guns: there is a limit to what you may do with your freedom.
    You are free hold guns, but you are not free to endanger people with it. If you do endanger someone, you are likely to find yourself in jail, your freedom totally lost.
    You are free to practice your religion, but you are not free to endanger people. When you threaten people, when you preach violence towards others – you loose your freedom of religion.

  3. “Congress shall make no law respecting
    1. an establishment of religion, or
    2. prohibiting the free exercise (of religion); or
    3. abridging the freedom of speech, or
    4. (abridging the freedom) of the press; or
    5. (abridging) the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
    6. (the right of the people peaceably) to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    The type of religion, their doctrines, etc., are irrelevant.

    Does that give me the right to kill my own baby? It’s up to the courts to decide, not Congress. Does it give me the right to carry out jihad against the police? It’s up to the courts to decide, not Congress. Does it give me the right to assemble 51 or 100 people together, with or without masks, 5’11” apart and singing songs? That’s up to the courts to decide, not Congress.

    What kind of questions should the senators be asking Judge Barrett? Any kind they blooming well want; and they will probably vote along party lines. Everyone knows they will do this, and there is no law against it. I just wish they would be restrained in their BS grandstanding and get on with it.

  4. The high for ACB and the low for DT!!!
    Shameful!
    The “left” has its own THEOLOGY! The absolute absence of ETHICS (of life)!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*