“Feinstein claimed that many on her side are uncomfortable with dogma shaping a person’s view of the law and, presumably, the person’s worldview. This, we should note, would probably mean about 25% of the population in the United States, who are among the more religious and shape their lives around that faith.”
Christians will be applauded when they show up to feed, clothe, shelter, and encourage the battered victims of Harvey and Irma. As long as they keep their dogma in their hearts and not in their mouths, they are welcomed—but if they speak up about basic Christian beliefs, increasingly some Senators seem to be concerned.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is the most recent, joined by Dick Durbin, and preceded (most famously) by Bernie Sanders. In all cases, their comments are catching notice on the right and left, and appropriately so. Furthermore, the frequency with which we are seeing it occur is beginning to cause concern for those who hold to religious beliefs today.
Feinstein admonished Amy Barrett, a Trump nominee for a judgeship on the 7th Circuit, saying that Barrett’s Roman Catholic “dogma lives loudly” within her. Lest her words be out of context, here is the context of her statement:
Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that— you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.
Dogma is defined by Merriam Webster as, “a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.” In other words, these are things that people of faith have settled upon in terms of doctrines or beliefs.
This, perhaps, might remind us that dogma lived loudly in many of the nations founders. And it might also remind us of Article VI of the United States Constitution that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.”
A Growing Issue
The discussion over separation of church and state continues, but what is more disturbing here is the context of Feinstein’s statement. Amy Coney Barrett, who teaches law at the University of Notre Dame (a bastion of fringe and dangerous dogma, we must now assume), is the newest to be caught up in this new line of questioning, mostly from Democrat senators.
In the same conversation, Dick Durbin was offended by the use of the term “orthodox Catholic,” which he believed impugns Catholics who hold, well, actually, non-orthodox positions on things like abortion and the death penalty. He even asked, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”
Feinstein claimed that many on her side are uncomfortable with dogma shaping a person’s view of the law and, presumably, the person’s worldview. This, we should note, would probably mean about 25% of the population in the United States, who are among the more religious and shape their lives around that faith.
It’s worth nothing that both Barrett and Russell Vought, a Wheaton College (where I work) graduate, make it clear that they, would, indeed follow the law as written and be fair to all as impartial public servants.
They just happen to also be religious people who hold to some beliefs that offended Feinstein and others.
So much for Article VI.
The post This Dogma Won’t Hunt: Feinstein, Durbin, Sanders, and the New Religious Test for Office appeared first on The Aquila Report.