September 18, 2017
Christianity is a "great religion" -- just don't bring it to work. That was Senator Dianne Feinstein's latest message for nominees like Amy Barrett, the president's pick for an empty seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. After an embarrassing tirade about Barrett's faith in her Judiciary hearing, Feinstein has been desperately trying to explain away her obvious prejudice toward men and women of faith. That PR offensive took another turn this weekend on CNN's "State of the Union," when the California Democrat tried to tamp down criticism in the wake of a national firestorm.
"This is a woman who has no real trial or court experience," she argued. "And, therefore, there is no record. She's a professor, which is fine, but all we have to look at are her writings, and in her writings, she makes some statements which are questionable, which deserve questions." There's a very real concern, she insisted, that believers like Barrett can't be objective. (Much like liberal senators, apparently.)
The reality is, liberals have as many deep convictions as conservatives -- they're just not as often rooted in the Christian religion. So to suggest that they can be impartial and believers can't is not only untrue, it's unfair. Telling Barrett that the "dogma lives loudly within [her]" is to ignore the dogma that lives even louder within Senate Democrats.
But, Feinstein defended herself on CNN, "I'm a product of Catholic education. I sat in doctrine classes for four years for five days a week. I think Catholicism is a great religion," she added quickly. "I have great respect for it. I've known many of the archbishops who have been in our community, we've had dinner together, we've spoken together over many, many decades, and I've tried to be helpful to the church whenever I could."
Unfortunately, that doesn't make her religious test – shared by fellow radicals Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) -- any more excusable. Besides, Ed Morrissey asks, "Just how has Feinstein made herself 'helpful to the church,' anyway? She's part of the cohort that insists on abortion on demand and enforcement of the HHS contraception mandate that forces organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor to either violate their religious principles or pay massive and ruinous fines to the government. With 'help' like that, the bishops could easily find better dining partners."
The Wall Street Journal, like us, knows where the real dogma lives. And it isn't in people like Barrett. "The 'religious test' Democrats want to impose isn't about religion per se; it's about ensuring that every religious claim can be bent to more comprehensive political aims. It's about defining anyone who dissents from the mores of the sexual revolution as disqualified from public office. That's what makes Ms. Feinstein's questioning so chilling."
Questions are one thing. Interrogations with the intent of maligning or discrediting a person are quite another. This historical record is quite clear; America was founded on faith predominately by people of faith. It's time to stop the Sanders-Feinstein intolerant religious test. If you agree, sign our petition to the U.S. Senate.
Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.