Are Democrats aware of this?
I have yet another example (well, 2, actually) of Democrats trying to apply a religious test to someone trying to work in government. More and more Democrats are getting comfortable with this.
Bernie Sanders has decided to introduce a bill to create Medicaid for all. Because a system that is losing money hand over fist, pays out less than private insurance, and is losing doctors all the time is just what we need to “fix” the health care system.
Or not.
And you can still donate to The Salvation Army for hurricane Harvey and Irma relief. Details here.
Mentioned links:
No Religious Test Clause [Wikipedia]
Episode 181: Cuts to Sex-Ed in Schools, and A New Religious Test for Government Work [previous episode of “Consider This!”]
Did Durbin and Feinstein Impose a Religious Test for Office?
Feinstein w/Barrett; 9-7-2017 [Video of questioning]
Dick Durbin Appears to Illegally Grill Trump Judicial Nominee Over Her Religion [Video of questioning]
Sanders Wants ‘Medicare For All.’ Here Are 8 Reasons That’s Dumb.
Medicare for All is becoming the new litmus test for Democratic presidential hopefuls.
Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!
You can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes. And please leave a comment letting them know how you like it. I really appreciate listener ratings on iTunes, which can also lead to having more listeners, and more ratings!
If you're on Android, you have Google Play Music, and you'll find the podcast there. It's the most recent of all of these, but it is Google, so it'll grow quickly.
The Stitcher Network is another possibility. You can find podcasts, add them to your favorites, and then either listen to them on the web site, stream them to your smart phone, or to some snazzy GM, Ford, and BMW car. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.
You can listen on the Blubrry Network if you like. You can find podcasts and save them to your MyCast list, and come back anytime and listen to the latest episodes.
Similarly, Player.fm allows you to subscribe to podcasts and play all the latest episodes from your browser.
And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.
I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.
Show transcript
In the United States Constitution, Article 6 section 3, includes this clause, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The England that the colonists had come from did have such religious tests, mainly to allow only members of the Church of England to hold public office. The colonists saw that these sorts of tests tended to corrupt both the church and the state, so they prohibited the use of religious tests.
It seems, however, that Democrats these days are more than happy to impose anti-religious tests on administrative appointees. I don’t mean that they’re trying to make sure that only atheists get into office, only that they will hold you to a higher level of scrutiny if you take your religion too seriously.
If you’re getting a sense of déjà vu, that’s OK. It’s not a glitch in The Matrix. I gave this same bit of background information in episode 181, a little over 2 months ago. At that time, Bernie Sanders decided that a Christian, who had written an article affirming a Christian doctrine that had been around for 2000 years, was unfit to crunch numbers in the Office of Management and Budget. You should really go back and listen to that first. If you can’t find it in your podcast app, there’s a link in the show notes on the website, and you can play it from there.
It seems that Sanders has decided that one’s religion might be a disqualification for being a civil servant. While Democrats have not made this qualification official, which would actually be unconstitutional, they have made it a de facto standard. “Now wait,” you may be saying, “Sanders isn’t the whole Democratic Party!” Correct. He is, however, the one who got his foot in this particular door. The latest example comes from Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin.
Law professor Amy Barrett was nominated for a federal judge position. But in questioning her, Senator Feinstein, said this, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.” All that was missing were the sounds of a breathing apparatus and the voice of James Earl Jones. “The dogma is strong with this one.” In misreading an article Barrett wrote 20 years ago, Feinstein suggested that Barrett would judge based on her Catholic faith rather than the law.
Senator Durbin took less of an issue with Barrett’s personal faith, just asking her what she meant in that 20-year-old paper by the term “orthodox Catholic”, worried, it seemed, that opposing abortion might not qualify him. Barrett explained that she and her cowriter came up with that term for the purpose of showing what any orthodox believer of any religion, or even an atheist, might come up against if their beliefs were at odds with the law. The paper noted that judges should judge based on the law even if their beliefs said otherwise. Senator Durbin had to know that, if he read the paper enough to know that the phrase was in there, but he still felt it necessary to bring it up. This is especially troubling because the paper used that term in making a point that (you would hope) the Senator agreed with. This, then, can only have been an attempt at a religious smear.
A few of points about this. First of all, while one’s decisions as a judge might be informed by one’s religion, the law and precedent are still overarching principles, as Barrett fully acknowledged. Judges interpret the law; they don’t (or shouldn’t) write it. Perhaps Feinstein and Durbin are afraid that Barrett will somehow find new rights like judges found the “right” to abortion or the “right” of the government to make you buy things. In short, they want to make sure they don’t get bitten by their own viper.
Second, it’s ironic that Democrats often try to keep various entitlements around by appealing to…religion! As though Jesus is some cosmic Robin Hood. Oh, and let’s not forget the anti-war catchphrase, “Who would Jesus bomb?” I understand that religion may inform legislation while the law is the overriding concern for a judge, but you can’t be fearful of dogma on one hand while on the other hand reserving the right to use it when it serves your political interests.
Third, would a Muslim be subjected to this line of questioning? Heh, right. But if a conservative had asked those questions, it would be the top news story of the week.
Given what these Democratic politicians have been doing, they really don’t have a dogma in this fight.
Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator from the People’s Republic of Vermont, has got an idea that he’s convinced is good; Medicare For All. If you remember those Republicans who predicted that ObamaCare was destined for failure so that Democrats could sell us a single-payer system, you should be listening to them even more now that this proposal is here.
The Daily Wire has a list of 8 reasons this is a terrible idea. The link in the show notes includes:
- Medicare pays doctors and hospitals about 80% of what private insurers do.
- It has incredibly complex rules and regulations.
- It denies claims at a higher rate than any private insurer.
- It’s hemorrhaging money and, in a few decades, will make today’s $20 trillion debt seem like the height of fiscal responsibility.
- And fewer doctors are accepting Medicare, likely because of all the previous problems.
There’s more to the list, but really, the only thing you have to look at for how awful a single-payer system is, is the Veterans Administration. If the government can’t get medical care right for our vets, why should we trust them with everyone else?
This bill won’t pass, but there are plenty of Democratic Presidential hopefuls lining up behind this. An article in the left-leaning New Republic lists Cory Booker, Elisabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris as 3 of those who are supporting this proven failure; a failure that the New Republic loves, of course.
It always seems like the less Democratic politicians understand history, and the less they understand economics, the more likely it is that they’ll support ideas like this. Keep an eye on this; it is going to be brought up again.
