Beliefs Doctrine & Practice Government & Politics International Leaders & Institutions News Politics Social Issues

5 faith facts about Mike Pompeo: A divisive devotion

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, nominated to be the next secretary of state, pauses while speaking during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on April 12, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Pompeo's remarks were the first chance for lawmakers and the public to hear directly from the former Kansas congressman about his approach to diplomacy and the role of the State Department, should he be confirmed to lead it. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

WASHINGTON (RNS) — Mike Pompeo, a Republican congressman from Kansas before he took the helm of the CIA in 2017, is President Trump’s nominee now for secretary of state. But Pompeo’s fitness for the office has been called into question over statements he has made and legislation he has sponsored, to the point that some wonder whether the Senate will confirm the former Army officer and Harvard Law School graduate.

Much of what senators and religious groups have called into question about Pompeo is tied to his abiding and conservative faith. So where is all this religious controversy coming from? Here are five faith facts about Pompeo:

1. Pompeo’s Christian faith is central in his life.

He said he was “brought to Jesus Christ” during his early years as a cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point by two of his classmates. He later became a member of Eastminster Presbyterian Church in Wichita, Kan., where he served as a deacon from 2007-2009 and once taught Sunday school.

The church was originally affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) but voted to cut ties in 2011 after the denomination made moves to ordain LGBTQ people and allow pastors to officiate at same-sex marriages. Eastminster is now affiliated with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, a smaller, more theologically conservative denomination.


READ: Pompeo’s Kansas church asks God to ‘give him strength’ in Senate confirmation process


2. He doesn’t hesitate to talk faith on the job.

According to Foreign Policy, he has made references to Christianity during speeches and reports at the CIA, and some within the agency are bristling at this increasingly  overt religiosity. The Washington Post reported that Pompeo has also worked to expand chaplain services to CIA employees and to further that effort has consulted with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. (The FRC has been labeled an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but Perkins disputes the label.)

3. Religious groups and others accuse Pompeo of maligning Muslims. 

Muslim, Jewish, human rights and other groups have questioned Pompeo’s nomination based on what they say is a record of hostility toward Muslims.

During Pompeo’s confirmation hearing on April 12, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., grilled him about comments he made on the House floor in the aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, when he said that the “silence of Muslims leaders” about the bombings was “deafening.” Pompeo noted that many Muslims promote peace but said that “silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts” and they have a “special obligation” to condemn terrorism.

American Muslim leaders did, in fact, denounce the bombing at the time, such as when the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement condemning terrorism “in all its forms.”

Pompeo responded to Booker that he has “worked closely” with Muslim leaders the world over and said his record is “exquisite with treating people of every faith with the dignity they deserve, to protect their right to practice their religion or no religion.”

While Pompeo has noted that terrorists who invoke Islam are a minority within the faith, he has described the United States’ fight with terrorists as one that pits Christians against Muslims. He said in a 2014 speech to a Wichita church group that militants claiming Islam will “continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray and stand and fight, and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior is truly the only solution for our world.”


READ: Muslims find Jews standing behind them in opposition to Pompeo’s confirmation


4. Pompeo has taken stands against same-sex marriage.

In a 2015 speech, Pompeo quoted a prayer delivered by the Rev. Joe Wright: “America had worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism. We’d endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.”

When asked at his confirmation hearing if he believes same-sex marriage to be a perversion, Pompeo said he does not believe it to be “appropriate,” but insisted that he has the same respect for “every individual regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Pompeo co-sponsored two unsuccessful bills in response to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling that gutted the Defense of Marriage Act, legislation that aimed to limit the ruling’s reach. He also released a statement after the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, calling it “a shocking abuse of power” and “wrong.”

5. He has espoused a form of Christian nationalism, with a dash of rapture theology.

In the past, Pompeo has espoused a fusion of faith and nationalism that has found a welcoming home in the Trump administration. While speaking at a “God and Country Rally” in June 2015 at Wichita’s Summit Church, he read from Scripture before describing the Fourth of July as a time to “recognize the greatness of the founders of our country, the Judeo-Christian nation upon which they framed all that we have built on in the last 239 years.”

Then Pompeo, flanked by an American flag and a Christian flag, declared that “to worship our Lord and celebrate our nation at the same place is not only our right, but it is our duty.” He later added that politics is “a never-ending struggle … until the rapture.”

About the author

Jack Jenkins

Jack Jenkins is a national reporter for RNS based in Washington, covering U.S. Catholics and the intersection of religion and politics.

100 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “When asked at his confirmation hearing if he believes same-sex marriage to be a perversion, Pompeo said he does not believe it to be “appropriate,” but insisted that he has the same respect for every individual regardless of their sexual orientation.”

    Sorry to be the one to break it to Mr. Pompeo, but when you go out of your way, up to and including sponsoring legislation to block my right as a U.S. citizen who just happens to be gay from enjoying the full fruits of those 1138 statutory provisions civil marriage affords, you are not showing respect – you are showing the exact opposite of respect.

    I sincerely hope Mr. Pompeo is not confirmed to be the next Secretary of State. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of serving all Americans.

  • You’ll (probably) enjoy Pompeo’s public rejection by the current Senate panel — to be followed by your getting all upset when the full Senate confirms him anyway.

  • The church was originally affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) but voted to cut ties in 2011 after the denomination made moves to ordain LGBTQ people and allow pastors to officiate at same-sex marriages. Eastminster is now affiliated with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, a smaller, more theologically conservative denomination.

    True, EPC is more conservative theologically than PCUSA, the largest Presbyterian church in the U.S., but it’s not as conservative as the second largest, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA): PCUSA supports women’s ordination, EPC believes the question of women’s ordination is a local church matter, whereas PCA prohibits such ordination entirely.

  • This is far from a lock. The Senate currently has 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and 2 independents that caucus with the Democrats. McCain is out sick and Rand Paul, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is opposed. That means all remaining 49 R’s must vote for Pompeo, plus one D or I, to make 50 plus a Pence tiebreaker. And none of them is yet on record as voting yes.

  • You are correct that it isn’t a lock. Former Gov. Brownback escaped the caustic gay-marriage revenge of the Democrat PC police by only one vote — VP Pence’s.

    Still, Brownback **did** make it, and today’s numbers do slightly favor Pompeo on paper.

    Plus Pompeo has openly proved his professional competency in North Korea, and he has no #MeToo moments on his resume. No red meat for CNN, WaPo, or other crazed zombies.

    So, Mike Pompeo just might make it as well, in the full Senate.

  • James 2:19 – English Standard Version

    You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

  • Liberals don’t understand he’s been nominated for Secretary of State, not Secretary of Sodomy.

  • Wait. Faith isn’t factual but there are “faith facts”? 5, no less. So, is this where Atheismese kinda sound like Christianese? But that only works when trolling & shaming Mike Pompeo’s religion, though, right?

    I despise the guy but that’s beside the point.

  • We do not need a head diplomat who doesn’t even respect the laws and values of his own country. Let alone one who is hell bent on enabling international terror or trying to start another unnecessary war.

    Like Tillerson, Pomeo has no intention of adequately or competently staffing the Department of State. Pompeo’s role as envisioned by Trump is to simply rubber stamp whatever foolishness comes into the president’s head about foreign policy. Expertise and experience are not welcomed by the Executive branch.

  • “I sometimes think that if someone who had absolutely no familiarity with the Bible was suddenly exposed to the Christian world and its denizens, they would assume that large parts or even the bulk of the Old and New Testaments dealt with sex, homosexuality, abortion, and in the case of some Christians, the merits of gun ownership and capitalism, the evils of vaccination, environmental activism, and liberalism. Try as I might I find very little in scripture about owning guns and nothing at all about medical inoculations. Flippancy aside, there’s actually not much more in the Bible about homosexuality than there is about giving children an injection so that they don’t die of routine diseases. It is hardly ever mentioned at all. In fact there are probably five or six mentions of what can be loosely be described as same-sex relationships and attractions in the entire Bible and the most famous or infamous one, of course, is always mentioned whenever this issue is discussed in Christian circles. Homosexuality is in Biblical terms largely a non-issue and has been awarded a significance far beyond its status.”

    Michael Coren, Epiphany: A Christian’s Change of Heart and Mind Over Same-Sex Marriage (Toronto: Signal, 2016), p. 50.

  • Pompeo is a “Christian Nationalist”. This is someone who believes in a theocracy and is thus disqualified to hold any office in a democracy as they are at opposite ends with each other. In other words Pompeo is anti-democratic and would prefer a government similar in nature to the one in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

  • As I’ve stumbled through life, my experience has been that folks like Pompeo, who call themselves “Christians” (and not “Catholics” or “Lutherans” etc), and who talk about their religious beliefs as Pompeo has done, are the worst representatives of the teachings of Jesus. Almost without exception, they are hypocrites who want to impose their private religious beliefs on everyone–they seem to have forgotten what Jesus said about “Render unto Caesar…”.

  • Ah, sodomy, that lurid, titillating word homophobes love to toss around without ever realizing that sodomy (the legal definition of which includes oral sex) is much more widely practiced by straight people for the simple reason that there are so many more of them than there are gay people. But who are any of the rest of us to deprive them of the opportunity of spitting out their favorite word? It’s a free country and after all, it might be the closest they ever come to experiencing the real thing. Sodomy, sodomy sodomy! Say it loud, say it proud!

  • I agree with everything Pompeo is quoted as saying here. He’s right. The article reads a bit like it was written by a New York Times writer, or someone subtly hostile to the Christian faith.

  • Ha! Good one! And correct. Many folks need to fall on their knees and repent of sin–and I think events will give us all that opportunity.

  • Please read the Catechism: same sex attraction is a grave moral disorder (a sickness), which by its nature leads to the mortal (deadly) sin of homosexual sex. That definition just nails the truth about this problem.

  • But one day you will see Christ at the judgment. Now, friend, is the time of mercy. Accept it–and Him.

  • In the Hebrew scriptures homosexuality was as sinful as “spilling seed,” eating pork, which could lead to trichinosis, and eating shellfish, which as we all know if eaten raw especially in hot weather can lead to severe bacterial infections. These practices and many others were prohibited because they led to the decline of the Hebrew tribe and not its increase. Anything that did that was considered taboo.

    Thankfully we now know that pork when sufficiently cooked kills off the bug that causes trichinosis. Likewise, we know that eating carefully-sourced shellfish, especially in colder weather, is completely harmless. For those compelling reasons most religious people now eat plenty of pork and shellfish.

    We also now know that homosexuality is extant in nearly all species of the animal kingdom, clearly indicating that it is part of God’s overall plan. Somehow, this knowledge has been resisted by religious folk. We gay people have the right to ask why that resistance lingers, considering the wealth of scientific evidence that paints homosexuality as just another natural variation – and, if I may be so bold as to add, a natural check on unchecked breeding in an already over-populated world, something for which we gay people should be given the credit we deserve but which so far has been sorely lacking.

  • Nationalism and excessive patriotism are incompatible with First Century Christianity. Jesus instructed his followers to obey the laws of the land (that don’t conflict with god’s laws) but noted that the kingdoms of the world are in the hands of satan and real relief is only through god’s heavenly kingdom. Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only Christian group to show complete neutrality, worldwide, and often to their detriment.

  • please list all the rights you don’t think gay people should have? marriage and the right to be served at public accommodations, but what else. also list what laws you want enacted to support christianity over civil law and other religions?

  • we have as separation of church and govt Pompeo apparently does not agree with, even though it’s being upheld in courts almost daily (from lower courts to the most high). we don’t need a secretary of state that only represents the christians of america and not the other half, or that tells other leaders about Jesus instead of all the benefits of being a free society.

  • Elagabalus, yes — excellent points. And, of course, the terms “homosexual” or “homosexuality” never appear in the Jewish or Christian scriptures, and could not have, because they were not coined until the latter part of the 19th century — centuries after those texts were written.

    What so obssesses a certain kind of religionist today is not even there in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, while what actually is there repeatedly — the call to live justly and humbly and to act mercifully — they seem willing totally to ignore.

    Those obsessed with this topic from a religious standpoint can point to only a handful of very murky texts that may or may not be preoccupied with what we now call homosexuality. The very paucity of those texts tells us how insignificant, in relative terms, what totally consumes a certain kind of believer was to the writers of these texts and the communities for which they functioned as religious texts.

  • Brownback made it in a tiebreak. Bottom line: for Pompeo to succeed, Republicans need 100% discipline AND either a Democrat or independent to cross over. While this is not impossible, as presidential nominations are not normally party-line votes, and some Democrats and Angus King (I-Maine) voted for Pompeo for CIA director, the numbers are different here and I don’t see how they favor him.

  • The same rights that straight people have.

    Straight people had a right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

  • The Christian track record and present bigoted stances by Christians do generate a lot of hostility, much of it well justified.

    Christianity is dying out gradually, though. There’s some good news, although I wish it would go faster.

  • Toddy, that’s heading into Pascal’s Wager (look it up) and doesn’t say anything good about your god monster.

  • Sandi Luckins, your three-headed god monster is a horror from what your bible says. At least you are clear on that, if nothing else.

  • Lark’s Law: when an obnoxious Christian gets flustered they fall back on ridiculous threats of divine wrath against their opponent.

    “My Invisible Sky Daddy will teach you a lesson!!!”

  • Yes, it does. Of course context is not your strong suit.

    In fact, come to think of it you don’t have a strong suit.

  • Clearly you agree with what I said and can’t respond otherwise. so thanks for acknowledging that.

  • Amen. A theocracy, as well as Sharia, is of course anti democratic. Why can’t these fundamentalists see that?

  • Is this a poorly disguised threat?
    Many ersatz Christians should never leave their knees because they drink too heavily from the Cup of Hubris daily.

  • I do disagree with shaming of Pompeo for frequently publicly professing his faith. The issue is is that he has created an uncomfortable, possibly toxic environment. He demonstrated his true purpose by inflicting the agency with exposure to the FRC, a biased organization with a mission “to advance faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview”. Employees and agents speak out anonymously to outside sources in order to avoid possible retribution within the agency.

  • Did it occur to you that the oft stated goal to return the US to a “conservative” Christian hegemony is not exactly conducive to an effective intelligence agency? If intelligence is disseminated laced with biased religious dogma, how is it to be effective? It takes on the appearance of an Inquisition force.

  • Of course it is all the opponents of Christianity that oppose Christian teaching on sex, homosexuality, and abortion that keep the conversations going on those topics.

    Raised a secular Jew, he converted to Roman Catholicism in his early twenties. He switched to evangelical Christianity in the 1990s. In one of his columns he depicted Mother Teresa getting drunk in a bar.

    In early 2004, he embraced Catholicism again.

    In 2014 he once again left the Roman Catholic Church and became a member of the Anglican Church of Canada.

    He now identifies as a “Christian socialist”.

    Yes, he is quite the intellectual.

  • It’s simple. They do not believe in democracy and would much prefer a theocracy such as the one in colonial Salem Mass.

  • So why not, then, judge Mike Pompeo BETTER – not according to his stupid religion – but according to the stupid standard set by the previous US Secretaries of State – REMEMBER ALL THESE MONSTROUS “TOXIC ENVIRONMENTAL”-ISTS? – namely:

    John Foster Dulles (1953-1959)
    Christian Archibald Herter (1959-1961)
    David Dean Rusk (1961-1969)
    William Pierce Rogers (1969-1973)
    Henry A. (Heinz Alfred) Kissinger (1973-1977)
    Cyrus Roberts Vance (1977-1980)
    Edmund Sixtus Muskie (1980-1981)
    Alexander Meigs Haig (1981-1982)
    George Pratt Shultz (1982-1989)
    James Addison Baker (1989-1992)
    Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger (1992-1993)
    Warren Minor Christopher (1993-1997)
    Madeleine Korbel Albright (1997-2001)
    Colin Luther Powell (2001-2005)
    Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009)
    Hillary Rodham Clinton (2009-2013)
    John Kerry (2013-2017)
    Rex Wayne Tillerson (2017-2018)

  • the framers made it clear the rights they named in the bill of rights were not the only rights we had, and expected they would find new rights.

    the thing with the ten commandments is 8 of them are not against the law. which ones do you wish were against civil law?

  • The notion there was an expectation “they would find new rights” is silly.

    The construction was that rights preceded the Constitution, and that the Federal government had only those powers – no rights – specifically granted to it, all other powers and rights adhering to the people themselves or the states.

    That left things such as abortion, marriage, and so on to the states to legislate on.

    As it stands now we are going to have to amend the Constitution to remove the SCOTUS’ fingers from our rights, and prohibit it from “find(ing) new rights” or we are going to have to issue new robes with crowns to the justices on the Court.

    I have no idea why you think the Ten Commandments belong in this discussion.

  • because your belief that gays shouldn’t marry is biblical, not secular, as are the ten commandments.

    the establishment clause first meant federal law only, fed law is supreme over the states. they couldn’t have rights given by the bill of rights taken away by the states. as the country became larger and more religiously diverse the religion clauses were more important, free exercise has limits and no establishment had to be enforced so the majority religion didn’t push the others around.

    what the court did was take into account we are a secular nation, religiously neutral, and we don’t get our laws from the bible. Just because something is a sin in the bible doesn’t make it illegal in a secular society. Not having a right to gay marriage is fine in the bible, but in a secular country the bible doesn’t count in the law. So gay marriage was decided based on secular law and without the bible they had to ask, why not? and they couldn’t find a secular reason to prohibit it.

  • You might note that I have never cited either the bible or the Ten Commandments.

    The basis for marriage laws in the states was natural law, not the Ten Commandments.

    We are a nation without an established religion, NOT a secular nation. A secular nation would be the likes of France or Mexico.

    What the SCOTUS did was fabricate something out of whole cloth and assume powers it did not have.

    However, the damage is done until we can amend the Constitution and tie its hands going forward.

  • That is ALMOST the most scrambled and uninformed commentary on the Bill of Rights I’ve yet had the pleasure of reading around here.

    Don’t ANY schools teach the constitution anymore?

  • What is so difficult to understand about enumerated powers, anyway? The framers wrote it into the fabric of the constitution itself, threw in two extra amendments to safeguard it from being either legislated or construed away, explained it all in detail to the voting public in The Federalist Papers, and STILL we have tyranny-mongers who either are too ignorant to understand it, or pretend not to understand it in order to help keep others ignorant.

    I wish people would just be honest about their contempt for the constitution, like RBG for instance.

  • “Yes, he is quite the intellectual.”

    As are you, Mr. Arnzen or Fr. Arnzen.

    I learned in grade nine just how much weight to put on ad hominem attacks disguised as intellectual commentary. I learned in grade nine that people mount attacks on the person when they have nothing substantive or compelling to say to rebut the person’s argument.

    NEWS FLASH: you do not own Christianity.

  • I also learned in grade school when someone is blowing smoke in my face.

    You happened to quote Michael Coren because you liked what he wrote. The fact that he has been all over the lot on his beliefs, were he a conservative, would have been the point of your spear in an attack.

    I didn’t provide an “ad hominem attack. disguised as intellectual commentary”, I pointed out Mr. Coren’s bona-fides AFTER I made a comment “substantive or compelling … (to) rebut the person’s argument”.

    NEWS FLASH: you do not own intellectual commentary. In fact, I’m not sure you’re capable of it.

  • Keep hiding behind that nom de plume as you attack the character of others and slander people whose commitments and biographies are public, Mr. or Fr. Arnzen.

    It’s highly intellectual and ethical behavior, which gives a very good name to Christianity.

    Not cowardly or slimy in the least.

  • The author of “As are you, Mr. Arnzen or Fr. Arnzen.(sic)” makes clear why the use of nom de plumes is essential when conversing with you and the other denizens of Bilgrimage, who like nothing better than personal attacks, “dirt”, and so on rather than logical supported arguments.

    This is probably a good time for you to insert the factoid that “homosexual” entered the English language in the late 19th century or some other nonsensical non-sequitur in support of your viewpoints.

  • I would love to hear from you again when you get some fresh material that actually supports a theological conclusion.

    Anyone who has ever followed your devotees on Bilgrimage knows that your objection to pseudonyms is the obstructions they offer to back-biting ad hominems and the avoidance of actual substantive discussion.

    I can provide numerous examples if you wish.

  • Sorry for the info overload & overkill there, sister. I can be nerdy with data.

    So let’s go with THE Secretary of State of all Secretaries of State: “Henry A. (Heinz Alfred) Kissinger (1973-1977)”.

    Question: how is it even possible that Mike Pompeo ends up mostrously more “toxic” (your word) than Henry Kissinger? If he’s worse off, how do you explain the fact that Pompeo’s already negotiating with that North Korean dictator without resorting to religious influences, exploitation, etc.?

  • No, the SCOTUS decisions will not be reversed by the SCOTUS.

    The process required is described in Article Five of the Constitution:

    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

    I expect that due to the lockup of Congress with trivia and internecine silliness, this will come about by application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states calling a convention.

  • so you think that many people will want what you want enough to go to all that trouble?

    a group of city leaders in albuquerque nm put a measure on the ballot to end abortion, they were sure it would pass. lost by 20%.

    the video i sent is an hour long about are we a christian nation and a good explanation of natural law. worth watching from a history prof at a christian school.

  • Yes, I think the American public is reaching the “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore” point.

    The 2013 Albuquerque referendum did not lose by 20%:

    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/1120/Albuquerque-voters-reject-city-ban-on-late-term-abortions

    despite massive spending and advertising by pro-abortion groups.

    But a convention is not a referendum, and a convention can take up any matter it chooses, not just abortion.

  • We only need ask one question of Pompeo: Is his allegiance to the US Constitution or the Bible? In other words,when the chips are down, will he follow the Constitution or the Bible? His answer will tell us whether he’s fit for office or not. In this day and age when Evangelicals like Pompeo are trying to install a religious theocracy in America and do away with the Constitution, the question is vital to the survival of this nation as a democratic Republic with a secular Constitution.

  • you still haven’t told me what you want from our govt that you are not getting. let’s say you get your amendment and a favorable court, what would be the america of your dreams?

  • I haven’t even suggested that the “government” was not providing something that I wanted.

    That is probably why I “still haven’t told me what you want from our govt that you are not getting”.

    At this point we have a specific problem: the SCOTUS has appropriated to itself powers which were reserved to the states or the people.

    Prying its fingers off those powers is the first step in a process that will take generations.

    This will require that the public look to the Constitution itself rather than seeking to amend the Constitution by judicial fiat.

    One of our justices wrote over a decade ago that “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda”, that they are “failing to reach out and persuade the public”.

    In doing so, American liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and this has led to a compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent, due to American liberals’ “overweening addiction” to using the courts for social debate, which is “bad for the nation and bad for the judiciary” since it is anti-democratic.

    I agree.

  • most of the issues you named were supported by the public long before the courts decisions. the courts are the ones who decide what the laws say, what the constitution means. they don’t do it in a vacuum.

    I believe the courts are the only ones who will save us from an established religion created by a few zealots like the ones who changed us to a christian motto from the inclusive one the founders wanted.

    agree to disagree. nice chat.

  • No, abortion and same sex marriage were not winning legislatures across the nation when the SCOTUS did power grabs and concocted new “rights” to circumvent the democratic process.

    Yes, the courts should interpret the laws, not write or amend laws.

    If you believe the courts are the ones who will save us from an established religion, who will save us from the courts?

  • by popular votes, not by legislatures that can be packed by christian extremists. our congress is 99% christian and the population is 43% white christians and 7% non white christian. about half christians are non practicing. 25% are non religious plus non believers. legislatures do not represent the public at large.

  • it’s the people who don’t get their way in court decisions that claim they are making laws.

  • No, it’s the people who read the Constitution and then read opinions like “Roe v Wade” and “Obergefell v. Hodges” that note – not claim – they are making laws.

  • YES, the dominionist who aren’t happy living alongside non christians and atheists and want a christian prefered govt. It isn’t the atheists putting crosses in parks and christian monuments all over.

  • In a nutshell (since Disqus ate my original reply) BOR rights are not the gift of the federal government. They are a non-exhaustive list of hands-off areas where the federal government has no power to legislate.

    Religious freedom is not more important now than it was then—the framers placed to at the very top of the “feds-hands-off” list. Nor has its enforcement against the states ever legitimately been delegated to the federal government by constitutional amendment.

  • Actually no one is putting crosses and Christian monuments in parks and other public land “all over”.

  • / spotted this nugget on the net /

    50 million or so US evangelicals believe in the “rapture” which is an
    “imminent secret coming of Christ” they say will happen several years
    BEFORE the traditional Second Coming. Before 1830 all Christians had
    believed that the “rapture” concept was just a mere ASPECT of the Second Coming.
    But in 1830 a young Scottish lassie claimed she “saw” in the Bible a
    separate secret coming of Christ (several years before
    the Second Coming) that would rapture all true believers to heaven and
    thus exempt them from the endtime “tribulation” ruled by the Antichrist!
    This escapist theory, begun in Britain, has long been a huge
    money-maker for evangelicals like Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jerry
    Jenkins, Jimmy Swaggart etc. and the rapture-based “Left Behind” books
    and films have broken sales records. Google “Famous Rapture Watchers”
    and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” and find out that NO pre-1830 Bible
    scholar ever “saw” a separate “pre-tribulation rapture” in the Biblical
    manuscripts. Pompeo will be embarrassed when he finds out that the vast
    majority of his own evangelical scholars have rejected the
    British-invented “pre-tribulation rapture” belief! The definitive work
    detailing the long-covered-up history of the “pre-trib rapture” is
    journalist Dave MacPherson’s 300-pg book “The Rapture Plot” (available
    at Amazon Books).

  • Nope. I don’t, and won’t. But at least you admit that he’s nasty. One step closer to leaving your religion behind -good on you.

ADVERTISEMENTs