National pro-life and faith leaders celebrated the confirmation Monday night of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate voted to confirm Barrett’s nomination by President Donald Trump, 52-48, with only Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voting with Democrats. The Senate just confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. One of the
Twitter users are having a little too much fun with a meme of Pope Francis online. And while some are finding the trend hilarious, others are calling it disrespectful and inconsiderate at the same time. The meme consists of four images posted to the platform. Each one shows Pope Francis holding different items or people up. Due to how Twitter’s posting works, the four photos make up one cohesive image for social media users to see as they scroll through their timelines. The Internet Gods Have Blessed Us With This New Meme Featuring Pope Francis https://t.co/iOdRuBRrdw pic.twitter.com/bO4UWZFk4K — Dariel Atkins (@AtkinsDariel) October 18, 2020 Pope Francis is closing his eyes and holding up his arms towards the sky presenting an object. The fourth frame has been replaced with everything from funny tweets to drugs and movie posters. Pretty cool how we can do this and nobody ends up beheaded for it 🤔 pic.twitter.com/ypHUBZB6LV — Ahoy!⚓️ (@ahoy_desu) October 17, 2020 The meme originally started out as a harmless joke. However, some people who follow Catholicism do not find the trend funny and feel disrespected by it. This has caused fights and disagreements online between those with different religious beliefs. just a little reminder that the pope francis memes can be offensive to some people — maia (@maialovesyou_) October 19, 2020 Some users are going as far as accusing those who are making the meme of violating the first commandment. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states under paragraph 2120: “Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.” Hi, i posted this elsewhere and as read it, these memes are a sin against the first commandment: pic.twitter.com/Rf8mYpAT9r — Michael (@mj33096) October 18, 2020 One Twitter user responded to the meme with a screenshot of the statement above. Other users in the comments are confused why people are making the meme into a big deal. this is my favourite Pope Francis meme pic.twitter.com/iL7bHfx4Om — . (@cambaro_) October 18, 2020 Pope Francis has not addressed the meme publicly yet. However, many assume that he will not make any sort of statement on the matter. This is not the first time that the pope has been the subject of a viral meme. In fact, the photo that is being used currently was taken in 2013 and memes have been created using it prior to 2020. why are people making weed and inappropriate memes out of Pope Francis …thats so disrespectful :/ — l a i l a ¨̮ d b (@lilouthenoodle) October 16, 2020 The original photo was taken in Brazil during Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of Our Lady Aparecida. It is credited to a photographer named Buda Mendes and Getty Images. In the original photo, the pope is holding a wafer of sacramental bread for Holy Communion. The sacramental bread is meant to represent Christ’s body as part of the Eucharist or Holy Communion. There are countless versions of the meme circulating the internet currently. Most are harmless, including the pope holding Baby Yoda. However, a small percentage of the Twitter population have used the meme as an opportunity to spread hate. the c*tholic church will condemn the pope francis meme but not the most anti-christian values president we've ever had… — kt (@ktweaves) October 19, 2020 While most memes are typically not controversial, this one has become a bit more tricky because of its’ religious aspect. The overwhelming majority see it as funny and are circulating the image for a good laugh. However, others simply do not find any humor behind the trend. Another user, Simcha Fisher, stated the memes were “hurting Catholics.” She said, “I suppose people think it’s fine to mock Catholicism because pedo priests and other various grave scandals. Please understand that, when you mock the sacrament of the Eucharist, all you’re doing is hurting Catholics who have already been profoundly hurt by these same scandals.” There's a meme circulating with Pope Francis holding up an object with his eyes closed, and people are shopping in various funny objects. In the original photo, the object is a host being consecrated. This means being turned from bread into the actual body and blood of God. 1/ — (((Simcha Fisher))) (@SimchaFisher) October 17, 2020 Sister Theresa Aletheia said, “The pope meme is not funny. If you’re Catholic (or anyone who desires to have a modicum of respect for someone else’s deeply held religious beliefs) don’t tweet or retweet it.” The counter argument seems to be that the people spreading this meme are not attacking Catholics or mocking their faith. However, it is just something funny and lighthearted to look at or share with friends online. Others are saying that it is acceptable to poke fun at the religion regardless of the meme due to all of the scandals surrounding the Catholic Church that have been exposed over the years. am i a bad Catholic for laughing at the Pope Francis memes? probablyare they hilarious? yes — spooky™ sydknee (@soitssyd) October 17, 2020 Regardless of the memes critics, it does not seem as though the photoshopping and editing to create new versions of this trend will stop anytime soon. Religion is typically a controversial and sensitive topic when discussed seriously and in depth. However, this meme may not be on the same wavelength as something that should be taken seriously. There are several different perspectives on this trending topic and Twitter users will have to wait and see if Pope Francis will respond at all to this chaos.
Participants brought signs with various sayings written on them such as “We Are Not Ovary-Acting” to the Women’s March in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. One marcher wearing a Biden/Harris shirt held a sign that read “Pussy Power,” while another sign read “GOP Hates Democracy.” Another participant held a sign reading, “If I wanted a Republican in my vagina, I’d sleep
Townhall Review – September 26, 2020 Hugh Hewitt talks with Texas Senator Ted Cruz about panic in the Democrat party over the selection of a replacement Supreme Court justice for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Sebastian Gorka and historian Victor Davis Hansen examine the motives of the Democratic party and how they are using the death of Ginsburg to speed up their radical agenda. Hugh Hewitt and Indiana Senator Mike Braun explain how the GOP can’t miss this opportunity to add a conservative justice to the Supreme Court. Joe Piscopo talks with Alan Dershowitz about the Democrat’s attack on potential Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Barrett’s Catholic faith. Hugh Hewitt talks with Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn about the absence of the Democrats of old and the radical new blood taking their place. Larry Elder discusses the dilemma Democrats face today after they enacted the filibuster-killing nuclear option in 2013. Mike Gallagher looks at the incumbent and the challenger in the fast-approaching Presidential race. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
By Matthews Spalding for RealClearPolicy “This is going to be a long, contentious week,” Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) noted dryly at the opening of yesterday’s hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. His only request for the Senate Judiciary Committee was “to the extent possible, let’s make it respectable, let’s make it challenging, let’s remember the world is watching.” Although Senate Democrats used their opening statements to focus on policy outcomes rather than judicial decision-making, Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) forewarned Democrats not to “bring back religious tests” for judicial nominees. There is good reason to be concerned. RELATED: Ted Cruz Slams ‘Twisted And Deranged’ Democrats Attacks Against Amy Coney Barrett Chairman Graham should be keenly alert to questions challenging Barrett’s religious faith, and use his gavel to keep the hearings focused squarely on the Constitution. During Barrett’s 2017 judicial confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) confronted Barrett: “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.” Support Conservative Voices! Sign up to receive the latest political news, insight, and commentary delivered directly to your inbox. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), also of the Judiciary Committee and himself Catholic, asked more directly: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” RELATED: Kamala Harris Attacked Another Catholic Judge For His Faith To oppose Judge Barrett because of her religious faith would not only be a political mistake. It is religious bigotry, and perhaps unconstitutional. And it undermines one of the most important principles of American liberty. Before the American Revolution, the assumption was that every territory’s ruler determined the religion of its people. If the king of England was one religion, then so were his subjects. This intensified domestic religious persecution by justifying each religion in its efforts to forcefully convert or eliminate other believers in the same nation. Dissenting groups moved from one country to another in search of communities that would accept their form of faith. Sixteenth-century England had seen some of history’s worst religious persecution. After King Henry VIII broke away from the Church of Rome and ransacked Catholic churches and monasteries, his daughter Mary tried to restore the Catholic faith by punishing and executing reformers, only to be followed by Queen Elizabeth, who punished and executed Catholics (and many others, such as the Puritans) in order to suppress all religions except the reformed Church of England. Catholic France and Spain launched plots against Elizabeth and sent naval forces to overthrow her, but all they accomplished was to reinforce her determination. In the 17th and 18th centuries — after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England — there was some easing of the harshest persecutions but Test Acts were instituted to exclude anyone not a member of the Church of England — the official state religion — from holding government office, notably Catholics and “nonconforming” Protestants. One such Act, not repealed until 1829, required officials specifically to disavow the doctrine of transubstantiation, a central sacramental teaching of Roman Catholicism. Long-suffering communities — Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists as well as Jews and Catholics — looked across the Atlantic for empty lands where they could worship God as they wished without fear of political oppression. And so, they came to America. RELATED: Trump Eviscerates Democrats For Handling Of Amy Coney Barrett Hearings With all this fresh in their minds, the American Founders sought to prevent the return of Test Acts by adding a simple clause to Article VI of the Constitution: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Thomas Jefferson voiced the new idea in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: “proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.” The ban on formal religious tests removes a key mechanism by which religious denominations may control the state — or by which the state may persecute religious denominations. Overlooked in the First Amendment’s dominance of religious jurisprudence, the Religious Test Clause is the Constitution’s most powerful structural guarantor of religious liberty. What the Constitution does require — and the Judiciary Committee has an obligation to assure — is that “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Just as Senators must not be grand inquisitors, so judges must not be legislators. Their sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. RELATED: If Biden Won’t Tell You Where He Stands on Packing the Supreme Court, He Doesn’t Deserve Your Vote Instead of a religious test, the American founders included a constitutional test to assure that the Constitution would be “the supreme Law of the Land.” Thus the standard of measure for a Supreme Court Justice — and the primary means, setting aside questions about pending cases, by which the Judiciary Committee aids the Senate in providing its advice and consent — is the nominee’s understanding of the Constitution and the constitutional rule of law. Since Democrat’s can’t attack Judge Barrett for being faithful to the Constitution, they present her religion as evidence of an irrational dogmatism that prevents her from being able to uphold their “living” Constitution — continually evolving to include the various penumbras and emanations by which liberal justices can find anything in the Constitution. Let’s not miss the point here: questioning the seriousness of Judge Barrett’s religion is a pretext for protecting liberalism’s own unwavering faith in abortion and the doctrines of cultural progressivism — despite the founder’s Constitution. Senators who require as a qualification for office that Judge Barrett renounce her religious faith in order to uphold their political theology are, to my mind, applying their own religious test. Senate Democrats rightly suspect Judge Barrett of being unfaithful to their elastic constitutionalism and loyal to the original Constitution. Guilty as charged. The problem is that modern liberalism holds that fidelity to the old Constitution, like faith in religious truth, is unreasonable and unacceptable. Using religion as cover to attack a Supreme Court nomination — whether a Jew nominated by a Democrat in 1916 (Louis Brandeis) or a Roman Catholic nominated by a Republican in 2020 — is reprehensible. RELATED: Who Wants to Blow Up Our Constitution? (Spoiler: It’s Not Trump) It is unacceptable, and ought to be roundly condemned on both sides of the political aisle, and in the aisles of every house of worship. It should also be unacceptable to make religious faith a stigma in order to advance a political agenda. As the first American president in 1790 famously wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, the American Constitution “which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire. Matthew Spalding is the Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College’s Washington, D.C. campus. The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Political Insider.
Please respect our republishing guidelines - Click Here Pope Francis A chief tenet of progressive orthodoxy is that disciples must repeatedly sermonize anti-capitalist dogma to the socialist left congregation. Whether it is an international event or a political development, followers are required to crack open the gospel of Karl Marx, break gluten-free bread, drink the blood of