When I was a kid we had fish every Friday. Unlike my parents who as kids had to fast from midnight until they went to church and received Holy Communion, kids my age only had to fast for three hours.  We also had to attend mass every Sunday and designated holy days, and before anyone got married their names had to be read out loud on three consecutive Sundays at mass in case someone knew the couple had some impediment that would prevent the nuptials that could not take place on a Sunday.

Oh, and the bride and groom both had to be Catholics if they wanted to stand inside the altar rail near the altar with the priest. Otherwise they had to stand outside the altar rail.

There were also a lot of rules that would keep you from receiving communion and others that could get you excommunicated to burn in hell forever.

Of course, if you weren’t catholic, none of that counted.

If you were protestant, or Jewish or even a dreaded atheist, you could eat meat on Friday and not get jail time.

The Catholic laws only applied to us.

When it comes to the laws that every citizen has to follow, they are based on the Constitution, not on religion. The Establishment Clause in the Constitution holds no religious tradition can be established as the basis of laws that apply to everyone.

In 2010, after a fear campaign that held that, in spite of there being no examples of it, Islamic Sharia law was going to play a role in the court system, Oklahoma voters  approved a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to ban sharia from state courts. Then, of course to not appear to be targeting one particular religion, the law was amended to include all foreign or religious laws, forgetting, apparently, that Christianity is a foreign religion as are the ones the people were told to fear. It was found to be unconstitutional since  the ban had the potential to do harm to Muslims, its targeted group,  in such areas as wills.

Meanwhile, while the conservative Christian politicians opposed the fictional threat of Sharia law, they promoted laws that they claimed were Biblically based. They even wasted time and money defending a granite “monument” to the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments that was erected on state house property. Considering that the Commandments were given to a bunch of Middle Eastern people, it could have been seen as a violation of the ban on foreign religion laws holding sway in the state. But it was promoted by members of the majority religion, so that was okay.

In 2011, Republicans Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin warned against the threat of Sharia law. Newt described Sharia law as a “mortal threat” and called for its being banned throughout the United States. Sarah Palin  said that if Sharia law “were to be adopted, allowed to govern in our country, it will be the downfall of America.”

Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee have banned Sharia law, prohibiting the state courts from considering foreign, international or religious law. That’s a lot of fear based legislation to prevent a fictitious threat from taking hold.

The main point to it all is that our laws are based on the Constitution and not religious rules.

Don’t allow the family life to be overshadowed by the negativity of addiction. http://raindogscine.com/por-que-raindogs-cine/ buy levitra canada Here, a person gets to know about the privacy statement or viagra cialis cheap http://raindogscine.com/?order=4047 important information. If a certain medication is to blame, switching medications may fix the problem. viagra prescription Get More Info This can help bring blood india cialis flow to the genitals. Donald Trump is paring down his list of finalists for a position on the Supreme Court, and among them is Amy Coney Barrett who claims the Bible precedes the Constitution and that her religious faith comes before the law.

She believes that judges should be bound by their religious faith, not the law, and that her Catholic faith should be put above the law.

She once clerked for Antonin Scalia, so she is attractive to conservatives and the anti-Sharia crowd.

Barrett opposed the Obama administration’s good faith effort to create a compromise in carrying out the contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act writing,

 “This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.  It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.”

Her claim was a false representation of a careful compromise that would have ensured women’s access to contraception while accommodating religious liberty interests by requiring that insurance companies provide the contraceptive coverage not religious employers.

Barrett opposes marriage equality and the Supreme Court’s June 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), which established a constitutional right to marriage equality in America.

 “We give witness that the Church’s teachings – on the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death; on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life and the gift of motherhood; and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman – provide a sure guide to the Christian life.”

Barrett is a member of the Federalist Society, which explains her being on that group’s list of preferred jurists for a SCOTUS position that Trump is using.

She also belongs to the Christian group called People of Praise which believes in a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, a covenant, with members assigned a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women, to whom they are accountable, and where husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

In short, Amy Coney Barrett is a religious extremist who believes a federal judge can subvert the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States in order to promote her own religious agenda.

Wouldn’t this be the same as putting Sharia law over the Constitution?