If nominated and approved, Barrett would be the sixth Catholic on the high court. Two justices—Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan—are Jewish, and Neil Gorsuch is an Episcopalian who was raised Catholic. The five remaining justices are all Catholic. In Barrett’s case, it is particularly concerning that both she and her husband are reported to be members of a group called People of Praise, which the New York Times reported “grew out of the Catholic charismatic renewal movement that began in the late 1960s and adopted Pentecostal practices such as speaking in tongues, belief in prophecy and divine healing.”
The group gained notoriety during Barrett’s 20 hearings when it was reported that People of Praise teaches that husbands should have the authority as heads of the household, with men in the group called “heads” while women were termed “handmaidens.” Comparisons were immediately drawn to Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel The Handmaids Tale.
For a married woman in the People of Praise, her husband is her "head"—he makes the decisions for the family and serves as her moral compass. Total discipline is imposed upon those who submit themselves to their head, and this includes submission of your will, your desire, your actions."
So, shouldn't the Senate actually be voting on Amy Barrett's husband? Apparently, Amy believes in the biblical teaching that women should be submissive to their husband in all matters. Do we want somebody like that to be on our Supreme Court?
From the bible quotes read at me i believe "practices such as speaking in tongues," means that if i address a diverse bunch of people and i speak in Urdu, then English people will hear my words in English, Spanish people will hear me in Spanish, Polish people will hear me in Polish, etc, etc.
When did "speaking in tongues," become brain-dead ululations by self-enraptured idiots?