Democrats have long ago declared war on Christianity.

Their delegates booed God at the 2012 convention and it is now party orthodoxy that Christians should face fines or jail time for refusing to take part in homosexual weddings.

But one top senator took this war to the next level with her questioning of one of Donald Trump’s judicial nominees.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was questioning Donald Trump’s appeals’ court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Barrett is a law professor at Notre Dame and a Catholic.

Feinstein’s questioning quickly veered off into bigotry as she hammered Barrett for her belief in “dogma.”

National Review reported her asking:

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.” Feinstein is clearly hinting here at the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that Feinstein supports so vociferously that she has even called it a “super-precedent.”

After Feinstein led the Catholic-bashing charge, the hearing quickly devolved into a contest to see which Democrat could establish themselves as the most violently anti-Christian Democrat on the committee.

Ann Corkery wrote on Real Clear Politics:

“Durbin was even more direct in his roasting of Barrett’s faith. He took issue with the phrase “orthodox Catholic,” which Barrett used in a two-decades-old law review article, on the grounds that it somehow marginalizes politically liberal Catholics: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Durbin asked her. 

What he was getting at, of course, was his own support for abortion, the dogma that lives loudly within almost all elected Democrats these days, and it was hardly made better by Durbin’s declaration that he was the product of 19 years of Catholic education. Feinstein put this bluntly. “You are controversial—let’s start with that,” California’s senior senator told Barrett at the outset of her questioning. “You’re controversial because many of us who have lived our lives as women really recognize the value of finally being able to control our reproductive systems, and Roe entered into that, obviously. … You have a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail.”Actually, Barrett has no history of any such thing. In response to Feinstein, she declined to discuss her personal view of Roe v. Wade, but said simply — and under oath: “I would commit, if confirmed, to follow unflinchingly all Supreme Court precedent.”

That didn’t mollify her Democratic interrogators. Sen. Mazie Hirono peppered Barrett with similar questions. “You wrote about the duty of Catholic judges in capital cases,” the Hawaii lawmaker said. “In spite of the fact that you had written in an earlier article that Catholic judges—and you would be a Catholic judge—you would not recuse yourself from death-penalty cases?”

Democrats would never question a Muslim nominee in such a manner.

They only attack Christians because for Democrats, protecting abortion is their religion.

They are terrified Catholic nominees will cite their faith to overturn Roe. v. Wade.

That isn’t necessary.

Pro-lifers argue the Constitution and natural law already forbid abortion.

That didn’t matter in Barrett’s hearing.

Democrats continued to try and use her Catholic faith as a litmus test for her confirmation.

But the Constitution forbids a religious test.

And Barrett had even previously written that Judges should not try to line up church doctrine with the law when they conflict.

That wasn’t enough for Democrats.

They proved themselves to be ugly, anti-Catholic bigots.