Our new Attorney General NOT sure if a 'secular' person understands TRUTH.. Will he FORCE us to become religious??

Really?? Wow that's scary! Not to mention monumentally ignorant (erm I hope I am allowed to say that without getting moderated!!!) erm change that to that's a monumentally ignorant statement or attitude.

A bit scary there, But at least the devout Christians can console themselves by thinking that their brand of Christianity will get off scott free :)

Will he force us to become religious? How, and why? So another one with the be afraid, be very afraid crap.

I tried to read the article, but it was written in grade school speak, and I've advanced to trying to figure out middle school speak now. Seriously, if people are going to pretend to be newsworthy, they need to at least have the decency to learn to write. Or, maybe most of these are written by grade schoolers? Hmmmm....

All the same, it seems obvious that devout religious folk put little importance on facts or evidence, so who is truly the more credible?
I would point out that the Atty Gen is tasked with upholding laws, not changing them. The guarantees of freedom OF religion built into the US Constitution also encompass freedom FROM religion. As it happens, the Constitution was written as, and fully intended by the forefathers to be, a secular document; and EVERY Supreme Court decision in reference to this matter has unfailingly upheld the separation of church and state in every instance. So, no, there is no presentable cause to fear Sen Sessions or any other individual can invoke govt authority to impose religion on the public at large, nor individuals in particular. Such actions would be in violation of not only the letter of our Constitution, but every relevent legislation ever passed and all subsequent rulings of the US Judiciary. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at January 19, 2017 11:46 PM MST

Context is everything. Sessions was talking about a statement that Justice Sonya Motomayor who said "I accept the proposition that... to judge is an exercise of power and because ... there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives -- no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging, I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions." - Sonia Sotomayor, 2001

(2) "The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others." - Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 
 http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/sonia_sotomayor_from_biased_an.html#ixzz4WGhExojQ 

And the secular argument that right and wrong are subjective, that there is  "my truth, your truth and the truth"

When we are dealing with the law there cannot be more than one truth and there must be objectively, and neutrality. This post was edited by my2cents at January 20, 2017 6:56 AM MST