Does Amy Coney Barrett Belong to a Religious Cult(!)?

I have to tell you, I just first heard it on Real Time with Bill Maher (on HBO) just now.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett belongs to a extremist religious cult.

This is the only cite I could find.

Bill Maher went into a little more background. It’s called the ‘People of Praise’ and it was founded in 1971. Unmentioned in this article, but mentioned by Mr. Maher is the fact husbands are supposed to discipline their wives, if they step out of line.

Why hasn’t anyone else mentioned this? And is this what Senator Feinstein meant when she said her religious dogma still lives in her? I’m still very confused.


Many people have mentioned it. It is common knowledge.

And a simple google search for some words like “Amy Coney Barrett People of Praise” returns umpty-ump cites.

Yes, and it is not a cult. It is a private association of the Christian faithful, aka a parachurch apostolate.

I admit to to some it might resemble a cult, but it is not. Nor is it extremist.

wiki: Anthropologist and scholar of comparative religion Thomas Csordas has written about People of Praise and stated, “I would definitely not use the term cult in its popular sense.”[12] Csordas said “People of Praise is best described not as a cult but as a religiously-based ‘intentional community.’”[2]

And here in the USA, we do not discriminate against someone based upon their religion. That is legally and ethically wrong.

What do you define as “extremist”?

Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court, to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has drawn attention to a secretive Catholic “covenant community” called People of Praise that counts Barrett as a member and faces claims of adhering to a “highly authoritarian” structure.

< snip >

Interviews with experts who have studied charismatic Christian groups such as People of Praise, and with former members of the group, plus a review of the group’s own literature, reveal an organization that appears to dominate some members’ everyday lives, in which so-called “heads” – or spiritual advisers – make big life decisions, and in which members are expected to financially support one another.

< snip >

Other Catholic writers have said it is fair to scrutinize People of Praise because the group falls far outside mainstream Catholicism.

The group emerged out of the Catholic charismatic movement of the late 1960s, which blended Catholicism and Protestant Pentecostalism – Catholics and Protestants are both members – and adopted practices like speaking in tongues. SOURCE

@Euphonious_Polemic Real Time was certainly the first place I heard of it. And they never brought it up in place they really should’ve–her confirmation hearings :slight_smile: .

And on the contrary, religion is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring up–if it is going to influence her opinions on the high court :slight_smile: . This is probably what Senator Feinstein meant.

I mean, I have religious beliefs too. But I don’t impose them on other people.

My gf was raised in a religious cult, but decades ago she broke free from catholicism. You wouldn’t believe the crazy stuff they believed.

Here is a Washington Post article:

She absolutely should be discriminated against for her religious views. Delusional extremists don’t belong in secular positions of great responsibility.

I’m sure Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Malcolm X, and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with you.

If a person in question intends to give their religious beliefs the force of law in opposition to my religious beliefs it is perfectly reasonable to oppose them based on those beliefs. Rights are not infinite, there is a boundary beyond which your exercise of your rights infringes on my exercise of my rights. To invoke a metaphor: “Your right to swing your arms freely ends where my nose begins.”

Answer : No. Bill Maher has a history of saying and believing kooky things. He’s also a vaccine-truther.

Also Newsweek is partly responsible for a lot of this misinformation:

A SC law clerk, lawyer, law professor and Judge.
Seems pretty submissive to me. Just like Offred.

I’ve been seeing references to it ever since her nomination started to look likely.

And they didn’t bring it up in the confirmation hearings, probably, because the last time they did so all the Republicans started screaming ‘Religious discrimination!’

– whether it’s a cult is going to depend on one’s definition of ‘cult’.

I believe that that is exactly why the Democrats did not bring it up. Trump, and many Republican politicians, have been running with the message that "Biden / Democrats want to destroy religion," and there’s no good reason to add fuel to that fire.

Also, to the OP: if you hadn’t heard about Barrett’s membership in that group before seeing Maher’s show, you may want to consider broadening the number of news outlets you read. As others have said, it’s been mentioned many times elsewhere.

The Jehovahs Witnesses are not classified as a cult, but they probably should be.

They certainly score high on the BITE* model.

*Control of

  • Behavior
  • Information
  • Thought
  • Emotions

Simple question for her:

“In a potential conflict between the United States Constitution and your own personal interpretation of your religious beliefs, which one will you follow?”

Pin her down. Which one? Make a choice. Choose one or the other.

Is that really so? Even if the religion happens to be Islam?