|
"Why I'm rooting for the religous right"
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: |
Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right . . .
By JAMES TARANTO
May 5, 2005; Page A14
I am not a Christian, or even a religious believer, and my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road. So why do I find myself rooting for the "religious right"? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism -- all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right.
One can disagree with religious conservatives on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, creationism and any number of other issues, and still recognize that they have good reason to feel disfranchised. This isn't the same as the oft-heard complaint of "anti-Christian bigotry," which is at best imprecise, since American Christians are all over the map politically. But those who hold traditionalist views have been shut out of the democratic process by a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land.
For the most part, the religious right has responded in good civic-minded fashion: by organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates. This has required exquisite discipline and patience, since changing court-imposed policies entails first changing the courts, a process that can take decades. Even then, "conservative" judges are not about to impose conservative policies; the best the religious right can hope for is the opportunity to make its case through ordinary democratic means.
In the past three elections, the religious right has helped to elect a conservative Republican president and a bigger, and increasingly conservative, Republican Senate majority. This should make it possible to move the courts in a conservative direction. But Senate Democrats, taking their cue from liberal interest groups, have responded by subverting the democratic process, using the filibuster to impose an unprecedented supermajority requirement on the confirmation of judges.
That's what prompted Christian conservatives to organize "Justice Sunday," last month's antifilibuster rally, at a church in Kentucky. After following long-established rules for at least a quarter-century, they can hardly be faulted for objecting when their opponents answer their success by effectively changing those rules.
This procedural high-handedness is of a piece with the arrogant attitude the secular left takes toward the religious right. Last week a Boston Globe columnist wrote that what he called "right-wing crackpots -- excuse me, 'people of faith'" were promoting "knuckle-dragging judges." This contempt expresses itself in more refined ways as well, such as the idea that social conservatism is a form of "working class" false consciousness. Thomas Frank advanced this argument in last year's bestseller, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"
Liberal politicians have picked up the theme. Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, in a January op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, mused on a postelection visit he made to Alabama, wondering why people from that state "say 'yes' when the increasingly powerful Republican Party asks them to be concerned about homosexuality but not about the security of their own health, about abortion but not about the economic futures of their own children."
Assuming for the sake of argument that Democratic economic policies really are better (or at least more politically attractive) than Republican ones, why don't politicians like Mr. Feingold adopt conservative positions on social issues so as to win over the voters whose economic interests they claim to care so much about? The answer seems obvious: Mr. Feingold would not support, say, the Human Life Amendment or the Federal Marriage Amendment because to do so would be against his principles. It's not that he sees the issues as unimportant, but that he does not respect the views of those who disagree. His views are thoughtful and enlightened; theirs are, as Mr. Frank describes them, a mindless "backlash."
This attitude is politically self-defeating, for voters know when politicians are insulting their intelligence. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, recently framed the abortion debate in this way: "What we want to debate is who gets to choose: Tom DeLay and the federal politicians? Or does a woman get to make up her own mind?" He also vowed that "we're going to use Terri Schiavo," promising to produce "an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay, saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'" Many voters who aren't pro-life absolutists have misgivings about abortion on demand and about the death of Terri Schiavo. By refusing to acknowledge the possibility of thoughtful disagreement or ambivalence, Mr. Dean is giving these moderates an excellent reason to vote Republican.
Curiously, while secular liberals underestimate the intellectual seriousness of the religious right, they also overestimate its uniformity and ambition. The hysterical talk about an incipient "theocracy" -- as if that is what America was before 1963, when the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools -- is either utterly cynical or staggeringly naive.
Last week an article in The Nation, a left-wing weekly, described the motley collection of religious figures who gathered for Justice Sunday. A black minister stood next to a preacher with a six-degrees-of-separation connection to the Ku Klux Klan. A Catholic shared the stage with a Baptist theologian who had described Roman Catholicism as "a false church."
These folks may not be your cup of tea, but this was a highly ecumenical group, united on some issues of morality and politics but deeply divided on matters of faith. The thought that they could ever agree enough to impose a theocracy is laughable.
And the religious right includes not only Christians of various stripes but also Orthodox Jews and even conservative Muslims. Far from the sectarian movement its foes portray, it is in truth a manifestation of the religious pluralism that makes America great. Therein lies its strength.
Mr. Taranto is editor of OpinionJournal.com2 and author of its daily "Best of the Web" column. |
|
|
|
| wolverine16 |
Why the Justice Sunday people are wrong is because 205 out of 215 judges were confirmed and were not filibustered. I think it's safe to say just maybe a couple of those 205 are "people of faith." Prscilla Owen is opposed by Democrats because of her judicial activism and conflicts of interest she has shown on the bench in TX. Along with Judge Brown of CA, she is specifically used as an example of blocking "people of faith." Also if the Dems are changing the rules in ther middle of the game and judges have never before been denied an up-or-down vote, how about the filibuster of Abe Fortas, Bob Smith's attempted filibusters during the Clinton administation (backed by Bill Frist, based on his vote against cloture), holding up nominees in committee & the process of blue-slipping (a favorite tactic of Orrin Hatch? We're talking about 10 judges total, much less than the 60 held up under Clinton, including Paez. And no, judges under Clinton were NOT all given an up-or-down vote, even despite a GOP majority in the Senate. Considering the Democrats represente MORE Americans in the Senate, we're talking about an attempt for absolute one-party power in the federal government that goes against the majority. Think about the fact that in the Senate the small population of Wyoming has the same number of votes as California.
This whole tyranny of the judiciary is insane, considering the vast majority of the judges who ruled in the various Schiavo cases and the Supreme Court were nominated by Republican presidents. James Dobson deserves to be belittled for his activities, especially considering he is actively lobbying for courts like the 9th in CA to have their funding withheld by the legislature to essentially eliminate their ability to rule on cases. Then there's the other crazy people who led this event, Albert Mohler, who stated that Catholicism is a fake religion, and Tony Parker, who bought hate group mailing lists from David Duke. If you want to expand it even further, you have Pat Robertson who makes money from illegal gold mining deals with dictators and Ralph Reed, who may be indicted as part of the Tom Delay ehtics probe, as he used his pulpit to rally against the immorality of casinos that a Native American tribe wanted to build, only because he was receiving lobbying money to do so from another tribe that wanted to eliminate competition. These aren't people of faith that led Justice Sunday, they're people who use the veil of religion for their own self-interest, which is what this supposed judical activism thing is about. The real changing of Senate rules would be eliminating the filibuster, not using it the same way it, and many other tactics, have been used by BOTH sides throughout the history of the country.
[/rant] :) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Honestly, Shakka, I think this one's been beaten into the ground pretty hard.
The filibuster against these judges is not based on a religious perspective. The religious right ing knows this, the GOP ing knows this, and the majority opinion ing knows this as well.
Rather, they are EXACTLY what Delay, Frist, and the other Republican wingnutters are fighting against - activist judges:
| quote: | Justice Brown's disdain for government runs so deep that she urges "conservative" judges to invalidate legislation that expands the role of government, saying that it "inevitably transform[s]... a democracy ... into a kleptocracy." Following her own "pro-activist" advice, Justice Brown - always in dissent - uses constitutional provisions or defies the legislature's intent to restrict or invalidate laws she doesn't like, such as California's anti-discrimination statute (which she condemns as protecting only "narrow" personal interests), hotel development fees intended to preserve San Francisco's affordable housing supply, rent control ordinances, statutory fees for manufacturers that put lead-based products into the stream of commerce, and a false advertising law applied to companies making false claims about their workplace practices to boost sales. Justice Brown's colleagues on the court have repeatedly remarked on her disrespect for such legislative policy judgments, criticizing her, in different cases, for "imposing ... (a) personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state"; asserting "such an activist role for the courts"; "quarrel[ing]... not with our holding in this case, but with this court's previous decision ... and, even more fundamentally, with the Legislature itself"; and "permit(ting) a court ... to reweigh the policy choices that underlay a legislative or quasi-legislative classification or to reevaluate the efficacy of the legislative measure.
Judge Priscilla Owen - who may be the judicial nominee that Senate conservatives use to trigger the nuclear option - is widely opposed because of her judicial activism. Upon her nomination, several Texas papers weighed in. Here are some excerpts:
Austin-American Statesman, 4/29/03: "Owen is so conservative that she places herself out of the broad mainstream of jurisprudence. She seems all too willing to bend the law to fit her views, rather than the reverse."
The Houston Chronicle, 5/12/03: "Owen's judicial record shows less interest in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda...a justice who has shown a clear preference for ruling to achieve a particular result rather than impartially interpreting the law. Anyone willing to look objectively at Owen's record would be hard-pressed to deny that."
San Antonio Express, 7/21/02: "Once competency is established, the most important qualification for a judge is commitment to following the law as it is written - regardless of personal philosophy. Justice Priscilla Owen is clearly competent, but her record demonstrates a results-oriented streak that belies supporters' claims that she strictly follows the law...The Senate should not block a judicial nominee simply because he or she is more conservative or more liberal than the Senate's majority party. It also should not engage in petty personal attacks. But concerns about Owen go to the heart of what makes a good judge...When a nominee has demonstrated a propensity to spin the law to fit philosophical beliefs, it is the Senate's right - and duty - to reject that nominee.
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew...lating_fro.html
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=754 |
Why aren't you Republicans debating these activist, extremist judges on their merits? Why the ridiculous straw man argument on religion? Have we once heard any arguments based on their merits yet? Are you guys to ing chicken to talk about just how exreme these judges are or something? Certainly appears that way by bringing up this ridiculous argument of religious discrimination instead.
And BTW, why the is the wingnut bags protecting corporate interests so much, and ing the common worker's rights so easily by protecting these extremist nominees? Really now, what would Jesus think of your actions?
What, is 95% not ing good enough for you? Gotta ing have it all, huh? You want an up or down vote on everyone? Then why'd you ing block just that with over 60 of Clinton's nominees?
You're nothing but hypocritical, bull liars at this point, and the public is finally on to you as a consequence. And in order to get EVERYTHING that you want, you have to break the rules and set a precedent not done in over 200 years:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/6/132148/2123
http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/nuc...avid-humes.html
You've got a lot of ing gall trying to stand up for these con-artists. Yeah, I know, every politician lies, and everyone has their hands dirty. But Jesus, don't you realize that you're creating the EXACT same mistake the Dems. did when they were in total power in Congress?
And I really like this part, Shakka:
| quote: | | For the most part, the religious right has responded in good civic-minded fashion: by organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates. |
How active is "active"? And this:
| quote: | | I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism -- all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right. |
Really? Well pardon me, James, I suppose you're just going to ignore teensy little stories like these:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004324.php#more
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/5/211218/4946
Your extremists are setting your agenda, dear GOP. Their irrationalization has got you by the balls. They got Bush his 2nd term, and now they continue to set YOUR agenda. Meanwhile no one pays anymore attention to Iraq, N. Korea, Afghanistan, our deficit, our Congress and President making budge cuts for the elderly, the disabled, the poor, our Bush's ass-ing to the environment, or our country being ass-ed by more corporate tax breaks while the average worker pay continues to ing lag behind inflation.
Utterly ing pathetic. |
|
|
| Shakka |
That was cute. By the way, the title of the thread was not meant to imply "I" specifically, rather it was the title of the editorial. I'm happy you responded to it, but don't do so with the mindset that you're defending yourself from me. Notice I didn't put any of my own opinion in it, rather I just posted the article for what it was looking for feedback. The fact that you respond with such an aggressively defensive nature tells me that this issue is not so cut-and-dry.
Do I agree with the article, not entirely, but some of the broader points are on target, IMO.
I doubt you had ever heard of many of the judges prior to their nominations, but you are a hard-core lefty, so anything proposed from the right(with the exception of the Afghan War, of course) will be met with aggressive resistance from the left and labeled "Extreme" because it follows a Conservative agenda. Honestly, can the Right do anything that can go without being labeled as "Extreme" by you lefties? It's as if anything to the right of your stance is extreme. All I want is a judge who will abide by the constitution and not make any activist interpretations that fit a particular agenda. Both the right and the left have members who are guilty of violating that request. I only want justice, the same as you(I presume).
People on the right probably wouldn't make the claim that the left is acting the way they are if the shills on the left weren't calling them religious, wing-nut, extremist judges in the first place. There isn't once side that is completely innocent in this.
I know you have a list of bookmarks in your favorites folder, ready to go so you're perpetually armed with ammunition to debate the other side.
With that said, borrowing from a friend of mine, love and kisses to all of your pink parts. Have a great weekend, friend! |
|
|
| Shakka |
Clearly you jumped to a much larger conclusion than I from these stories. Sounds like 1 church might've been a bit loony, though I'm sure their congregation was probably not full of many democrats given the fact that it went down. Are you trying to tell me that there aren't instances where a representative of the left hasn't done something equally offensive and stupid? I nominate Ted Kennedy. Seriously, you're asking for a big conclusion to be drawn from a couple of small blog posts. I think it's a bit of a stretch on your part. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Are you trying to tell me that there aren't instances where a representative of the left hasn't done something equally offensive and stupid? I nominate Ted Kennedy. Seriously, you're asking for a big conclusion to be drawn from a couple of small blog posts. I think it's a bit of a stretch on your part. |
I know you're responding to Opus here, but I think you have a great point right here. There are people on both sides who overreach and this is exactly why the filibuster is a great check in our system of government. Think about what happens if precedent is set that the filibuster can be done away with. When Democrats get a situation where they control the legislative & executive branches again, which will happen at some point, a new era of the New Deal could be enacted faster than anyone could imagine. While a majority should have the right to set the agenda, shouldn't there be some say & compromise required from the minority? I think it's what keeps this country stable & promotes better policy.
For instance, let's say you have a progressive president & congress that wants to expand on government healthcare. Isn't it best for them to be able to bring that agenda forward, but have more conservative members be able to say "fine, we may agree to allow you to pass your agenda, but we're very skeptical about the costs and misuse of programs, so you'll have to bring in provisions that address our concerns or else your majority will not be able to pass your legislation"? Same thing the other way, where in the current more conservative government is being allowed to appoint conservative judges, but the 10 people with the most concerns are being held up. These are important lifetime positions after all and the ABA gave lesser ratings to many of these cases than others who have passed, not to mention even Alberto Gonzales had some concerns with Owen. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Disclaimer:
I'm in a pissy mood today. Work sucked doney balls, I headed out early to go deal with these evolution "trials" going on in Topeka, KS. So right now I'm knee deep in fundie bull, and I think I let it show a bit too much.
/Disclaimer
I was wrong to take my anger towards you specifically, Shakka, and I duly apologize. Let me comment with a bit more maturity below:
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Do I agree with the article, not entirely, but some of the broader points are on target, IMO. |
Quite fair enough, as was your previous statement.
| quote: | | I doubt you had ever heard of many of the judges prior to their nominations, but you are a hard-core lefty, so anything proposed from the right(with the exception of the Afghan War, of course) will be met with aggressive resistance from the left and labeled "Extreme" because it follows a Conservative agenda. Honestly, can the Right do anything that can go without being labeled as "Extreme" by you lefties? It's as if anything to the right of your stance is extreme. All I want is a judge who will abide by the constitution and not make any activist interpretations that fit a particular agenda. Both the right and the left have members who are guilty of violating that request. I only want justice, the same as you(I presume). |
I really don't think of myself too much as a hardcore lefty, but hell maybe I am? I dunno. Regardless, I do not disagree with Bush or anyone else from the Right simply because they are opposite of the Left. Anyone who does just that are not rational thinkers in the slightest.
I did, however, post a good argument against two of these nominees, which clearly demonstrated:
1. Extremism outside of majority opinion
2. Judicial activism
3. Unconstitutional beliefs
I'm more than willing to debate these judges on their merits. The trouble is, I can't seem to find too many conservatives wanting to do the same. As a consequence, a straw man label is placed on us who stick up for
1. the majority opinion of the public
2. the minority opinion of the Senate
3. the Constitution
4. opposing judicial activism (see Gonzales' opinion on Owens)
| quote: | | People on the right probably wouldn't make the claim that the left is acting the way they are if the shills on the left weren't calling them religious, wing-nut, extremist judges in the first place. There isn't once side that is completely innocent in this. |
Name me one religious extremist on the Left.
If you're able to do that, next name me how this Left Religious extremist is influencing our politics on the highest level in the exact same manner that we are seeing here with "Justice Sunday".
| quote: | I know you have a list of bookmarks in your favorites folder, ready to go so you're perpetually armed with ammunition to debate the other side.
With that said, borrowing from a friend of mine, love and kisses to all of your pink parts. Have a great weekend, friend! |
And to you, Shakka. Again, my apologies.
Here's a personal note for all of you - my wife and I had a pretty deep discussion over a coupla drafts of beer with a terrific Episcopalian minister. To make a long story short, it was extraordinarily refreshing to listen to this man. It was actually nice to hear this man talk of those issues he considers so sacred to himself - helping the poor, fighting poverty, finding cures for diseases, rather than spew out such ridiculous judgemental issues that I often associate with fundies. He felt as strongly as we did about how the fundies are abusing religion for their own personal political gains, and that it was the absolute wrong place for religion. Even worse, it gives ALL religions and individuals of faith a very bad name, even when they do not agree with most of the fundies' viewpoints hardly at all.
It gave me a great sense of hope for the future. The bottom line that I firmly believe is issues like these have no place for religion. Religious individuals know damn well that this is not a religious issue, and politicians surely know damn well that they shouldn't be abusing religion for their own personal gain. This feeding off one another is sickening to watch.
Anyway, I'm off. Have a good weekend. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I was wrong to take my anger towards you specifically, Shakka, and I duly apologize. Let me comment with a bit more maturity below: |
Fuggedaboutit. I expect nothing less! It was a crappy week down here. I think we can all relate.;)
| quote: |
I really don't think of myself too much as a hardcore lefty, but hell maybe I am? I dunno. |
Ah, the power of adjectives. You and I are probably both closer to the center in real life than we realize, we just approach it from different sides of the same street. I remember long ago when you questioned some of my "crazy, right-winged" ideas about some mundane philosophy issue or something.
| quote: | | Name me one religious extremist on the Left. |
Well, in opposing fashion, the term "godless commie" comes to mind, which is such a subjective term, it would depend on which court of opinion you're appealing to when determining who might fit that bill. Barring the religion portion of the argument, someone like a Hillary Clinton comes to mind, who, to me, connotes anti-individualism, aside from her overdramatic whoring herself out to the public and pursuing an image of someone she isn't in order to gain a presidential nod and potential victory in 2008. Barbara Boxer is another I cannot stand. Kennedy goes without saying, but we could both compile lists of politicians we despise who all probably fit a core modus operandi(I'm drinking now).
| quote: | | Here's a personal note for all of you - my wife and I had a pretty deep discussion over a coupla drafts of beer with a terrific Episcopalian minister. To make a long story short,...yakity yakity yak... |
Funny you say that, for I am an Episcopalian. You know they call us Catholic-light, right? None of that Pope for us.;)
| quote: | | It gave me a great sense of hope for the future. |
For that, I am genuinely happy for you.
| quote: | | Anyway, I'm off. Have a good weekend. |
Ditto. And Ditto. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| I wanna hug somebody now...:p |
|
|
|
|
