Chuck Colson, radio commentator and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, is a good man. Some do not like him not because he has been instrumental in helping prisoners get their lives turned around but because of how he has done it. His ministry leads people to Jesus Christ and at that point they decide whether to accept Jesus or reject him. If he just set up housing and job opportunities for these same men and women many of those now against Chuck Colson would be all in favor of his work.
James Dobson, also a good man is founder and chairman of the board of Focus on the Family. He offers practical help for marriage and child-rearing along with radio broadcasts that entertain and inform. Some do not like him because Christian principles are the bedrock of his teachings. If he left Jesus Christ out of his work he would not be the target of so much hate speech.
Now Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join Chuck Colson, James Dobson, and R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. Frist will provide a four-minute videotape to be telecast to "Justice Sunday" An April 24th event at Highview Baptist Church, Louisville, KY.
Liberal Democrats are quickly attacking Senator Frist. Democrats accused Dr. Frist of exploiting religious faith for political ends by joining the telecast. "No party has a monopoly on faith, and for Senator Frist to participate in this kind of telecast just throws more oil on the partisan flames," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York whines.
Schumer has been silent when liberal Democrats go to church services, exploiting religious faith for political ends and preaching from the pulpit while running for office. - (HINT: Jessie Jackson) - Schumer by his statement must also believe that people of faith are either not capable of thinking for themselves or should not hold any position on political matters. Christians are not required by law to separate their faith from political decisions and Christians can vote as they see fit. There are many in both parties. (Personally I would be offended by Schumer's comments but I consider the source and laugh instead.)
Democrats are saying that the judicial filibuster has nothing to do with the faith of the judicial candidates. However when questioned it seems that the main issue with them is the abortion issue which many Christians feel strongly about.
To find out more on this event you can go to Family Research Council's web page.
The NY Times also has a bit more on it. The NYT article as usual has mis-leading statements and is unreliable. Read between the lines.
well-meaning but without understanding" - - Mr. Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is not a sin to be ignorant but it is a sin to remain ignorant. - - prying1, 2006
Read the quote at the top of your page. The people you laud are men of zeal. I'm an independent, I have voted for men of both parties. I voted for my own Republican rep, Joe Knollenberg, and supported GOP candidate Andrew Raczkowski over Carl Levin in the 2002 Senate race, for example.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe my faith and the faith of others is not compatible with government. Just because I am Catholic does not mean that my beliefs are shared by those I might govern. This country comprises of Christians of several denominations, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, and the like.
I don't agree with the tenets of some of those faiths, and I'm sure they disagree with some of mine. I cannot, though, in good conscience, impose my Catholic beliefs on them.
The problem with some of these judges is that they wish to use their Christian beliefs as the basis for legal decisions. The Constitution of the United States does not preach religion, it guarantees freedom of religion for all. Every religion has different beliefs, so why should Frist, DeLay, et al. legislate against their beliefs because they have the power? Are their beliefs somehow superior?
I do not believe Catholicism is in any way superior to another faith. I lead my life based on my conscience, which St. Augustine said is a sovereign force.
If I were to legislate, though, I would err on the side of minority rights. If I were a judge, I would rule based on the law, not on my own personal beliefs. The law is impartial and unbiased. Bringing our religious beliefs to the law or the bench is un-American. Just imagine: could an atheist get a truly fair hearing in front of a judge who has publicly made their faith an issue? Jesus warned against those who broadcast their faith publicly.
I believe in works, not words, and a group of people who have done little to help the poor, the disabled, the sick while broadcasting they believe in Jesus makes me sick. Medicaid has helped loved ones who fell on hard times. Social Security saved my family when my father died. These people wish to destroy both. They are the modern-day Pharisees, and anyone of either party who stands up and says "No" is doing the right thing. I'd believe these people if they were more concerned about the less fortunate. I'd believe these people if they didn't line their pockets with contributions from the companies that are shipping our jobs to China and India. I'd believe these people if they worked for the good of all. I'd believe these people if they hadn't just waived the estate tax, which does not help the family farmer, but helps Paris Hilton and Bill Gates' kids.
I don't give a damn whether they say (D) or (R) in front of their name. I just want them to follow the Constitution they swore to uphold, and do more to help all Americans, not just those who give them money.
Perhaps you are missing the point. You claim to want them to follow the constitution. It is the Democrats that are calling for a SUPER MAJORITY vote for these nmominees. That is extra constitutional. Never been done that way and they want to change the rules.
ReplyDeleteMost of your diatribe shows that you pay too much attention to the mainstream media. Which group or denomination of Christians wants or demands a Theocracy? Certainly none of the mainstream ones.
It is the Democrats that are making an issue of the nominees religions. They have set up an unconstitutional set of guidelines that disallows these candidates and refuse to attend the meetings that would allow these qualified candidates to go forward in the process. The Democrats have made an issue of the Catholicism not the Republicans.
Should a 'religion disallow him from the up or down vote? Is that constitutional. Freedom of religion not freedom from religion!
There is a group called the Dominionists that recently held a gathering. Their leader, D. Edwin Kennedy, formed Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell. They call for Old Testament law to be the basis of judicial decisions, among other things. There are congressmen who spoke to this group about their good work. The article was in Rolling Stone. That sounds theocratic to me. Of course, that is just one example.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't just a mainstream media issue. The Democrats are well within their rights, as Republicans were under Clinton, to filibuster. In fact, the Republicans, including Frist, participated in a 1999 and a 2000 filibuster against two Clinton nominees.
I'm sorry, I don't remember hearing Republicans complain then about the filibuster being evil. Why? Because they were using it to their advantage. Eliminating a tool that has existed since the Senate was formed is wrong.
Frist, if he were smart, would call the Democrats on it. Make them get up there and sustain a filibuster. Don't change the rules, but make them actually follow through on their threat. That's the smart response.
And please, be serious. Very few people will come right out and say they want a theocracy, because then people would be scared. Instead, they slowly work it into the government, into the judiciary. This is not a filibuster against faith.
Let me make one other point.
Neither side is innocent in this debate. Democrats screamed for the GOP to let Clinton's nominees come to a vote, and in fact, many more of them did not. There are 12 judges being held up by Democrats, while about three times as many were held up by Republicans. Both sides said, let it come to a vote. Yet it hasn't. Why? Well, I remember Republicans saying it was a matter of principle to not let some of these judges on the federal bench. So, it's okay for Republicans to do it, but not Democrats in your eyes.
If I were to pick my model justice, it would be David Souter or Sandra Day O'Connor. Both were put in place by Republicans, but have shown a deep and abiding respect for the rule of law, and a high degree of fairness and moderation. These nominees being held up are not, and it has not a damn thing to do with their faith. It has to do with their legal backgrounds. And in terms of freedom of religion versus freedom from religion, again, the law is not a religious instrument. The justice system is supposed to be fair and impartial to all, regardless of religious belief, and my friend, judges who put their religious beliefs above their sworn duty to uphold the law are not doing their jobs.
Bringing it back here, and it's also on my blog:
ReplyDeleteWell, in terms of the in the bedroom laws, the laws against contraception, finally and fully reversed in Griswold v. Connecticut, those were Catholics, I believe, that helped write that law. It is one of the things that the Church should change its stance on.
But getting to your Dred Scott comment, there were many Christian people who fought for slavery as well as against it. The victory over slavery was not a Christian victory, because most Southerners were Christians too. How many times did someone find a way to use the Bible to justify slavery and racism?
I am not one who says expressing faith is a bad idea. I think Christian groups do many wonderful things in this world, and I have worked with them before for certain projects.
I simply believe that in governing a nation that is full of many non-Christians, using Christian ideology as a guide to supersede legal precedent or the Constitution is wrong. To most people, faith is a personal act, and they don't like politicians pushing their faith on them or judges using their faith as their main guideline. The judges in the Schiavo case were mainly conservative Christians, and they deplored Congress' actions. Greer was a devout Baptist, and he took a ton of heat undeservedly in that case.
The reason it seems people want faith in all aspects of public life is that the loudest voices are the choruses clamoring for this very thing. The people who want faith to stay personal don't tend to vote. Only 1/5 of voters cited moral values as their priority, yet the media played it as if it were a new trend. It's not. Being loudest doesn't make you a majority, it just means people hear you.
As I stated before, I want a just government and fair court system that puts their personal beliefs above the law. It does happen, by the way. A man chose a rehab program here in Michigan over jail time for a minor drug charge. The man was Catholic, and the rehab program in that area was run by Pentecostals. It was the only program available. They tried to convert the man, asking every day why he didn't renounce his Catholicism, so he went before the judge and asked for a new program. The judge refused and sent him to jail. Tell me, was that good law? And why was the only program available run by a Pentecostal church? Furthermore, is it right for that group, while doing county work (because they received funding for the program) to try and convert someone to their faith?
This is why faith must remain personal. It can be used for good, and it can be used for some form of evil...just like those Southern Baptists who all believed in slavery.
Christians who say they seperate their lives and decisions from their religion don't understand their faith. If you really know who Jesus is, what he taught, and the example he set, you'd know your faith must have an influence on your decisions, especially those concerning the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, most religions can agree on what is morally acceptable and what isn't. A good Christian judge won't likely make very many moral decisions that a Muslim or a Jew would find reprehensible. The real fear of Christian judges lies in those who are afraid of religious morality altogether. They'd prefer a subjective morality that they can alter whenever they see fit, which isn't morality at all. I'm pretty sure Christ wouldn't oppose religious ethics in the courtroom, and just because some churches have twisted ideas of what is right and wrong, doesn't mean we should abandon the whole system altogether.
Adam - Thanks -
ReplyDeleteThad (and anyone who really cares for both sides of this issue.) If you really care about the truth I would suggest going to Hughhewitt.com if you want the facts on this subject. (link is on the right - Favorite link list) Hugh is a professor of constitutional law at Chapman University and does know a bit about the rules the senate works under. Rules the Democrats are trying to change because they keep losing elections. The fact is, the MSM and the democrats are working overtime to make gullible people think the democrat politicians have our best interests at heart. More and more people are realizing the truth. The Democratic party will lie to achieve their ends and most people do not like being lied to.
They cannot win elections because Michael Moores morals are not what this country wants to have ruling over us. The Democratic party simply wants to control the courts through judicial extremism. Judges passing laws from the bench.
Sorry I do not have time to answer all the points you made. I can say that no one in this country will be happy all the time. Majority versus Minority? Should the rights of a few ragamuffin urban campers (read homeless) trump the right of local homeowners who find excrement on their lawns? Should a handful of environmentalist wackos hold up construction because some little vermin infested rat lives in the area? Should a few athiests demand of the rest of the country that St. Paul Minn. and Los Angeles change their names because it offends them?
I have to disagree. There seems to be a push to put morality in the court room. Which obviously leads to the question of who?s morality? Yours, mine or the bible? The answer is none of the above. Faith is something personal as is morality. We can all agree on the major issues murder theft ect. But the crimes that leave a victim are easy. The problem comes when the issue is strictly about personal morality. Who decides what is decent and what is not. This and similar situations are very subjective. People who do not want to see something ?indecent? on TV then they need to change the channel and make sure they watch their kids rather than censor something they feel uncomfortable with.
ReplyDeleteI have written on this subject quite a bit at
Truth Be Told in a few posts.
Also some reference material
History Yale Law
And Theology Click on the Journal of Theology and scroll down to sect 2 and click on religion and the founding fathers. I found your site from a post at Wolverine Politics and posted there also. There is also some posts on mine. JJ
The last thing we need is morality in the courtroom.
ReplyDeleteWhat a crock your arguements are. All you really should say is that you want all rules bent so that you can do what you want without being called on it. Why not just go whole hog and demand anarchy?
So you agree with me we don?t need courts to rule on morality but somehow think I want to bend the rules? How is upholding the constitution a bad thing? Religious organizations are pushing an agenda that runs counter to the constitution and the separation of powers. Some people insist that the country was founded on Christian principles when that is not the case.
ReplyDeleteI do not have much time but as far as judicial nominees go Bush has had a higher percentage approved than any president but that is not enough for the religious right they want 100% approved. If as you say the nominee?s are being held up by the Dems. because of their faith does that mean the couple hundred that have been approved are men of no faith? Of course not that is ridiculous.
Please give some basis for your assertions other than
?What a crock your arguments are. All you really should say is that you want all rules bent so that you can do what you want without being called on it. Why not just go whole hog and demand anarchy? ?
Where did you get that from? How does it apply to my arguments at all?
So you agree with me we don?t need courts to rule on morality but somehow think I want to bend the rules? How is upholding the constitution a bad thing? Religious organizations are pushing an agenda that runs counter to the constitution and the separation of powers. Some people insist that the country was founded on Christian principles when that is not the case.
ReplyDeleteI do not have much time but as far as judicial nominees go Bush has had a higher percentage approved than any president but that is not enough for the religious right they want 100% approved. If as you say the nominee?s are being held up by the Dems. because of their faith does that mean the couple hundred that have been approved are men of no faith? Of course not that is ridiculous.
Please give some basis for your assertions other than
?What a crock your arguments are. All you really should say is that you want all rules bent so that you can do what you want without being called on it. Why not just go whole hog and demand anarchy? ?
Where did you get that from? How does it apply to my arguments at all?
Sorry JJ - I thought you would recognize sarcasm when I said " The last thing we need is morality in the courtroom."
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe it should be immorality in the courtroom? What other choice is there?
You keep commenting on the constitutional aspects of the judicial filibuster and that is a senate rules issue. Unless you are writing about/considering that anyone who has faith in God to be automatically disqualified. That sounds real constitutional.
What the radical right is really interested in at the moment is that these judges simply be brought out of commitee and get the opportunity for an up or down full senate vote.
They would not be where they are today if they were not qualified.
Just out of curiosity did you complain about 102 Clinton nominees not being brought to a vote and left unconfirmed?
ReplyDeleteThe reason they did not filibuster is the Republicans had the Senate so they just delayed and delayed.
So ten nominees have not been confirmed but you have to have it all,100% confirmation you want for Bush and 102 that were not voted on that Clinton nominated.\
My sarcasm about morality in the court room has to do with personal morality like decency and not matters of law.
Re: Clinton's 102 - use of the filibuster is a direct departure from the Constitution's anticipation of a majority vote on presidential nominees. At that time the majority was Republicans (notice how with Bill Clinton the Democrats started LOOSING power?)
ReplyDeleteThey were rejected because the majority rejected them. It was not the MINORITY (thats you and yours) trying every which way to keep the nominees from reaching the floor.
Now JJ - re your comment: My sarcasm about morality in the court room has to do with personal morality like decency and not matters of law.
Lord forbid we should have decency in the court room. All the lawyers would be banned!
I will not be defending lawyers (some are indefensible). However that still leaves who will be the judge of morality, of what is decent and what is not? What standard do you suggest? The bible?
ReplyDeleteYou are mistaken to think Clintons nominees were voted down many were prevented from having a vote. The reason was Republican controlled Judiciary Committee refused to hold hearings on most Clinton nominees.
There are currently 43 judicial vacancies. This compares to the Republicans, who by September 1997 had forced 103vacancies. (The most at least since Carter - I got bored going back farther.) The reason? In 1997, the percent of judicial nominees confirmed was lower than for any Congress over the last three decades.
From 1979-1995 the average number of annual confirmations was 53. The average number of days from judicial nomination to confirmation was 78 days. In two years, 1996-1997, the Republican Congress only confirmed 56 judges total for the two year period, and the average time was 192 days . Perhaps feeling they were being too hasty, in 1998, the average time was swelled to 258 days to make a final decision on Circuit Court nominees.
Now let's compare the Republicans 56 total nominees confirmed for the two-year period can to the less than one year period of July 2001 (beginning when Democrats took control of the Senate) to April 2002, when the Democratic Senate confirmed 45 Bush nominees. More judicial nominees were confirmed by the Democratic Senate in 2001-2002 than were confirmed under Republican control in all of 1996, 1997, 1999, or 2000.
During Clinton?s term, Republican Senators blocked 35% of President Clinton?s nominees to the federal appellate courts for policy reasons. Republicans threatened to stop all confirmations or eliminate judicial seats to prevent Clinton from selecting his own judges, insisting that they were entitled to choose half of the judges.
And you know how the Republicans complain that the Democrats refusal to let the ten most unqualified and conservative freaks that Bush can find onto the federal bench is unprecedented? They obviously have short term memories.
In 1997, Republican Senator Orinn Hatch, Committee Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, stated that the delay on considering Clinton's nominees was because he "plan[ned] to stand firm . . . to ensure that President Clinton does not pack the judiciary with liberal activists. " Flat out, there were no allegations that the nominees were unqualified for the federal bench, apart from their liberal policies.
Oh, how their tune changes?
Once again let me reiterate that the 96-97 were years that the Republicans were in the majority and Clinton was a lame duck.
ReplyDeleteThis year we have a lame duck president whose party is in the majority.
May I suggest that if you want liberal judges to continue to make law from the bench you start winning elections.
If you are unsure of what is decent and what is indecent, right and wrong, good and evil then perhaps we should not leave decisions about morality in your hands or the hands of a party that is known for it's celebration of judicial murder.
I see you are all knowing since you think you know my party and religious belief. You still have not addressed the double standard and just keep repeating that the republicans are a majority. Thank you for the news flash but you have not said anything other than your judgments of me. ?Judge not le..? you know. What law has the judiciary made. The judiciary makes rulings on whether a law is constitutional or is barred by the constitution. I have had discussions on this on my blog Truth Be Told and will not go into detail here on Church and State but would still like to know why not voting on all of Clintons nominee?s but only ten of Bushes are a call to arms? I do not like double standards. You say you just want an up or down vote, did you complain when Clintons were not given the same chance for a vote. (just a different method) Party affiliation should not matter.
ReplyDeleteI am not yet omniscient although I am working on it. I'm taking an online course & I'll graduate in 1-1/2 years.
ReplyDeleteWhat double standard? No, I did not complain when Clinton's nominees were cast into outer darkness. After all, the side I'm rooting for won the election. (See previous comments) I think the Democrats are finally figuring out that they are in the minority because they lost and have been losing since Clinton took office. The majority picks the judges. (Remember Bork?) Party affiliation DOES matter.
It is a call to arms because 10 of Bush's nominees have not been allowed an up or down vote because the losing party is trying to change the rules so that a super majority be neccessary for these fine folks to get their new jobs...
Thanks for reminding me of the often misused "judge not" scripture. Most people do not know the verses which follow. The Greek word translated 'judge' in that statement has a meaning that is more directed to being 'unreasonably critical'. I'm not sure where I have been so in my comments but I do appologise.
We could split hares over the judiciary making law and/or constitutional rulings. The fact remains that podunk liberal judges have been tearing apart propositions and laws that the people vote for. They twist the meanings of words in the constitution and go to foreign law to tear down that which is the will of the people. Certainly you do not find that to be acceptable.
Let me know how the whole omniscient class works as I could use it.
ReplyDeleteThe Clinton judges were prevented from getting a vote because the majority (Rep) blocked it in commitee even though the votes were there to confirm them.
So up or down vote for Bush's but not Clintons, got it.
You rip on "liberal" judges making law or tearing up laws that the people want.
Do you think that a law that the majority of people want should stand even when it is unconstitution?
You cant be serious.
Are the laws unconstitutional? People speak of free speech and then lump ACTIONS such as burning of flags into that category. Burning the flag is not speech. Standing on a soapbox and proclaiming with a voice your thoughts, ideas and emotions is speech. Writing a post for a blog is speech. An editorial in a newspaper is speech. Carrying a sign is speech. Burning a bra or scarecrow is not. Releasing test animals from labs is not.
ReplyDeleteFor the majority of citizens to say, "We do not want our tax money to fund free medical care for illegal aliens" and the courts to strike it down as discrimination is judicial activism. People are tired of it and the liberals keep losing elections because of it.
I really do want to appologize to you JJ. I do tend to get smart alecky (no offense to anyone named Aleck) at times and can see it in some of my responses.
In truth the right is not filled with people that want to run your life and micromanage every detail of the world. For years the MSM has vilified the right to such a degree that many have been afraid to stand up and speak their mind. As soon as one does he or she is called a racist, homophobe, war monger, fanatic, etc... Those names have become meaningless and no longer apply.
People of faith believe there is a right and wrong and are getting fed up with seeing the definitions blurred and their children indoctrinated. Many are standing up and saying, "Enough". We are citizens too and are tired of having our ideals disparaged and trampled by socialists. We are not evil and our hope for this country is not to drag it under a theocracy but we do want to prevent it from being dragged into socialistic moral relativism. We hope to do it through the ballot box and by showing our neighbors that we are not the facists the media makes us out to be.
Back to the original idea of this post. Is it wrong for Bill Frist to address a major portion of the people who elected him?
Burning a flag is free speech that goes with the right to peaceably protest. I am not saying people should but they do have that right.
ReplyDeleteAs for services for illegal immigrants we should not be giving services but both parties cater to ag-business and do nothing to stop it, and Bush will only make it worse with the guest worker program the same way amnesty did under Reagan. The border needs to be closed to illegal immigration.
I see anyone that is against the war or any Republican program being called unpatriotic. Well I was all for the Afghanistan war but Bush wasted the good will from the world after 9/11. I have always said the people trying to change ?activist judges? are not intentionally trying to harm the country. They truly believe the country was founded on Christian principles. It just is not true, they believe it but they are trying to reclaim something they never had. If they succeed it will harm the long term stability of the country.
The problem I think comes at a win at all cost mentality. The domestic and foreign policy of the country has ensured a crash that we all hope is a soft landing but don?t count on it.
While you have not really explained how a double standard for the Bush and Clinton nominee?s. As for Frist there is nothing wrong with going to a church to speak depending on what you say and since I have not heard his speech I wont comment until I do.
Prying1, I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with you, and excellent job at argument. I have just finsihed studying with Judge Robert Bork, and you seem to share similar opinions. Amorality, though not a "recognized" form of morality, is still an actual morality, and those who impose it upon their judicial decisions have deviated from the intent of the Judicial system--to interpret, rather than to create law.
ReplyDeleteIf I may add, faith has everything to do with the filibuster of the judicial nominees. Robert Bork was badgerd ("Borked" for lack of a better term) because of his position on Roe v. Wade--Bork, contrary to liberal opinion, is not of the opinion that Roe should be overturned because he has a moral opposition to abortion, though he does as a proper Catholic, but because Roe is essentially a Constituional red herring--a non-existant right for women to have an abortion, exsiting in the, also non-existant, Constitutional right to privacy. Judicial activism at its best--at the time of Roe's decision, only a few states allowed abortion. Blackmun (I believe) saw fit to determine that the nation was wrong. Abortion should be legal.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bork believed as he did for good reason: Roe's presence in judicial precedent has led to too many dispicable rulings (Lawrence v. Texas, for instance)--it has essentially allowed the judiciary to create the legislation and to determine the will of the people. The argument is the same with the recent juvenile death penalty case--the court has no place determining the will of the people. Should the people desire legality of abortion, or to ban juvenile execution, the legislation will reflect it--it is their job. It was only a matter of time before the judiciary, an "intellectual elite," determined that it knew better than ordinary people as to what was appropriate for society. It now gleefully imposes its amorality onto the people of this nation, particularly in the 9th Circuit.
Too many liberals see a person's religion as being equanimious with their ability to rule on precedent, which is why they are so adamant about keeping those who may have any religious leaning off the bench, lest they overrule Roe (gasp!). Truly good judges are formalists--they look to the foundation of the law and to the precedent--NOT to their pseudo-intellectual Enlightenment principles.
And, by the way, Frist is more than allowed to address a faith-based gathering, should he be asked. Last I checked, the Establishement clause made no prohibition against legislators having a modicum of faith, or a belief in a higher power, the very ideal upon which the First Amendment was based.