BCT Editorial – 4/20/05

This page was last updated on April 21, 2005.

A matter of faith; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 20, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Pretending to be judge, jury and prosecutor is one thing.

“Playing God is another matter altogether.

“Some evangelical Christians - and the emphasis here is on some - apparently have forgotten that distinction.

“The New York Times reports that a flier for a Sunday evening telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky mega-church, portrayed Democrats as ‘against people of faith’ for blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees.

“Let’s look at the issue.

“Of the 204 judicial nominations Bush has submitted to the Senate since he has been in office, only 10 have been blocked by Democrats. As The Economist has reported, that’s about the same rate that Republicans turned down President Clinton’s nominees to the federal bench.

[RWC] In his role as Democrat water boy, the author omitted a couple of important facts.

First, the editorial fails to note that not all judgeships are created equal. For example, appellate court judges have more “power” than trial judges. That’s because appellate courts can overturn trial court rulings. The further up the appellate court chain you are, the greater your power. The appellate courts are where we tend to see “judicial activism” or “legislation from the bench.”

Second, the editorial fails to note all 10 “filibustered” nominees were for appellate courts. That’s 20% of the 50 judges President Bush nominated for appellate courts.

“The paper noted that U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has said that ‘when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee, blocked a number of his nominees.’

“What the Democrats are doing hardly constitutes a ‘Filibuster Against People of Faith,’ the heading the organizers put on a flier promoting the telecast. It’s politics as usual in Washington, not Armageddon, and there’s certainly no reason to bring God in on anyone’s side on this issue.”

[RWC] This paragraph is both right and wrong.

First, we need to recognize a fundamental truth. Democrats have an abortion litmus test for nominees. If Democrats believe you would overturn “Roe vs. Wade” if given the opportunity, you are unfit to serve as an appellate court judge in their eyes.

Right behind abortion is your position regarding the Constitution. If you believe the Constitution is a so-called “living document” to be interpreted according to contemporary “norms” and/or your personal policy preferences, you’re OK by Democrats. If you believe the Constitution says what it means, Democrats want no part of you.

If you claim to be religious yet still believe abortion is a “right” protected by the U.S. Constitution, you’re OK by Democrats.

That said, I believe it’s fair to say most folks strong in their faith believe abortion as birth control is wrong. Therefore, Democrats appear to assume if you are religious, you are anti-abortion. If you are anti-abortion, Democrats will try to stop your appointment to the court.

“A deeper, more troubling trend here needs to be addressed: the unholy and undemocratic mixing of religion and politics.

“This is not to say that believers of any faith should not be involved in politics, or that their religious and moral beliefs should not guide them. As Americans, they have every right to participate in the democratic process.

“However, politics is about compromise, and the American system of government is based on reaching consensus. Religion is about absolutes. You either believe or you don’t; you’re either saved or you’re damned.”

[RWC] In many cases, both politics and religion are about absolutes. While it’s fine to talk about compromise on minor details, we can’t compromise on our principles. If we did, how much longer would we have had slavery and segregation and for how much longer would minorities and women have been denied the right to vote? Remember, “separate but equal” was a compromise.

“That’s why blending politics and religion is a volatile mix. It simply can’t be done without doing great harm, especially in a multi-religious country such as the United States. Only our willingness to tolerate the differences among us enables us to have true religious freedom.

“A little humility is in order, and we can start by remembering that we are interpreters of God’s word, not his prophets. There’s a world of difference between saying ‘I believe God says’ and ‘God says,’ and ‘I think God wants us to’ and ‘God wants us to.’

“The organizers of Sunday’s telecast are saying that if you do not stand with them, you do not stand with God, and that they are ready to start a holy war because they haven’t gotten their way on judicial appointments just 5 percent of the time.”

[RWC] The “5%” figure is deceiving. As noted above, all 10 “filibustered” nominees were for appellate courts. That’s fully 20% of the 50 judges President Bush nominated for appellate courts.

“They already have control of the Republican Party. Imagine what they would do if they had the power of the state behind them to impose their will on the nation so they could get their way 100 percent of the time.”

[RWC] Who are “they,” “some evangelical Christians” or “the organizers of Sunday’s telecast?” Perhaps a future editorial will tell us who “they” are and present some evidence “they” have control of the Republican Party.