Posted on 04/16/2005 6:36:22 AM PDT by mathprof
Right-wing Christian groups and the Republican politicians they bankroll have done much since the last election to impose their particular religious views on all Americans. But nothing comes close to the shameful declaration of religious war by Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, over the selection of judges for federal courts.
Senator Frist is to appear on a telecast sponsored by the Family Research Council, which styles itself a religious organization but is really just another Washington lobbying concern. The message is that the Democrats who oppose a tiny handful of President Bush's judicial nominations are conducting an assault "against people of faith." By that, Senator Frist and his allies do not mean people of all faiths, only those of their faith.
It is one thing when private groups foment this kind of intolerance. It is another thing entirely when it's done by the highest-ranking member of the United States Senate, who swore on the Bible to uphold a Constitution that forbids the imposition of religious views on Americans. Unfortunately, Senator Frist and his allies are willing to break down the rules to push through their agenda - in this case, by creating what the senator knows is a false connection between religion and the debate about judges.
Senator Frist and his backers want to take away the sole tool Democrats have for resisting the appointment of unqualified judges: the filibuster. This is not about a majority or even a significant number of Bush nominees; it's about a handful with fringe views or shaky qualifications. But Senator Frist is determined to get judges on the federal bench who are loyal to the Republican fringe and, he hopes, would accept a theocratic test on decisions.
Senator Frist has an even bigger game in mind than the current nominees: the next appointments to the Supreme Court, which the Republican conservatives view as their best chance to outlaw abortion and impose their moral code on the country.
We fully understand that a powerful branch of the Republican Party believes that the last election was won on "moral values." Even if that were true, that's a far cry from voting for one religion to dominate the entire country. President Bush owes it to Americans to stand up and say so.
The anti-Christian Democrats are the intolerant ones by trying to impose a religious test for public office.
There is only one truth. Truth by its very definition is exclusive, thus the law of non-contradiction.
This is a war between those who believe in God, and those who do not. Christ Himself said so:
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34
for Frist. HE does get it.
Snort.
Why don't you post that MoDo rant in today's NYT so we can have some fun at her expense. :=)
Nice talking points. The Slimes has been totally exposed for what it is.
Do they realize how funny this is?
I would say to the Democrats the same thing I would say to terrorists: if you choose to make this a religious war, you're on the losing side.
Yes, yes, yes, SkyPilot. I am encouraged that more and more Americans seem to be realizing this. I have always wondered how long these people would get away with their secular-fundamentalist agenda as they seem willing to marginalize more and more people. You were a rabid woman-hating religious zealot if you believed that life began at conception, and not only that, you were a rabid woman-hating religious zealot if you believed that the product of conception was a human being, and you are a rabid woman-hating religious zealot if you believe that partial-brth abortion is anything more than a belated form of contraception. They are doing the same with their other positions as well. They are simply extremists with a big, but ever diminishing, megaphone.
...that's a far cry from voting for one religion to dominate the entire country.
Those two statements contradict each other.
Notice the put-down of Christians----a powerful branch of the Republican Party believes that the last election was won on "moral values."
Not just a "belief" -----the proof is in the numbers.
The impact of 2004 Values Voters---the Catholic, Black, and denominational religious vote----is so striking, even Hillary is trying to look like Mother Teresa. Here's why:
Conservative pro-life Christian voters made monumental contributions to GWB's 2004 vote totals. Pres Bush won with 63 Million Votes (13 million more than 2000).
The map, though impressive, conveys the misleading impression that blue state Catholics voted for Kerry (a CINO).
According to EWTN "The World Over Live" analysts, with the exception of VA, where Catholics spit 70/30 in favor of Bush, the majority of Catholic voters split 55/45 for Bush.....a whopping number of votes since Catholics number about 52 million Americans.
According to CNN exit polls, Bush voters included 38% of union members, 40% of those with union members in their households, 42% of those earning $15,000-$30,000, 44% of those who earn under $50,000 and 44% of Latinos, 45% of youth (aged 18-29), 13% of liberals—even 11% of Democrats voted for Bush.
2004 Election polls indicated 34% called themselves conservative, 21% liberal.
The National Association of Evangelicals represents 39 million churchgoers. There are an estimated one billion Catholics around the world, and according to the Church of England, there are 70 million Anglicans. America's census bureau said 159 million US citizens describe themselves as Christians.
If you look closely, the map appears to place the insignificant "Other Voters" in the ocean.....that's accurate, because "Other Voters--RINO Republicans" were on cruise ships while the rest of Americans were home working.
(MAP UPDATE Bush won Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico later.)
"Right-wing Christian groups and the Republican politicians they bankroll have done much since the last election to impose their particular religious views on all Americans."
Oh Really..... I suppose the ACLU et al. are not 'imposing' their particular unreligious views on America by crusading against any public symbol of Christianity (crosses, Bibles, nativity scenes etc..) Why is it NYT that we don't see Christians crusading to ban atheists or other religions from the public sphere? Christians don't want to impose the beliefs we cherish...we just want free expression without harrassment as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. We have the right to endorse the party who will best represent our interests. Since when has that become un-American or unacceptable? We will exercise our freedoms and if the NYT gripes about that then let them stew in their own juices.
....Democrats and their athiest/secular friends break their buns to impose, via legislation and manipulation of the media.....the demise of all spirituality and God in all aspects of American politics, education and life......
ACTION PROJECT Contact Sen Frist with your messages about this shocking diplay of religious bigotry, and the attempt to interfere with Christians' Constitutional rights to assembly and free speech:
Fax (202) 228-1264
Telephone (202) 224-3344
EMAIL FORM http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm
At moments like this we might well ask why it is AlQaida did not target the NYT.
"I suppose the ACLU et al. are not 'imposing' their particular unreligious views on America by crusading against any public symbol of Christianity (crosses, Bibles, nativity scenes etc..)"
Don't forget the Boy Scouts organization! They are currently dropping all affiliation with public schools across America because of the threat of lawsuits by the ACLU against the public schools for allowing the Scouts to use their facilities. why? Because their creed expresses a belief in God and their refusal to knowingly allow sodomites/pedophiles to fill positions of trust and leadership, which is actually doing nothing more than exercising (acting on and living by)their first amendment right to freedom of religion. Meanwhile, atheists and sodomites/pedophiles have full run of the school campuses to express their first amendment rights no matter how disgusting their actions may be to Christians and other religions.
This Times editorial screed deserves a deconstruction:
"Right-wing Christian groups and the Republican politicians they bankroll have done much since the last election to impose their particular religious views on all Americans."
Two wrong premises here. First, it is well-known that the main street and wall street bankrollers of the GOP are not the right-wing Christian wing; right-wing Christians don't bring money to the table so much as votes, activism, and grassroots.
Second, the implication from secularists that cultural issues are about 'imposing' religious views. There is no stronger advocate for freedom to worship and religious liberty than those who choose to exercise that freedom each Sunday. I've heard many a right-wing evangelical complain about the gay agenda, about hollywood's cultural decadence, about judicial imperialism, and
The secularists seems to think there should a one-way street - secularists can mandate and impose their moral vision "on all Americans" but the religious cannot.
"But nothing comes close to the shameful declaration of religious war by Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, over the selection of judges for federal courts."
Changing Senate rules is not a 'religious war'.
And why
"Senator Frist is to appear on a telecast sponsored by the Family Research Council, which styles itself a religious organization but is really just another Washington lobbying concern."
I see. FRC is a lobbying concern, and a Senator is appearing with them.
So the NYTimes is accusing , in dread language,
"The message is that the Democrats who oppose a tiny handful of President Bush's judicial nominations are conducting an assault "against people of faith." By that, Senator Frist and his allies do not mean people of all faiths, only those of their faith."
"their faith", a sarcastic reference to evangelical Christians. Yet why wouldn't a Jew or a Catholic or
This Catholic certainly feels the assault by the judge who rules Ten Commandments in a courthouse or 'under God' in the pledge unconstitutional, to be hostile not just to one Christian sect, but the whole edifice of Judeo-Christian values.
"It is one thing when private groups foment this kind of intolerance."
They have yet to identify a single instance of 'intolerance' here. They are accusing Frist of 'intolerance' for stating his beliefs: That Democrat are acting in a manner hostile to people of faith.
"It is another thing entirely when it's done by the highest-ranking member of the United States Senate, who swore on the Bible to uphold a Constitution that forbids the imposition of religious views on Americans."
Again with that calumny. Nothing in the Republican or conservative agenda is proposing to impose religious views. Freedom of religion is indeed safe. So, how is Frist's allegation, that Democrat's behavior is hostile to people of faith, in any way harming that Constitutional rights of religious freedom?
What the New York Times is doing is wrapping themselves in the Constitution. They are implying that only the ACLU's version of the first amendment is valid, and any other viewpoint invalid. This debating tactic, of presuming your conclusions and arguing from there, is common enough.
But what is the New York Times saying? Again, they feel something is very wrong with Senator Frist identifying Democrats as being hostile to people of faith.
Let's review the record: Christian evangelicals are pro-life, support traditional view of marriage, believe we should allow public and voluntary expressions of faith such as prayer at graduation ceremonies and ten commandments at courthouse. Democrats support judges who have used judicial power to overturn all such policy choices.
When Republicans nominate Judges who may dare to change these liberal activist rulings, the Democrats vehemently oppose them.
Is Frist not accurate then to say the Democrats actions are hostile to the views of 'people of faith'?
"Unfortunately, Senator Frist and his allies are willing to break down the rules to push through their agenda"
Changing the rules is not the same as 'breaking them down'. If the shoe were on the other foot, the NYTimes would be complaining about obstructionism and advocating the filibuster's removal. This is not a hypothetical. A writer to the New York Times noted as much:
"Ten years ago, a New York Times editorial urged destruction of the traditional Senate filibuster, a tool used to delay or halt passage of legislation for two centuries.
Now you support the untraditional obstruction of judicial nominees who have majority support.
Majority rule is the foundation of democracy. American restraints on it are a written Constitution and an independent judiciary. The judicial filibuster threatens both."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/04/opinion/l04filibuster.html?ex=1113796800&en=5c0a497d8385b07d&ei=5070&pagewanted=all
" - in this case, by creating what the senator knows is a false connection between religion and the debate about judges."
If the connection is false, then why is the New York Times making it?!?
"Senator Frist and his backers want to take away the sole tool Democrats have for resisting the appointment of unqualified judges: the filibuster."
This is of course false. The Democrats could lobby the public and try to sway some Republicans in an up-or-down vote.
" This is not about a majority or even a significant number of Bush nominees; it's about a handful with fringe views or shaky qualifications."
An absolute smear.
Manuel Estrada was a moderate nominee - he worked in the Clinton Judtice Dept and clerked under Justice Anthony Kennedy, who decided to overturn judicial death penalty and wrote Lawrence v Texas, overturning sodomy laws... Democrats obstructed him.
Charles Pickering was obstructed based on nothing more than a smear campaign. Bill Pryor of Alabama is another good judge with home-state support from across the board who the Democrats filibustered:
"He enjoys near-universal support even from newspapers that endorsed Al Gore and John Kerry, from elected officials both Democrat and Republican, black and white--and even from the Democrat who Mr. Pryor defeated for attorney general. ... That's why, against his own personal predilections, he refused, as attorney general, to enforce part of a new state law against partial birth abortions: because that section contradicted clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. That's why, against his own predilections, he enforced the very portion of the Voting Rights Act that he and his Georgia Democratic counterpart opposed. And that's why the leader of Alabama's top black, Democratic organization endorsed him as a judge who "will uphold the law without fear or favor," while former Democratic AG Bill Baxley said Judge Pryor always acts "without race, gender, age, political power, wealth, community standing, or any other competing interest affecting his judgment."
The Democrats filibustered him. The Democrats obstructed Priscilla Owen of Texas, who is a mainstream judge. Her 'crime'? She dared to interpret the parental consent law of Texas in the way that it was INTENDED to by the Texas legislature. Democrats oppose her for INTERPRETING THE LAW CORRECTLY but in a way that is not pro-abortion.
But Senator Frist is determined to get judges on the federal bench who are loyal to the Republican fringe and, he hopes, would accept a theocratic test on decisions.
Senator Frist has an even bigger game in mind than the current nominees: the next appointments to the Supreme Court, which the Republican conservatives view as their best chance to outlaw abortion and impose their moral code on the country.
"We fully understand that a powerful branch of the Republican Party believes that the last election was won on "moral values.""
Not the GOP, but pollsters told us that. 11 out of 11 state voted against gay marriage. Moral issues were the top issue for over 20% of voters. If the New York Times doesnt thing moral issues were important to Bush's victory (right behind terrorism) they are foolish.
" Even if that were true, that's a far cry from voting for one religion to dominate the entire country. President Bush owes it to Americans to stand up and say so."
President Bush owes it Americans to refute a strawman?
Hardly. Nobody voted for one religion to 'dominate' the country, but many voted to keep moral values in this country on an even keel: Protect the unborn and the right-to-life; protect traditional marriage; etc.
The New York Times, in their strawman argumentation, doesn't dare mention the real issues at stake here, or they would be exposed as representing not any form of religious liberty, but the faction of secularist intolerance to traditional values.
That's an understatement. This is one of the worst meathead editorials that I have ever read in almost three decades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.