Posted on 03/29/2007 1:41:03 PM PDT by Bruinator
By Charles Babb For The Christian Chronicle
SEARCY, ARK. — Attacks leveled at those of faith represent a great threat against America, a federal appeals court judge said at Harding University.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a member of the Silver Spring, Md., church, spoke on “Faith and Freedom” as part of Harding’s American Studies Institute lecture series.
“In my view, Christianity at its best is the foundation of reason and liberty,” said Brown, a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. “The true American religious tradition, the one that disciplines power, subjugating it to reason, truth and, ultimately, an all-powerful God, is not a threat to liberty but its best defender.”
Brown said those who attack the religious right “essentially argue (that) the true American religion demands acceptance of, indeed submission to, a common political vision — their vision.”
In the 20th century, secular humanism crept into American and Western governments, promising openness and tolerance for diverse groups, religions and philosophies, she said.
“What we got was narrow positivism, moral relativism and the totalitarian reign of the radical multiculturalist,” Brown said. “It promised peace. What we got was a process of permanent revolution, tumult, strife and a ceaseless assault upon the foundations of faith, family and civil society. It promised if not the pursuit of truth, at least rationality and acknowledgment of objective reality. What we got was postmodernism.” The battle, in her view, is not political but theological: “Contrary to the prevailing secularist dogma ... a society cannot exist without a fighting faith. Where society has nothing to die for, it has nothing to live for and cannot long survive.”
Could it be that Charles Robb is finally seeing the evil of his party? One can only pray that is true.
Is Charles Robb finally recognizing the evil that has taken over his once great, well at least far greater than it is today, party? One can only pray this is the case.
Phillip Jenkins, distinguished professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, has recently argued, that anti-Catholicism (may be read as anti-Christianity) is the last acceptable American prejudice.
(See Phillip Jenkins, THE NEW ANTI-CATHOLICISM: THE LAST ACCEPTABLE PREJUDICE. Oxford University Press. 2993)
Sorry, that's 2003.
If anyone here has been looking at the threads over the past couple of years, they will see that it is the RR doing most of the attacking. They are attacking anyone who believes a president should be representing all the people not just the RR. They are attacking every candidate who they believe puts the security of America first, and social issues a distant second.
With all due respect to the judge, I think she is confusing those who want a conservative agenda for our lawmakers rather than a religious agenda with the real enemies of religious thought.
She seems unaware that our culture is changing, and not necessarily for the better, but that is the purview of the people, not our elected officials. I would only hope that if she is nominated for something higher, she can distinguish between her duties as a jurist and her personal religious beliefs should the two come into conflict. Sometimes there will be discord, and if she cannot separate the two, she may not be the conservative most of us believed her to be.
Is Janice Rogers Brown a member of the Church of Christ?
Charles Robb Charles Babb?
"If anyone here has been looking at the threads over the past couple of years, they will see that it is the RR doing most of the attacking."
That is delusional nuttiness, pure and simple.
Hmmm. So you wouldn't consider a label of being a treasonous cretin if you support Rudy as an attack? Then, how about Nazi, Commie, Satan? Still think it's delusional nuttiness (which in itself is an attack)?
There are numerous seats that she could usefully fill: those of Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, Kennedy or Breyer. The sooner the better. When she has filled one of those seats, may the other four fall swiftly vacant and be filled by young and hard-core justices, appointed by a hard-core president and approved by a Senate back in GOP hands and run by conservatives.
Kids used to pray in school - lefty laws now forbid it.
Abortion used to be shameful and discouraged - lefty laws now encourage it.
Homosexuality seen as shameful - lefty laws seek to enshrine it with marriage.
Christmas trees and religious displays were once celebrated in public - lefty laws now harras them anywhere but in the home.
You know this list could go on indefinitely, but the point is that the religious right is just trying to keep the freedoms they have enjoyed in this country for centuries. Lefty laws seek to forbid those freedoms.
LOL, must have been my dyslexia playing tricks with me again. Sometimes I see things as they are not.
Yes.
A GOP not based upon and absolutely dedicated to social conservatism and the RTKBA does not deserve to exist any more than did its Whig and Federalist predecessors.
Please check freepmail I sent you.
Post #17 was not directed at you other than to ping you on behalf of the Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter lists.
Agree! I'd love to see Ms. Brown on the Court.
As for the RR they are just finally attacking back, much like the right, who aren't necessarily religious are attacking back after decades of silence.
What crap.
Sorry I just realized that someone else made that opening statement, not you, you were just quoting him/her.
I knew what you meant! LOL
Please see post #21, as it was really meant for you.
Attacks against Judeo-Christian faiths, yes. If you're Muslim, Wikken, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, well, it's all good.
Judge Brown was very succinct in her description of the importance of the Judeo-Christian tradition to this nation.
No, the Judge is exactly right. What you have seen in the last few years from SOME in the Religious Right is the use of faith OVER reason in their decision making. That's just about as bad as using reason more than faith. The best of America is the blend of the two, as that's how we were founded.
Well articulated answer. You convinced me. /s
Sweet! God bless Janice Rogers Brown. I am a huge fan of hers and agree she'd be a wonderful Supreme Court justice!
Read and answered.
God bless you and yours.
And you should have those freedoms that don't infringe on the freedoms of others. Open prayers from any faith have no place in a public school. They do have a place in parochial schools. Abortion is a legal and constitutional issue, not simply a religious one. If the USSC overturns Roe, then abortion will go back to the states, where I suspect, most abortion on demand will disappear. Some will be permitted in almost every state. It has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Religious freedom has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to restrict homosexuals from the freedoms others enjoy. If a state does not want homosexual marriage it will prohibit it, without help from the RR. And if it permits some type of legal unions or other legal recognition, it is not up to the RR to prohibit it through their "freedoms".
Religious displays involving Christmas and Easter are up to the various organizations. Again, if Walmart does not want to advertise religious books or other items, it is their right, not your freedom to prevent. Most Americans believe that Christmas displays are legitimate as part of our culture, and I doubt they will disappear in spite of those who want them to.
Faith is not under attack in our Country; Christian religious influence on our laws and our culture is no longer what it once was. But I cannot see how that damages the faith of a single Christian.
You mean referring to me as a delusional nut? Oh no. You are merely making my point for me.
If you can't see that traditional, American, Judeo-Christian morality is under massive attack in this country (and in the West at large) then you have been living under a rock.
I can certainly see that right wing Christians are becoming marginalized by their own actions. I can see that the culture is changing for better or worse, depending on your viewpoint. But the culture is the purview of the people only and not the government. The RR wants the government to accept their social agenda which more properly belongs to the people. You cannot force the direction of culture. You can have an influence, but that is all. For a free people, the culture is what they will it to be.
The "RR" is not attacking, they are defending our culture against the secular/hedonists who would like to feed America into into a paper shredder and reform it in their own socialists, abortion-blood stained, sodomistic image.
But once again, the RR is but a tiny, tiny fraction of the people of this Nation. Why should their influence be any greater than everyone else's. In a free society, culture is what the people will it to be, as I said.
American culture, our country's very moral fiber is as important to the future survivability of this nation as is our commitment to face enemies abroad.
Yet you have no greater right to command certain cultural mores than me or anyone else. It is not a matter for the law or the Constitution.
Rudy hold views in line with Democrats which are a danger to this country, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, anti gun etc. and etc.
This thread is not about Rudy, but about faith. But if you do want to go after Rudy, at least get your facts straight. You are merely parroting what you have read here on FR.
He may be strong on defense, but in other areas his positions are anti-conservative and the polar opposite of traditional American values.
The social right I've seen posting on this forum represents anything but conservatism.
The 2d Amendment issues of collective rights v: individual rights, as well as the applicability to specific weapons will be again decided by the USSC, not the president.
The states have the right to decide family law issues as the 10th Amendment prescribes. The president has no power in this issue.
I'm amazed that in spite of the topic of this thread, everyone seems to be using it for one more Rudy bashing fest.
His loyalty to the necessary moral norms of Western Civilization is very much in question as is his commitment to the rights of armed citizens.
You have no idea what you are talking about. "We the People" does not just mean, "We the far right". The moral norms of our Nation are not your domain, but the domain and venue of all the people. If it changes, it changes and there is nothing the RR can do other than try and influence it through public entreaties and education. It has no right to put its moral compass into our laws or our Constitution.
A GOP not based upon and absolutely dedicated to social conservatism and the RTKBA does not deserve to exist any more than did its Whig and Federalist predecessors.
Such ridiculous statements do nothing to further your crusade, but merely marginalize you folks even more than you have been.
Conservatives are now actively taking the GOP back from the social right to demonstrate that we are truly the Party of Lincoln, not the Party of Roy Moore and company. That takeover will be complete by February of next year. Then, hopefully all Republicans and conservatives will come together to defeat the leftist agenda of the Democrat Party.
I'm not familiar with any legitimate attack on Christianity in our Country. It's true that Christianity which had a free ride for over two centuries is losing its cultural influence. But culture is the purview of the people, not the laws of our Nation. Has a single Christian Church been closed? Have any Christians been arrested for their faith? Have they been told what to believe, or had their churches or synagogues invaded by government or other organized groups?
Their faith is not under attack. But yes, their influence is waning. Such is culture. And a free people have the right to direct their culture in any manner that does not violate the rights of others.
As for the RR they are just finally attacking back, much like the right, who aren't necessarily religious are attacking back after decades of silence.
Where other than the laws of our states and our Nation is the RR losing influence? 77% of America claims Christianity as their religion. I guess by fighting back, you are referring to something akin to the blacks in this Country who after being held in slavery for 250 years and then kept as second class citizens for another 100 years finally fought back....against the Southern Christians. Is that how the faith of Christians today is being attacked?
A judge's legal decisions should be based solely on the constitutionality of the law, and on direct and relevant court decisions. To be based on anything else, whether it is a feeling of right and wrong rather than lawful is to be based on judicial activism. It can be done just as easily on the right as on the left.
The qualifications for a justice should be experience, judicial temperament, and knowledge and understanding of the law and the Constitution through writings and decisions. If their faith and or moral upbringing help them to accomplish those criteria, that's fine.
Anything else, such as the kinds of litmus tests desired by both the left and the right is wrong and inconsistent with the Constitution.
No you didn't, but one of your ilk did on the same ugly, pathetic and disgusting thread you started by calling Rudy supporters Treasonous Liberals. And thank you for making my point. Your kind will never again have the power it once did in my Party.
Good day, sir!
Excellent post!
Uh...and you see that as a good thing?
Look, I'm not here to attack you or your religious beliefs, how ever they differ from mine. But are you not even willing to concede that what made this country great was its character? Where'd that come from?
Who do you suppose founded this Republic and set up the framework of freedom that affords your ability to practice whatever faith (or non-faith) you choose...secularists? Muslims? Hare krishnas?
If the British emigrants that fled here between 1607 and 1775 hadn't been possessed hardcore Christian faith they shared, do you think America would be better off, or have a more illustrious history?
Blessings and peace to you as well, my FRiend!
She was making a speech about her personal feelings. She never said that she would use any personal agenda in her decision making on the bench. She is more of the 'original intent' type of judge.
> The "RR" is not attacking, they are defending our culture
> against the secular/hedonists ...
I'm pretty sure Chester Smalkowski didn't see it that way.
Umnnhhh...
As a jurist her charge is to determine what is Constitutional, not "culture changes."
Well, if faith is 'not under attack,' then right order certainly is.
As a Catholic, I'm not all jumping-up-and-down enthusiastic about the Calvinism which is evidenced in the writing of the Declaration and Constitution.
But it's a helluva lot closer to right order than the delusional atheism/relativism.
I see it as inevitable. People who are truly free want that freedom to decide their own moral and cultural values, and people who respect our Constitution and our republican form of government understand that they were created to be secular, not religious.
Look, I'm not here to attack you or your religious beliefs, how ever they differ from mine. But are you not even willing to concede that what made this country great was its character? Where'd that come from?
From the people. It was the people who created this great Nation and the Constitution that was supposed to be free from religion, but at the same time to protect the religious rights of its people. Those rights do not include bringing the religious mores into our laws and our government. And I would not attack anyone's religion or beliefs either. I want to see religious freedom for all.
Who do you suppose founded this Republic and set up the framework of freedom that affords your ability to practice whatever faith (or non-faith) you choose...secularists? Muslims? Hare krishnas?
Actually, most of them were Deists and Unitarians, which explains why they wanted religious influence removed from the government. They understood what can happen when a religious preference becomes embedded within the government. It is no accident that the only reference to religion within the body of the Constitution is a prohibition against religious tests for public office.
If the British emigrants that fled here between 1607 and 1775 hadn't been possessed hardcore Christian faith they shared, do you think America would be better off, or have a more illustrious history?
Well, they were the same Christians who used the Bible to support the ownership of other people. And they were the same Christians who believed women had no right to own property, vote, or contract. And the hard right Christians of today are the descendants of the Southern Christians who believed that only white Christians had any rights...for a hundred years after the Civil War. We are a great Nation, but its greatness is in its people not necessarily their particular brand of faith.
Really? Other than assuming all Americans have the same basic rights, perhaps you can show me where I support homosexuality. How does it feel to become as marginalized as you and your kind are? A tad desperate from the tone of your threads, I'd guess. The only good thing that came out of your sick thread of the year was the fact that it labeled you folks for what you are, and showed that a great many Freepers quickly distanced themselves from you.
As you are aware, I demanded that that thread be deleted from FR. It wasn't, and now in retrospect, I'm glad it remained. When people want to know about the values of the social right, I point them right to it. I have sent that link to dozens of Republican friends, and believe me, it has had the right effect. Ping me if you do any more. They are much better than anything I could say.
I hope you are right, because before reading that, I had a lot of respect for her.
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.