Posted on 04/27/2007 4:22:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
|
The editorial cartoon appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. It featured the nine justices sitting on the bench. The five Catholic justices who voted to uphold the ban are depicted wearing bishops’ mitres. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is Jewish, is staring at them with a horrified look. So are the three Protestant justices.
The cartoon’s message was clear: The Catholics had voted, not to uphold the law, but to impose their personal religious views. It’s a graphic example of anti-Catholic bigotry.The Philadelphia Inquirer was hardly alone. Now, it’s not surprising when irresponsible commentators like Rosie O’Donnell make bigoted remarks about Catholics—as she did. Well, at least she won’t be on ABC for a while. But it is shocking when more respectable observers do so.
For instance, Geoffrey Stone, former dean of the University of Chicago law school, writes that “all five justices in the majority in [this case] are Catholic. The four justices who either are Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent”—note that. And then he adds: “The five justices in the majority [that is, the Catholics] . . . failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality.”
If you uphold a law approved by both parties in Congress and supported by most Americans, you are imposing your morality. But if you vote against the ban, you have nobly kept your religious views from interfering with your job. The ugly implication here is obvious: that it is not possible for faithful Catholic judges to carry out their responsibility to interpret and uphold the law.
Imagine the reaction if a cartoonist had suggested this of other religious groups—if they had portrayed justices wearing yarmulkes or holding the Koran. Joseph Cella, head of a Catholic pro-life group, is right in saying that the Philadelphia Inquirer cartoon is “venomous, terribly misleading, and blatantly anti-Catholic.”
Protestants have a special duty to condemn anti-Catholic bigotry. Shamefully, at one time many Protestants accepted the vile teachings of Paul Blanchard, author of American Freedom and Catholic Power. They supported the anti-Catholic agenda of the group for which he was general counsel: Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Our Catholic brethren should not have to wait to hear our voices forcefully raised against the bigotry now directed against them.
That’s why I am circulating with some other Christian leaders a statement calling on Protestants to join us in condemning this bigotry.
We also call on groups that present themselves as the enemies of prejudice to join us as well. And in particular, we invite Americans United to do so. Let us know once and for all: Are they selective opponents of prejudice? Do they regard anti-Catholicism as an acceptable form of bigotry?
It is appropriate to demand an apology when people in public life use their position to engage in bigotry—just as we did with Don Imus. Subscribers to the Inquirer ought to drop their subscriptions, or boycott the products of their advertisers, until an apology is forthcoming.
All forms of bigotry are vile and must be exposed for what they are: attacks on the very character of a civil society. Apologies are called for. |
He who is not against us is for us. Whatever we think of Catholicism, allies in the effort to stop tearing babies limb from limb are a good thing!
Who?
What the 5 justices did was to find a power that didn’t exist in the Constitution. Regulating medical practice is not one of the valid powers of the Federal government. I am sure to take grief for saying this. Flame on.
Abortion may or may not be within the powers of states based on their respective constitutions. Period. And do say I’m pro-abortion, because I’m not. I just also happen to be pro-Constitution. Too many so-called conservatives just want their (incorrect) interpretation to be enforced, rather than run the government based on what the document actually says.
do=don’t
That’s very good. I (a Catholic) always like what Chuck Colson writes, and I like him even more now!
Aside from that, both traditional Jews and Protestants reject abortion (that is, Orthodox Jews and mostly Evangelical Protestants) because they see it not as a political issue but as an ethical issue involving the unjust taking of a human life. Abortion is not a political issue, like, say, redistricting or term limits or even the McCain Feingold Act. It involves a moral and ethical aspect that people get from their religious foundation.
The problem is that the 4 opposing justices are liberals, and their versions of Judaism and Protestant Christianity have exactly one “ethical” precept: do whatever the Democrat Party wants you to do. Perhaps they should have been shown with jackass ears...
Well, Hitler called his hideous experiments with Jewish prisoners “medical practice,” too. Did that make it right? Wouldn’t you have felt it was forbidden under our Constitution for violating the fundamental rights of its subjects?
There’s a larger issue here that I think you are failing to understand. Nothing, whether it calls itself a medical practice, a political policy, or whatever, justifies the taking of innocent human life.
Aside from that, this decision was not about that overall issue. It was about a law Congress had passed regulating this practice. And they found that the law was constitutional.
The article starts with a cogent point....preposterously accusing supreme court justices of taking orders from the pope.
Then this:
“Shamefully, at one time many Protestants accepted the vile teachings of Paul Blanchard, author of American Freedom and Catholic Power.”
And then this:
“a statement calling on Protestants to join us in condemning this bigotry.”
THis isn’t a request....this is a politically correct command!
finally....
“Apologies are called for.”
Yes, they are! This author failed to take to heart his own point - spewing the very bile he is railing against.
Maybe he should jump back on his pope-radio and ask for instructions as soon as the supreme court justice taskings are communicated (kidding....of course!)
What the 5 justices did was to find a power that didn’t exist in the Constitution...
A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black...the entire concept of legal abortion is rooted in a right to privacy that does not exist in the Constitution...where are your shibboleths agaisnt that usurpation of power, since you make such a show of your pro-Constitution stance...if it’s a non-existant right to privacy, it’s somehow ‘settled’ law...if it’s a proper contraint to utter barbarity committed in the name of that ‘settled’ law, then it’s so-called conservatives exerting their religious views...is that your position?
Anti-Catholicism, the last “safe” bigotry in America.
“That’s very good. I (a Catholic) always like what Chuck Colson writes, and I like him even more now!”
As a protestant, let me apologize for the monolithic block of all protestants who may have at one time had impure thoughts about Catholics......(/s)
I used to think Colson was a good guy, now I think he’s an idiot - and you should too - his full argument does nothing to help Catholics. He would do better to just keep quiet and quit spreading broad-brush accusations against all Protestants.
In banning partial birth abortions, Congress exercised its powers under the Commerce Clause, which the SCOTUS has interpreted broadly since at least the 1930's. Although I would prefer to go back to the days of the "dormant commerce clause," that ain't going to happen.
Anti-Catholicism, the last “safe” bigotry in America...
You are correct, Catholics take a whipping in our current secular-progressive landscape...but to be fair, evangaelical Protestants are in the cross hairs as well, and maybe even more so...the very mention of Jerry Falwell causes liberals like Alan Colmes to froth at the mouth...and eith Alan, that’s a very frightening sight...
So when Catholic Pelosi, Mikulski, Kennedy, Kerry, etc vote to support virtual infanticide, they are “nobly [keeping their] religious views from interfering with [their] job”
How great is the double standard!
“Anti-Catholicism, the last “safe” bigotry in America.”
Again, I apologize on behalf of ALL protestants. We all think alike and sometimes we think unapproved thoughts, and we are all, according to Colson, bigots if we don’t do what he wants.
The point of the article was good......but using bigotry to assail bigotry is not an effective strategy to bring the point home.
his full argument does nothing to help Catholics...
Judging by the ultra-defensive tone of your posts, I’m sure the uppermost thing in your mind is what’s going to ‘help’ Catholics...
How is Colson being bigoted?
Thank you......a most correct and reasoned post.
If you think the argument on the abortion decision is anti-catholic, then you miss the forest for the trees. It is against all religion that values human life, and indeed morality in general - and that encompasses more than a single religion.
“Judging by the ultra-defensive tone of your posts, I’m sure the uppermost thing in your mind is what’s going to ‘help’ Catholics...”
I apologized for all protestants.....what more do you want????
“How is Colson being bigoted?”
He took a swipe at ALL protestants. Assuming we are all bigoted against Catholics because some were. Textbook case.
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.