Judges and Religion - The Young / Bainbridge Debate
I think that the problem that Stephen Bainbridge has with Cathy Young's article is that he accepted the way in which she framed the debate; and then he was stuck in a virtually unwinnable position. He did, however, make a good run at it. Let's take another look at Cathy's argument.
The focus of her article is whether or not religious bigotry is involved in the selection of judicial nominees. She then centers her dismissal of such a claim by concentrating on the connection between being anti abortion and being religious."A pro-abortion-rights litmus test for federal judges may be wrong, but it's preposterous to claim, as some conservatives have, that it amounts to a religious test that disqualifies ''serious" Catholics and evangelical Protestants from public office."She then assumes that if she can show that a pro-abortion-rights test is not in fact a religious test, she has then shown that there is no religious bigotry. Unfortunately, proving the one, has nothing to do with proving the other.
A pro-abortion-rights test, along with any other number of test, may or may not indicate religious bigotry, depending on how the opposition to the anti-abortion judical nominee is seen. In Chuck Shumer's, as well as other senators case, the bigotry is fairly clear. When they are refering to Pryor being influenced by his "very deeply held believes", what in the world are they talking about but his religion. The "very deeply held" portion tells you that they are talking about religion without wanting to mention the word religion. This is in effect code that all of the people over at Daily KOS, as well as many of the left's other supporters, will immediately understand. Deeply held believes equals religion and religion equals extreme and irrational ideas.If I had a deeply held believe in saving the environment you would not hear the left using that terminology to describe me.
I think that Cathy fails to make the point that it isn't religion that is the problem, but rather the ideas that come from that religion. She points out that democrats are pro abortion and pro gay rights and that their objection is to the opposing views from people of religion, not to religion itself. If that is the case, then the democrats would make the logical argument for why those views associated with religion are wrong, or even out of the mainstream. But instead they take the shortcut by taring them as "deeply held believes". Having done that they need no further arguments of logic because they have already pressed the magic bigotry buttons among their followers. Their followers nod their heads together - sharing a common knowledge - that religion equals superstition and backwards thinking.
Let's consider, what is it that makes these judical nominees extremists if not their religion. Is being anti-abortion extremist? Certainly not in the minds of most Americans. Can the Democrats make the case that being anti-abortion is somehow irrational or superstitious. It seems to me that taking a position that some magic happens to a fetus such that 5 seconds before birth is is non human while 5 seconds after birth it has become imbued with some transcendent quality called humanity is much more of an irrational position.While I can't personally buy into the father figure in the sky concept, I also cannot accept that everything else is false or backwards or foolish simply because it is religious. And I also cannot accept that all things secular are progressive and intellectual.
So the question remains, what about these judges is extreme if not their deeply held believes. Doesn't Chuck Shumer have deeply held believes about his own liberal principles. Of course he does, but he doesn't refer to them that way because such references are clearly meant of be a shorthand dismissal of people of religion.
The focus of her article is whether or not religious bigotry is involved in the selection of judicial nominees. She then centers her dismissal of such a claim by concentrating on the connection between being anti abortion and being religious."A pro-abortion-rights litmus test for federal judges may be wrong, but it's preposterous to claim, as some conservatives have, that it amounts to a religious test that disqualifies ''serious" Catholics and evangelical Protestants from public office."She then assumes that if she can show that a pro-abortion-rights test is not in fact a religious test, she has then shown that there is no religious bigotry. Unfortunately, proving the one, has nothing to do with proving the other.
A pro-abortion-rights test, along with any other number of test, may or may not indicate religious bigotry, depending on how the opposition to the anti-abortion judical nominee is seen. In Chuck Shumer's, as well as other senators case, the bigotry is fairly clear. When they are refering to Pryor being influenced by his "very deeply held believes", what in the world are they talking about but his religion. The "very deeply held" portion tells you that they are talking about religion without wanting to mention the word religion. This is in effect code that all of the people over at Daily KOS, as well as many of the left's other supporters, will immediately understand. Deeply held believes equals religion and religion equals extreme and irrational ideas.If I had a deeply held believe in saving the environment you would not hear the left using that terminology to describe me.
I think that Cathy fails to make the point that it isn't religion that is the problem, but rather the ideas that come from that religion. She points out that democrats are pro abortion and pro gay rights and that their objection is to the opposing views from people of religion, not to religion itself. If that is the case, then the democrats would make the logical argument for why those views associated with religion are wrong, or even out of the mainstream. But instead they take the shortcut by taring them as "deeply held believes". Having done that they need no further arguments of logic because they have already pressed the magic bigotry buttons among their followers. Their followers nod their heads together - sharing a common knowledge - that religion equals superstition and backwards thinking.
Let's consider, what is it that makes these judical nominees extremists if not their religion. Is being anti-abortion extremist? Certainly not in the minds of most Americans. Can the Democrats make the case that being anti-abortion is somehow irrational or superstitious. It seems to me that taking a position that some magic happens to a fetus such that 5 seconds before birth is is non human while 5 seconds after birth it has become imbued with some transcendent quality called humanity is much more of an irrational position.While I can't personally buy into the father figure in the sky concept, I also cannot accept that everything else is false or backwards or foolish simply because it is religious. And I also cannot accept that all things secular are progressive and intellectual.
So the question remains, what about these judges is extreme if not their deeply held believes. Doesn't Chuck Shumer have deeply held believes about his own liberal principles. Of course he does, but he doesn't refer to them that way because such references are clearly meant of be a shorthand dismissal of people of religion.
posted by Tilo Reber at 10:32 AM
2 Comments:
The contempt for religion is really just contempt for Judaism and Christianity. A Buddhist, etc., wouldn't have a problem.
Liberals are sometimes like adolescents: in the process of differentiating from their family, teenagers can get stuck in a reflexive "anti-" position. Whatever parents are for, they're against.
I like your term "magic bigotry buttons." Yes, indeed.
Funny thing is, some church-goers are in this group. I hear such talk from Episcopalians, and one leading Quaker (whose name I forget) has decided to term himself a "Christ-follower" because of what has been done to the name "Christian."
Sad.
I believe that the left succeeded in bringing many Christians into the voting booths by the overt anti Christianity that they displayed. Then following the elections, the left was even angrier at Christians for turning out in such large numbers. It's as though they believe that insults to Christians would cause them to become secularists and vote for Democrats. They seem to forget that Christianity is a religion that grew out of martyrdom. The lefts tactics are simply dumb. Conservatives, on the other hand, cannot continue to rely on Christians to get them elected. Church attendance continues to drop, and eventually the numbers will be too small to carry elections.
Of course it is wrong to categorize conservatives as mostly Christians. I have no religion, but I consider the conservative idealogy to be superior based upon its own merits. Most conservatives seems to want to have politics as primarily a background topic. But in the future they will need to learn the methods of idealogical warfare - as many on the left already have.
Post a Comment
<< Home