Thanks! I didn't have time to make ...
FullMetalPatriot on Obama Photobombs History
Damn Christians?
With all the political correctness going on nowdays, one would think that there wouldn’t be open hostility against a particular religion.
Unless the religion is Christianity. And those hostile are Liberals.
Just for a few minutes, let’s follow the oxymoron of Liberal logic, shall we?
– Anyone who is pro-life (aka anti-choice) is unfit for public office.– Any oppostion to abortion makes someone unfit for public office.
– Evangelical Christians don’t believe in abortion.
– Therefore, evangelical Christians are unfit for public office.
Don’t believe me? Well, two of the most prominent Liberal editorialists, Molly Ivins and Maureen Dowd, recently laid it out just like that this week in making their case against Harriet Miers for Supreme Court justice.
For the “pro-choice” crowd (or anti-life, if turnabout is fair play) the most important issue in the world is the so-called “right” of a woman to terminate the unborn life inside her. Ivins wastes no time in her editorial, getting right to her main fear – the possibility that a Justice Miers will unravel that most sacred of liberal ideals: aborting babies.
What the nomination means in larger terms for both law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
And according to Ivins, anyone who is a Christian, especially one who (gasp!) believes the Bible, should not be allowed to sit on the highest court in the land. I’m not making this up, folks. Here are her own words:
Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment, with the addition of Christian fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone.(emphasis added)
She makes sure to paint Miers’ faith as closed-minded and lead the reader to believe that Miers is therefore incabable of being an impartial judge, rendering a decision based on what is stated in the Constitution. Can you imagine any Liberal taking up a similar position against a Jewish candidate?
No effin’ way. But Libs will line up every day to attack Christians. Because they can get away with it.
She also tries the guilt-by-association route:
She attended Valley View Christian Church of Dallas for at least 20 years before moving to Washington five years ago. Among that church’s alumni is Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, considered second only to former Justice Priscilla Owen as that court’s most adamantly anti-abortion judge.
Cause, ya know, if her sleeve were to have rubbed up against Nathan Hecht, then dadgummit, she’s gonna personally put a gun to the head of every pregnant woman and force them to give birth on command! (nevermind that pesky issue of personal responsibility before consentual intercourse)
Marueen Dowd takes a similar stance against Christianity (I won’t even get into the parts of her column, “All the President’s Women,” that would have been called sexist if it was written by a man – there’s enough anti-religious sputum to concentrate on for this post).
W. is asking for a triple leap of faith. He has faith in Ms. Miers as his lawyer and as a woman who shares his faith. And we’re expected to have faith in his faith and her faith, and her opinions that derive from her faith that could change the balance of the court and affect women’s rights for the next generation.That’s a little bit too much faith, isn’t it?
Translation: there’s a sliver of a chance that the judicial activism of Roe v. Wade might be overturned and it could become a state’s rights decision whether to allow the killing of a woman’s unborn child/fetus. And we sure as hell can’t allow the people of this country to decide this issue!!
By her reasoning, Supreme Court justices aren’t allowed to have religious beliefs because they could “affect women’s rights.” Apparently, only atheists and agnostics are high-minded enough to make fair decisions when it comes to preserving abortion as a God government-given right.
She takes great effort to point out Miers’ religious beliefs and draw connections to the possibility that she’s against abortion and would be unable to judge fairly on the case – if it ever comes up to the SCOTUS.
Bushie and Harriet share the same born-again Christian faith, which they came to in midlife, deciding to adopt Jesus Christ as their saviors. The Washington Post reported that she tithes to the Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, “where antiabortion literature is sometimes distributed and tapes from the conservative group Focus on the Family are sometimes screened,” and where, when she returns, Ms. Miers asks well-wishers to pray for her and the president.
Oh Satan save us! We can’t have that! No prayers in a church! And certainly, we can’t have a candidate for the Supreme Court who has come within 50 feet of antiabortion literature!
Born Catholic, she switched to evangelical Christianity in her mid-30′s and began to identify more with the Republicans than the Democrats, The Times reports today; she joined the missions committee of her church, which opposed legalized abortion, and one former political associate said that Ms. Miers told her she had been in favor of a woman’s right to have an abortion when she was younger, but that her views hardened against abortion once she became born again.
More grist for the mill. If she doesn’t drool at the thought of disembowling fetuses, we just can’t have her on the bench.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Harriet Miers is a good candidate for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Sandra Day O’Connor.
But religion should NOT be the disqualifying reason. There are plenty of other reasons to doubt Ms. Miers’ ability to be a good judge. But I have yet to see a good reason to believe she can’t put aside her religion and be an impartial judge.
Ivins herself attempts to take the high road, as if she’s not stomping all over Miers’ religious beliefs in order to beat the pro-abortion drum of fear.
Separation of church and state is in the Constitution because this country was founded by people who had experienced both religious persecution and state-supported religions. I think John F. Kennedy’s 1960 statement to the Baptist ministers should stand as a model of how public servants should handle the relation between religious belief and public service.Nevertheless, we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance — and who themselves believe they are beset by people determined to “drive God from the public square.”
This division has been in part created, and certainly aggravated, by those seeking political advantage. It is a recipe for an incredibly damaging and serious split in this country, and I believe we all need to think long and carefully before doing anything to make it worse.
As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
She talks a good game here. But her column, and Dowd’s, put them squarely in the crowd of those attempting to “drive God from the public square.” Especially if it means no more convenient abortions.
Cause dammit, we needs to be killin’ them dang fetuses!
—
UPDATE: Captain’s Quarters has more about the religion litmus test.
Ankle Biting Pundits and Two Babes and a Brain comment on the possibility that Dems may pull James Dobson into the confirmation hearings. Hoo boy. (h/t: Michelle Malkin)
MaxedOutMama has a great roundup/debate on the Miers nomination.
The Anchoress has been a voice of restraint and reason, calling conservatives on the carpet for their snarky pro-con behavior.
And Patrick Ruffini has created the “Coalition of the Chillin.”
Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT
