Glenn Reynolds, the infamous Instapundit, has a Salon piece taking the Republicans to task for their ill-fated and ill-advised intervention in the Schiavo case, just as Judge Birch and many other conservatives have. Reynolds tends to the libertarian side of conservatism, being pro-gay rights and generally opposed to morals legislation. Unlike Judge Birch, he is certainly not a social conservative. He wrote an excellent law review paper on Robert Bork's 9th amendment difficulties that I read long before I knew about him as a blogger or even about blogging. It's nice to see so many conservatives standing up and saying this was wrong. The only people who seem not to recognize that are the hardcore religious right people like Jay Sekulow, Pat Buchanan, James Dobson and Alan Keyes. I think those people have demonstrated that there is no need for anyone to take them seriously the next time they scream about "judicial activism" or any such nonsense. They don't mean it; hell, they don't even know what it means. It's just a catchphrase they like to throw around, even while being judicial activists themselves when it suits their goals.
- Log in to post comments
The latest screed from Dobson:
"Every Florida and federal judge who failed to act to
spare this precious woman from the torment she was forced
to endure is guilty not only of judicial malfeasance --
but of the cold-blooded, cold-hearted extermination of an
innocent human life. Terri Schiavo has been executed under
the guise of law and 'mercy,' for being guilty of nothing
more than the inability to speak for herself...
...I grieve for the Schindlers today," Dobson said, "and I
fear for the future of our nation."
Yeah, I fear for it, too, but for different reasons.
Oh, and of course he had to add the obligatory gratuitous dig against Michael, that he is "free to marry his
longtime girlfriend, by whom he has two children."
What a loving kristian fuehrer das Dobson is.
Should anyone be surprised at how quickly the Christians will toss all legitimate law into the toilet when it interferes with their "god's law?"
What frightens me is the legitimacy idiots like Sean Hannity are willing to confer upon nutjobs like Randall Terry.
"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."
[Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue, from The News Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Aug 15, 1993]
No matter how these people phrase it, God only rules through the edicts and admonitions of those who have appointed themselves to speak for God(s). Even those conservatives such as Reynolds recognize this. Indeed i think the mass of them are competing constantly to be acknowledged for manifesting that power. Unfortunately, in order to acquire the necessary personal capital and attention these people get loonier and loonier. The Congressional actions of DelayFrist et al will only become more dangerous in this competition to be THE voice of God.
I'll be crass. It should be fairly obvious that Dobson and Terry are grieving over the fact that they might not be able to cash in on what was clearly one of their cash cows much longer. I guess they figure that they might have to go back to rhetorical gay-bashing to fill their coffers, although it isn't clear that that is as profitable as it used to be.
Good heavens, he sounds like the emperor in Star Wars.
'in this competition to be THE voice of God.'
I would thik God could speak for himself---or at least each one of us is in fact the voice of God.
Should anyone be surprised at how quickly the Christians will toss all legitimate law into the toilet when it interferes with their "god's law?"
I was more disgusted, but not surprised at how quickly these "Christians" were willing to engage in character assassination against Michael Schiavo and any and all judges, politicians or individuals who disagreed with them about this woman's care.
If there is no other negative outcome of the move toward fundamentalist politics/religion, it is the loss of civil discourse, which is only possible when one believes (or acts as if one believes) the other side is arguing from good faith. Unfortunately, the tendency is for those in the social conservative movement to assume all sorts of immoral and evil characteristics in those who disagree with them.
When I read Terry's statement above, I thought, "There's no way he said that. It's just 'too good to be true.' Gotta be an Internet rumor." But then I checked out the Fort Wayne News Sentinel's web site and searched the archives--and no kidding, the SOB actually said that!
Normally I'd then say, "it would be scary if the guy were actually taken seriously." Unfortunately, he IS taken seriously by way too many people. So it is, actually, very scary.