A Question of Faith?
Of all the talk and immediate blather about the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, no spin has grabbed me more than one presented by the Christian Science Monitor:
To what extent should a nominee's religious faith be a legitimate area of inquiry during Senate confirmation hearings?
After all, as staff writer Warren Richey points out,"One of the defining characteristics of American liberty is that a person's religious faith - or lack of religious faith - is generally a private matter outside the realm of government concern. Indeed, Article VI of the Constitution bars any religious test for prospective government officials."
Does that surprise you? That pertinent point seems to have been lost as the media covers the nomination like a game of tennis, explaining one side's volley in excrucating detail and then the other's, until most people have forgotten the basics. And the basics here come back to one single issue: how closely to the letter of the law is the nominee likely to adhere?
Here's the problem in this spin: for those inside the beltway who hold some measure of power, whether by controlling blocks of votes or position of leadership, the argument is not about religion. It is entirely about politics--and this includes Democrats AND Republicans. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or deluded.
The more conservative religions (we're not talking politically, now) which oppose abortion and gay marriage, to use two easy-to-grab hot-button topics of the times, expect a candidate who is a member of their faith to vote accordingly on such issues because his allegiance to God and faith come first.
Can a moral person do otherwise? Many say yes, but I am uncomfortable with that point of view because it become too easy to pick and choose which beliefs are "right" and which, because they're "not right," must be wrong, and therefore exempt from your following them.
The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, is quoted in the Christian Science Monitor article as saying:
"What is at stake is the advancement of a view that the government of the United States has a responsibility to shape and monitor the personal, moral values of the citizens of this nation."
His comments make it sounds like that's a bad thing, when it fact, that is in part what the founding fathers had in mind! Not a police state, but a level of safety that everyone from the most rabid conservative to the most liberal member of the ACLU can agree upon. His rhetoric does nothing to answer my original question concerning a nominee's religious faith.
The timing of the nomination provides a wonderful opportunity for each one of us to think about this issue during what is one of the most religious times of the year for many Ameicans. You might want to suggest to your pastor or rabbi that the issue be discussed to help you or others decide where you stand, since you'll face it again and again in small as well as large politics.
A simple question with a difficult answer: is it a question of faith?
Listen Here for the audio version of today's George Blog
Of all the talk and immediate blather about the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, no spin has grabbed me more than one presented by the Christian Science Monitor:
To what extent should a nominee's religious faith be a legitimate area of inquiry during Senate confirmation hearings?
After all, as staff writer Warren Richey points out,"One of the defining characteristics of American liberty is that a person's religious faith - or lack of religious faith - is generally a private matter outside the realm of government concern. Indeed, Article VI of the Constitution bars any religious test for prospective government officials."
Does that surprise you? That pertinent point seems to have been lost as the media covers the nomination like a game of tennis, explaining one side's volley in excrucating detail and then the other's, until most people have forgotten the basics. And the basics here come back to one single issue: how closely to the letter of the law is the nominee likely to adhere?
Here's the problem in this spin: for those inside the beltway who hold some measure of power, whether by controlling blocks of votes or position of leadership, the argument is not about religion. It is entirely about politics--and this includes Democrats AND Republicans. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or deluded.
The more conservative religions (we're not talking politically, now) which oppose abortion and gay marriage, to use two easy-to-grab hot-button topics of the times, expect a candidate who is a member of their faith to vote accordingly on such issues because his allegiance to God and faith come first.
Can a moral person do otherwise? Many say yes, but I am uncomfortable with that point of view because it become too easy to pick and choose which beliefs are "right" and which, because they're "not right," must be wrong, and therefore exempt from your following them.
The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, is quoted in the Christian Science Monitor article as saying:
"What is at stake is the advancement of a view that the government of the United States has a responsibility to shape and monitor the personal, moral values of the citizens of this nation."
His comments make it sounds like that's a bad thing, when it fact, that is in part what the founding fathers had in mind! Not a police state, but a level of safety that everyone from the most rabid conservative to the most liberal member of the ACLU can agree upon. His rhetoric does nothing to answer my original question concerning a nominee's religious faith.
The timing of the nomination provides a wonderful opportunity for each one of us to think about this issue during what is one of the most religious times of the year for many Ameicans. You might want to suggest to your pastor or rabbi that the issue be discussed to help you or others decide where you stand, since you'll face it again and again in small as well as large politics.
A simple question with a difficult answer: is it a question of faith?
Listen Here for the audio version of today's George Blog
posted by George Woods | 4:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home