Hey, Dems, Your Hypocrisy Is Showing!

In the election of 1960, some Republicans and Southern Baptists in particlular, but others as well argued that the election of John F. Kennedy would put the United States in the position of having to bow down to the wishes of the Roman Catholic Pontiff; that if Kennedy were elected he would "owe" more aligence to the Pope, than to upholding the Constitution. The creepoids making that argument were absurd then, and it hasn't gotten any better. Only now, the creepoids are (and have been for some time) members of the Democratic party.

In 1994, Mitt Romney had the gall to run against Teddy Kennedy (Whale, Mass) who promptly raised questions about Romney's Mormon Faith (The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints). Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe noted in a Town Hall.com article:

When Romney first ran for office in 1994 against US Senator Ted Kennedy, then-congressman Joe Kennedy -- the senator's nephew -- derided him as a member of a ''white boys' club" whose church treated women and blacks as ''second-class citizens." Kennedy later apologized, and said he didn't know the Mormon priesthood had been opened to blacks 16 years earlier. ''But the attack may have had the desired effect," Eastland notes. ''Ted Kennedy's poll numbers went up and stayed up."

Today, Adam Reilly says similar things in a lengthy article on Romney's faith (and little other than the impact of his faith on his politics) in the Boston Phoenix. Specifically Reilly states:

If there’s a moment that marks the beginning of the LDS ascendancy, it came in 1979, when right-wing Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell announced the formation of the Moral Majority, the anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-gay, pro-school-prayer group that reshaped American politics. In Falwell’s coalition, individual Mormons joined forces with Christian fundamentalists and conservative Catholics in an attempt to make American politics more godly. The oft-isolated LDS Church had finally found willing partners."

How's that for guilt by association?

When I first heard of Romney as a possible canidate for the Presidency, I thought "Ok, here come the anti-Mormon forces out of the darkness." I was right.

But, this isn't about Romney, I'll save that for sometime in 2007 (see, you have something to look forward to~). This is about Judge John Roberts' nomination to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And the anti-Catholic vultures are circling.

Christopher Hitchens, that irrascible tippler from the left whom I always enjoy reading, even when he is an ass (especially when he is an ass?) writes a decidedly anti-Catholic (as applied to Judge Robert's nomination) screed in Slate. Hitchen's states:

If Roberts is confirmed there will be quite a bloc of Catholics on the court. Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are strong in the faith. Is it kosher to mention these things? The Constitution rightly forbids any religious test for public office, but what happens when a religious affiliation conflicts with a judge's oath to uphold the Constitution? Some religious organizations are also explicitly political and vice versa�the Ku Klux Klan was founded partly to defend Protestantism�and if it is true that Scalia is a member of Opus Dei then even many Catholics would consider him to have made a political rather than a theological choice. Are we ready for a Scientologist on the court rather than having him or her subjected to the equivalent of a religious test? I merely ask."

Now, why would Hitchens bring up Scientologists here? More guilt by association? Damn, those Dems are really good at this ain't they?

A simple Google search of "John Roberts and Roman Catholic Church" brings up over 360,000 articles/sites in less than 1/4 of a second. Amy Sullivan of Beliefnet states that the Republican defense of Robert's Catholic faith is libelous:

Not 24 hours had passed after Bush introduced Roberts to the world before conservatives played the Catholic card. In a move that could charitably be called a preemptive strike and more accurately called a political maneuver, Catholic League president Bill Donohue told Religion News Service that "Any scratching around this area would suggest that there's a veiled religious test by asking questions about his deeply held views." "Our antennaes will be up on that," he warned. In the same story, longtime Roberts associate and Washington attorney Shannen Coffin said he was concerned about "an anti-Catholic witch hunt."

A "pre-emptive" strike Amy? Why am I not surprised? A good offense the best sort of defense? Of course it is, and any argument to the contrary is hypocritical in the extreme.

The reality is that Roberts, like ALL CATHOLICS does not belong to a monolithic group that owes it's allegiance to the Pope. Catholics of all stripes have various ideas as to how their faith interacts with their public as opposed to their religious life. But the Dems aren't satisfied with this. They will attempt to belittle Roberts on his faith just as they are doing to Romney.

But note, the Constitution specifically prohibits a "religious test" for office and that would seem to include baring from office someone because of his faith. What don't the dems understand about these words:

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]

Not satisified with the wording of the Constitution, Christopher D. Morris of the Boston Globe opines:

Asking the bishops to testify would be healthy. If they rescinded the threats made against Kerry, then Roberts would feel free to make his decision without the appearance of a conflict of interest, and Catholic politicians who support Roe v. Wade would gain renewed confidence in their advocacy. If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

Of course, such a new law should cover anyone whose religion makes it impossible for them to decide on their own whether abortion should be legal; therefore, testimony should be taken from the leaders of Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths as well. It is clear that several mainline Protestant denominations separate the issue of abortion from church membership and personal salvation; judges from these faiths would face no conflict of interest.

Draft legislation for what amounts to a religious test? What part of the Constitution don't you understand Mr. Morris?

Mario Cuomo, the former Governor of New York, once considered a leading possibility for the Democratic nomination for President stated this last Sunday on Meet the Press:

The law today, we all know, is Roe against Wade. That was made my judges and it can be overturned by judges. To say that the rules that apply to legislators shouldn't apply to judges is, it seems to me, wrong.

Finally, Judge Scalia: Now, there's a Republican conservative, if there ever was one, on the bench. Judge Scalia dealt with this--tangentially, but he dealt with it--on the subject of the death penalty. He said judges, Catholic judges, may be bothered in their conscience in voting for the death penalty because the pope has said that it is evil. He said under those circumstances, the Catholic judge should resign. There is no question it's relevant. Everybody takes an oath to support the Constitution, including especially judges. So why not ask them: "Will you, Judge, apply a religious test to the Constitution? Will you start by saying, `I'm not going to support the Constitution if my pope tells me not to'?" [emphasis added]

Uh, Mario, what part of the Constitution don't YOU understand?

Attacking John Kennedy for his faith was wrong 45 years ago, it is wrong now to attack Roberts for his faith.

Posted by GM Roper at August 11, 2005 05:14 AM | TrackBack