Frist's Example of the politicizing of religion

[Vladd44]

It seems Sen Bill Frist has embraced the Karl Rove concept of division over consensus. Justice Sunday is the brainchild of activist wanting to mobilize christians to change the way the senate rules. This is an ill conceived effort to say the least.

It is beyond my understanding why christians are allowing the politicization of their faith. It is my fundemental issue with xtians today. Believe what you want, live how you want, but leave my life out of your belief structure.

The likes of Ralph Reed, Karl Rove, W bushler and co are hijacking well intentioned peoples beliefs to forward their own agenda.

I am just curious as to how christians can rationalize such intolerance with the Jesus I read about in the gospels.

[ST88]

Doesn't Frist have the right to talk to any group of people? How do you get to know a group of voters without meeting them?

Sure, he has the right to talk to anyone he wants. And we have a right to analyze the situation and criticize him as we see fit. There's nothing illegal in his actions. Are they unethical? Hmm. I don't know. But the trend is alarming for folks like me who do not wish to see litmus tests for judges placed in lifetime positions (either a Left or a Right test). The elimination of the filibuster for judge nominations hurts mainly the political moderates, like myself, because there is no check on the politics of the judges involved. This means that the Republicans can pander to their perceived base by offering up strict Consitutional interpreters, like Scalia, and Religious conservatives, going back to the days of William Jennings Bryan. Though this is less true for Democrats, whose base is always debatable, there will nevertheless be pressure to push through unacceptably Liberal (to me) judges just to balance out what is happening now (assuming Democrats can gain control of the House, which appears to be more possible now than it did even just a year ago).

As for getting to know voters without meeting them, ask Bush/Cheney. You don't need to get to know the voters, you just need to frame the debate so that the most likely voters will have to vote for you if they want to go to Heaven.

[AlAyeti]

Vlad,

Help me out here. Agnostic literally means "I don't know." Lillssnoop should use a dictionary. Every person who becomes a Christian (and that is the only way it happens) didn't know about the Biblical God (in historic Christianty the "real" God), until they gained the knowledge.

T. H. Huxley thought up the word and although it's a cop out to me, it seems somewhat fair to use on certain sciewntific subjects. Huxley, "believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge." That sounds like why I am a Christian. Every thing to me is empirically based.

I've got to say that I laughed out loud about your description of Bush/Cheney politics. Pretty accurate. I would be far more likely to vote for a Democrat if they would give up abortion for convenience and rid their party of socialists and communists. Since I am a union member I mean that. I vote my conscience for the betterment of children in the school environment, which at this time in American history is protected better by the GOP.

I want the fillibuster to remain as it is, because the pendulum may swing back too left. Then I could trust Santorum to keep sanity intact and battle it out with Pelosi and her hoard.

Judges have no right or position to interpret the law. They are referees of the courtroom process. Nothing more nothing less. If one single thing will cause the demise of the U.S., it is judges imposing these "precedents" that the ACLU uses like a social carcinogen to set their agenda and their agenda only against the majority of voters.

My father also was the most important person in my life. He never mentioned religion to me, and I now dwell firmly in the Christian camp.

Interesting how people decide their choices.

[ST88]

Judges have no right or position to interpret the law. They are referees of the courtroom process. Nothing more nothing less. If one single thing will cause the demise of the U.S., it is judges imposing these "precedents" that the ACLU uses like a social carcinogen to set their agenda and their agenda only against the majority of voters.

You've got to be kidding me. This is patently false. The judicial branch of government is expressly charged with interpreting law. That's their job. Congress makes laws, the judiciary interprets them based on actual cases brought before them. Any judge has the right to issue an opinion that any law is unConstitutional based on this intepretive power. Usually, the appellate process kicks in as the challenge to the law goes up the food chain to the Supreme Court.

The judges are not allowed to write laws. That is, they can't issue an opinion that does not flow from the interpretation of existing laws and apply then it in an actual case. This is part of the reason why the concept of precedent is so important. However, they do have the ability to inform the legislative branch of what type of laws will "pass muster" in a courtroom. This was the situation when the Massachussetts judiciary informed the legislature of the type of gay marriage law that would be Constitutional. The judges did not have the ability to write and enact that law, but they did have the ability to provide an example of what kind of law would be acceptable. Do you see the difference?

As an aside, I love it when people argue that judicial decisions that go against majority popular opinion are harmful. Please do so some more. Maybe then the public will begin to see the extent to which this type of thinking is unConstitutional and why the ACLU is so important. The U.S. isn't mob rule. It's rule by law. Law doesn't bow to the majority, it bows to the Constitution. The demise of the U.S. would most likely be caused by the breakdown of law, which seems to be what Tom DeLay is after. Why do the far-right Repbulicans hate America's system of government so much?