April 26, 2005
CULTURE WARRIOR:
Faith 'War' Rages in U.S., Judge Says: A Bush nominee central to the Senate's judicial controversy criticizes secular humanists. (Peter Wallsten, April 26, 2005, LA Times)
Just days after a bitterly divided Senate committee voted along party lines to approve her nomination as a federal appellate court judge, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown told an audience Sunday that people of faith were embroiled in a "war" against secular humanists who threatened to divorce America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper account of the speech. [...]"There seems to have been no time since the Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided. It's not a shooting war, but it is a war," she said, according to a report published Monday in the Stamford Advocate.
"These are perilous times for people of faith," she said, "not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud." [...]
The Advocate quoted Brown as lamenting that America had moved away from the religious traditions on which it was founded.
"When we move away from that, we change our whole conception of the most significant idea that America has to offer, which is this idea of human freedom and this notion of liberty," she said.
She added that atheism "handed human destiny over to the great god, autonomy, and this is quite a different idea of freedom…. Freedom then becomes willfulness."
Brown's remarks drew praise Monday from one of the nation's most prominent evangelical leaders, Gary Bauer, president of the socially conservative advocacy group American Values.
"No wonder the radical left opposes her," Bauer wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "Janice Rogers Brown understands the great culture war raging in America. That is why the abortion crowd, the homosexual rights movement and the radical secularists are all demanding that Senate liberals block her confirmation."
Radical Left? It's the Democratic caucus.
MORE:
The war on religion (Paul Greenberg, 4/26/05, Jewish World Review)
Mark Pryor, the junior senator from Arkansas, may not make the news very often, but when he does say something newsworthy, it's a doozy.Posted by Orrin Judd at April 26, 2005 8:23 AMThe other day, he strongly objected to those religious fanatics (fa-nat-ic — anyone who disagrees with you strongly) who have been campaigning against the never-ending filibuster that is denying the president's judicial nominees a straight up-or-down vote in the United States Senate.
Mark Pryor wasn't so much challenging these folks' political views but their daring to express them. It's unbecoming, you see, for church people to participate in the low rough-and-tumble of politics. Their tactics, he says, could "make the followers of Jesus Christ just another special interest group."
So shut up, he explained.
It will be interesting to see if the Democrats try to use this against Brown if and when she finally gets a Senate hearing, and if they do, how their attacks on her statement will play out in the Black churches around the country.
Posted by: John at April 26, 2005 9:23 AMI heard a brief sound bite of hers on PBS last week. Terrific speaker. I would like to see her run for office some day.
Posted by: Rick T. at April 26, 2005 9:42 AMDoesn't Paul mean Richard Pryor?
Posted by: John J. Coupal at April 26, 2005 9:43 AMHas Mark Pryor ever set foot in a black church?
The Dems don't realize that their free pass on Sunday campaigning during election season is over, and they have far more to lose in this battle.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 26, 2005 10:33 AMI look forward to the floor voting after the "nuclear" option has been invoked. Then, Brown and the rest will get over 60% of the total votes, as many Dems will seek to cover their backsides. How then will they justify their fillibustering?
Posted by: Pat H at April 26, 2005 12:57 PMPat:
If the "option" is used, Brown would probably get 80 votes on the floor. Miguel Estrada would have received probably 85.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 26, 2005 1:47 PMWhich is why there's nothing to lose here for the GOP. No one is going to payy any price for getting rid of this filibuster. What are their opponents going to do, say the incumbent made it possible for Janice Rogers Brown to be overwhelmingly approved for an Appeals Court?
Posted by: oj at April 26, 2005 2:52 PMThe "price" that will be paid, will be when Lawrence Tribe (or insert name of appropriate liberal villain) is nominated by Hillary Rodham and the "conservatives" are in the minority. Other than that there is no price to be paid.
Posted by: h-man at April 26, 2005 4:46 PMSo wouldn't the best plan be to force a real filibuster of a candidate then go nuclear so that those who supported the filibuster then voted for confirmation could be identified and their duplicity used in the next election?
Posted by: Pat H at April 26, 2005 8:26 PMThe best plan is to follow the Constitution. There is always a price when we don't.
Look, Ruth Bader-Meinhoff was confirmed 97-3, and she had been counsel for the extremist ACLU. What good would a filibuster do anyway?
Posted by: Noel at April 26, 2005 10:32 PM