Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Anti-Religious Left is on a Roll
It’s not news to describe the Left as anti-religion. But they seem to be unabashedly attacking Christians and Jews more often with little criticism from their own members. Still, some people from the Right are not afraid to speak up. Although Ben Sasse is often criticized for his comments on Donald Trump, his call for the support of religious freedom was admirable.
Senator Ben Sasse called out his fellow Senators on blatantly using a religious test to interview Brian Buescher, nominee for U.S. District Judge for the District of Nebraska. Mr. Buescher was a member of the Knights of Columbus, and he was disparaged for his membership by Senators Kamala Harris and Maizie Hirono. Senator Sasse wasn’t going to stand for it, and called for a Senate resolution:
. . . to unanimously reaffirm our oath of office to a Constitution that rejects religious bigotry. It is useful to regularly remind ourselves that Americans are a First Amendment people. Each of the five freedoms in the First Amendment: speech, press, religion, assembly, protest, they define who we are.
He also said:
This isn’t a Republican belief; this isn’t a Democratic belief; this is an American belief. This is a super-basic point: no religious tests. If someone has a problem with this resolution, what other parts of the Constitution are you against? Freedom of the press? Women’s right to vote? Freedom of speech? This isn’t hard. No religious tests for serving on the federal bench. We should in this body rebuke these anti-Catholic attacks.
Maize Hirono felt called to respond:
If my colleague, the junior Senator from Nebraska, wants to embrace the alt-right’s position by offering this resolution, that is his business.
The March for Life was just one more excuse for attacking Christians.
Congress has also witnessed attacks on Jews from its own members, particularly from Ilhan Omar, who was challenged recently for her comments on the conspiracy of the Jews to hypnotize society.
Religious people are being condemned from all sides. When our own Congressional leaders fearlessly insist on religious tests and double down on their actions, we should be worried.
How do you see this situation?
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Sadly, @manny, I think you are right.
How hard is it to ask a question without it being insulting and rhetorical? But since you asked, I think those who defend Islam have a lot of reasons, and they aren’t all anti-American. And you know what? I’d venture to say that it’s hyperbole for you to say that everything the Left does is anti-American. How hard is that to understand, @doctorrobert?
Do people remember the Democrats boo’d God at their convention in 2008, I think it was? How can anyone boo God? It’s laughable, but they are stridently anti-religious.
Agree, but more precisely anti-western civilization.
No I disagree Susan, that is not why they defend Islam. Don is probably hitting on the truth. It’s a coalition of convenience.
So the fact that Islam was being attacked after 9/11, at least verbally, didn’t matter to the Left? I’m not saying that’s the only reason, but it’s the same reason they defend transgenders, gays, blacks, and other minority groups. They’re fighting for those who are not widely accepted by society. Is there no one else who felt that was at least one of the reasons? It may not be valid now, now that the Left has become so much more virulent, but it was an explanation given at one time.
Try this one— the Left defends Islam as a victim group– Point #1 in this article.
Oh, I suspect that the vast majority of Wiccan-identifying women wouldn’t be anti-abortion. (I could be wrong.) Which is why a conversation I had some 20-odd years ago really stood out.
That was a great piece Susan. The author and I share the same view of the facts but reach slightly different conclusions. It’s a matter of emphasis. Yes,there is a natural inclination for Democrats to support a minority group, but as the author points out their support goes in the face of some sacred Liberal positions. No question political alliance concerning anti-western culture is at play. I might judge the ratio to be 80% anti-western coalition, 20 % minority support. That author might say 50/50. You might say (I’m speculating) 20% anti-western, 80% minority support.
Well, the Dems are the party of government, and those groups for various reasons will gravitate to the party of government.
I see Doctor Robert responded a bit rudely. I wasn’t supporting his rudeness (which can happen in these discussions over the internet) but just his point.
In marked contrast to their dog-piling Rep. Steve King, who immediately corrected and renounced any white supremacy.
Now, Senator Lindsey Graham is the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee, so we will see if he jumps on any member of the committee who starts running an anti-Catholic, anti-Christian line.
Secular supremacist bigots are running the same line on Christians as Jew-hating bigots are running on Jews, claiming they are defending a superior intersectional victim group.
Keep in mind that Israel has survived hostile powers before — ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain (which expelled Jews in 1492), and Soviet Russia, to say nothing of Nazi Germany and the many enemy states that surround Israel today. The only policy that gives America moral legitimacy and strength on the world stage is its benevolent attitude towards Israel. Should that attitude change, America will not long survive as a world power, as the fate of all those other former world powers attests.
Genesis 12:3 has never been revoked. Nor will it.
Yes, I was speaking to how the US will probably change course. I suspect Israel will survive, but if I were you I would still be concerned. Israel has not always survived hostile powers. What you’re alluding to is the fortitude of the Jewish people to hold on to their faith despite take overs. The Babylonian captivity was a couple of hundred years and included the destruction of Jerusalem. The Roman destruction of the second temple and the subsequent diaspora was 70 AD and Israel didn’t reconstitute until 1948. So that’s almost 1900 years.
In that case, Susan, this is one of the rare occasions where we will have to agree to disagree. In my case, I’m not a Senator and I do not get to vote on judicial nominees. But I am a voter, and I do make decisions to support or oppose candidates. When I do that, I look at the available information about their beliefs and potential actions if they are elected. One of the pieces of information that informs my decision is the type of groups with which the candidate has chosen to associate himself or herself. Along with other things, such as what they say, how they have conducted themselves in past offices they have held (or private employment), and how they live their personal life.
And no, that is not why I dislike the left. I dislike the left for a lot of reasons, but this is not one of them. If there are people on the left who would not vote for me because I am a member of the NRA, then I can assure them that I would not vote for them if they are a member of the Violence Policy Center or the Brady Gun Control Campaign. And that’s okay with me.
I will not vote to elect you because of your political beliefs is quite different than I will not vote to confirm you because of your religious beliefs. The latter is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
I agree with your previous comment, Larry (that we should pay attention to the groups they belong to). Except for the part above. I don’t see how the way they live their personal lives is anybody’s business.
I just want to be clear. I look at those issues when I vote for members of Congress. I was distinguishing between those decisions and voting up or down for a judge. But I think you see that. Thanks for your response, @larry3435.
Most troubling to me is having others pushing me to be concerned about others with abhorrent views just happening to support the same candidate that I support. How is that somehow my responsibility?
I don’t see it that way. I think you are drawing a very erroneous bright line between “political beliefs” and “religious beliefs.” Your conception of God is your own business, and I couldn’t care less. But if you say that God wants you to enact a law that will apply to me, and I don’t like that potential law, then I am under no obligation to support you as a candidate in the name of religious freedom. And no, that is not prohibited by the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits a religious test for office. It says absolutely nothing about what factors voters may or may not consider when they cast their vote.
(You said “because of your religious beliefs.” Again, I want to emphasize that there is a huge difference between religious beliefs and political activism that is in keeping with those religious beliefs. I have said, and I repeat, religious beliefs per se are off limits. But, political activism is the essence of a democratic Republic, and it matters not one whit whether your political positions were formed based on your faith, or your reading of Aristotle, or your reading of Alinsky, or what you were taught by your parents. Once you take a position to the public square, that position is fair game for criticism.)
Fair enough. You are welcome to take that position, but I don’t agree and I will continue to examine the personal life of a candidate. (To be honest, I suspect you do the same to some extent, however minor.) I think it would be easy to conclude that a candidate’s personal flaws are outweighed by the candidate’s track record in office, or other factors. (Trump is a fine case in point.) One’s personal life is not the only relevant factor, and not even the most important. And I think we must all make room to recognize redemption for past mistakes. But I still consider it relevant. To take one example, if a candidate has chosen military service they get brownie points from me, even if they are running for an office that has nothing to do with the military or national defense. I simply respect people who have served – plain and simple.
You’re right. So why do you get upset yourself about those people? Or even pay attention? For example, you support Trump; and some KKK people also seem to support him. Well, you can’t help that. Just be sure you say what you said: That their views are abhorrent.
I think @larry3435 is right on this. I don’t tend to support candidates who support unlimited abortion, but it is not because they don’t believe in God. I can vote for an atheist if that candidate exhibits earthly human values with which I can agree. Members of Congress may pursue any question without linking it to a person’s religious belief.
You make a good case. And, as far as Trump is concerned, you almost have me. I suppose it is a fine line. When I think about a candidate’s personal life, I think about sexual preference and things like that. I do take into account how he treats others, which I way I can’t stand Trump.
The Constitution draws a bright line between religious beliefs and political beliefs. In the case of judges, there are also legal beliefs. The issue is whether one can maintain judicial impartiality regardless of religious beliefs. Justice Scalia made the comment on a number of occasions that if/when his religious beliefs were at odds with what the law said, his role as a judge required him to rule based on the law. You seem unwilling or unable to accept that possibility.
The Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for public office. Senators are prohibited from deciding a candidate is unfit for appointment because he is a Catholic and holds Catholic views, even if he has advocated for those views. If the nominees says those views would preclude him from following the law, that is a different matter.
This is very interesting. I think I would draw the line at President. The whole structure of our country suggests that it was brought into being recognizing that there is a Supreme Being. A President should agree with this.
Yes, Hartmann, I was not even thinking about that, but it is exactly the point.
“And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curse you: and in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12:3
This, I think, is how any given question must be answered. Justice Scalia, for example, I don’t think he thought Roe vs Wade was properly decided constitutionally. I don’t think his own religious belief had anything to do with that position. He is a very good example of someone separating his personal religious conviction from his ruling based on the Constitution and statutory law.