Right Left Whatever

Blog Anniversary Coming Up

September 28 is the anniversary of my first post on Religious Left Watch, the predecessor to this blog.

One of my first posts was on opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft to the office of Attorney General (well after the fact of course), focusing on an open letter from Unitarian Universalist Association President John Buehrens to the US Senate urging them to oppose the nomination based on his religious beliefs. Here's a link to the letter.

Let me just fisk this thing again, maybe retooling it in light of recent talk of The Patriot Act and the Democrat Religious Test for Judicial Appointments.

First, President-Elect Bush vowed to be 'a uniter, not a divider.' Yet Mr. Ashcroft's views are so extreme that they represent a tiny fraction of our nation's people. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and other credible sources have well documented that Mr. Ashcroft's nomination is a payback to the religious right, who worked stalwartly for a Republican Presidency. The highest post in the land dedicated to protecting the rights of all citizens should not be offered as a reward to religious political extremists.

I, too, lament the division suffered by our country, but I don't think it's the Republicans fault this happened. It was already there, well before the 2000 election. The actions by Al Gore's lawyers in the election aftermath were just gasoline on the fire, making a divisive situation even more volatile. I asked one of my Unitarian acquaintances once if he thought that John Ashcroft did a good thing by conceding his race so quickly, and he said yes. Too bad he never saw the light to say that Al Gore did a bad thing by not conceding in like manner. Now, as for the religious extremism - isn't that a bit of a stretch? To say that extremists were responsible for winning an election? Picture a bell curve for example; how much of the bell curve would you attribute to the extremes? First, the extreme is not the middle, its at the edges. If we use a tight standard and say you've got to be within one standard deviation of the mean to be non-extreme, that covers about 2/3 of your population. The extremists are the rest. If you're more tolerant (one of the UUA values by the way) you may allow two standard deviations which covers about 95% of the population. Then the extremists are 5% or less of the population. Bottom line is: Extremists do not win elections. Ok, you say - Bush wasn't an extremist, but Ashcroft is. Bull - the Ashcroft senate race was close. All indications are that he lost due to the sympathy vote for Jean Carnahan after the death of her husband, and there were voting irregularities related to the hours polls were open. Not that I'm demanding a recount or anything, but stop the lies about him being an extremist already - he isn't. I bet he would've beat Jean Carnahan in a rematch. He let James Talent do it instead. Good for them both.

Second, Mr. Ashcroft has a troubling record in several of the most important areas of our nation's life which he will oversee. His inflexibility with regard to women's reproductive choice and civil rights issues such as affirmative action is a matter of public record. As one who has ministered to victims of shootings outside abortion clinics, and to the families of hate-crime victims, I am concerned with the future actions of the radical fringe of society. While I know that Mr. Ashcroft condemns all violent activism, I am concerned with the legitimacy which his views' stridency and moral righteousness might seem to offer to this radical fringe for the militancy of their viewpoints.

Well, I don't know about the statement about women's reproductive choice and civil rights issues. I think they're exaggerated, but I'll have to do more research before commenting further. As for the statement that his views might offer support to the "radical fringe for the militancy of their viewpoints"; that's just pure bull - accusing him of viewpoints which he has never admitted to, in effect making him responsible for the viewpoints held by others. In any event, John Ashcroft has vindicated himself of this charge by the arrest of Eric Rudolph, a member of the radical fringe Buehrens is complaining about here.

Finally, I am concerned with Mr. Ashcroft's interpretation of the appropriate relationship between church and state. His lack of attention to the complexities of these relationships led him, as a Senator, to introduce sweeping legislation, in his Charitable Choice Expansion Act, which would have undermined our nation's steady progress in understanding these nuances. There are far too many cases documented, internationally and domestically, where religious majorities use government means to do things which are massively insensitive to people with minority religious views. Mr. Ashcroft's appointment as Attorney General paves the way for such insensitivity to become sanctioned at the highest levels.

I, too, am concerned about the proper relationship between church and state. I agree with many liberals in that it is good and proper that members of the clergy do not hold political office while acting as official representatives of their religious institutions. However, I do not agree with the Religious Left with their attitude that people who have "deeply-held religious views" are rendered ineligible for government service by those views. "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article VI US Constitution) means that religious views should not even be considered in the debate about one's qualifications to serve our government. Any Senator who voted against John Ashcroft, or any other nominee to any US office, based wholely or in part on their religious views, cast an unconstitutional vote. Posted by joelfuhrmann at September 26, 2003 08:51 PM