Did you see the circus on Sunday? Better known as Justice Sunday, organized by Christian conservative groups in an attempt to overturn 200 year old rules regarding filibustering.
In my opinion, Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn) is unhappy with not being able to bully others to get his own way by getting his favorite judiciary nominees without any obstacles, therefore wants to change the rules. The filibuster is the lone tool to prevent any nominee from getting approval (and has been in place for over two centuries), but since Frist does not like the idea of someone preventing him from getting his way, we get impromptu rule changing attempts.
Not much different than a spoiled brat. He needed some quick backing on this issues so why not get the growing Christian conservative portion of America that elected George W. Bush to help? Quite a clever strategy if you ask me. If you rally Christians around a cause, then by way of the transitive property, the cause officially becomes holy and anyone opposed to it worships Satan.
In a nation becoming even more polarized between Red and Blue states, do you really think picking a holy war is a good idea? I respect those that have religion in their lives, but I abhor those that leverage their religion into government affairs like Billy is doing here. Separation of church and state is big on my list. However, most religions provide a very positive social ideology, which on the surface could assist in government relations.
Despite religion's ability to assist, I believe that inclusion into government affairs creates a slippery slope. Exclusion of nonreligious or those of different religions comes to mind. Not to mention blanket inclusion of all concepts of the "accepted" religion. Christianity has a lot of great things going for it, but why would people need to reject all other philosophies in order to accept Christianity? Demonizing the "other" religions polarizes and creates a congregation of xenophobes. Not exactly the mentality I want in our great big ol' Melting Pot.
Article comments
1 - Steve S
Excellent post. I fear what would happen if the filibustering, or at least the ability of one side to have any say whatsoever, is removed.
2 - sydney
Just as a side note, Canadians are watching this story quite closely, considering it does not affect them directly.
However, as any Canadian knows, anything that happens in America affect Canada in one way or another.
In any case, Canadians see the removal of filibustering as detrimental to the democratic process. They'll be watching anxiously.
3 - Kent
The problem that you neglect in saying the filibuster has been around for 200 years is that its NEVER been used until this past congress to block a judicial nominee with majority support.
The Dems have made a mess and unfortunately, the GOP has to clean it up.
4 - Georgio
Kent..spoken like a true right wing RELIGIOUS FANATIC..
Steve thanks for saying what needs to be said..what I would like to know is ..If religion is going to be used to direct their ignorant and gullible followers then why shouldn't they be taxed like the rest of us..thanks for an excellent post..
5 - Eric
Actually, there was a filibuster over a judicial nomination in 1968 when Republicans used it over President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It worked and Nixon got to nominate instead. here
6 - David Flanagan
People of faith have been serving in government posts for as long as we've been a nation. We've had a Senate Chaplain since almost the very beginning of our national history, and Thomas Jefferson never had a problem with this that I'm aware of.
The reason we have a First Amendment is to protect a person's right to express themself freely, no matter who they are, no matter what they do, and no matter what they believe. Why do you have a problem with Senator Frist exercising his First Amendment right to free speech? That is all that he did.
You might not like the group he addressed in his speech, but that's too bad. What Frist did is the FULFILLMENT of First Amendment principles, not the opposite!
The First Amendment is supposed to insure that the federal government does not interfere with those of us who wish to express our personal and/or religious beliefs, not mandate that the federal government actively exclude people of faith or expressions of faith from public life.
Freedom of the press is a First Amendment right too. If the government can regulate religious expression, they can regulate the press too, can't they?
If you don't agree, tell me where I'm wrong on this.
The only slippery slope you should fear is one in which we have an increasingly intrusive and oppressive federal government.
Thanks.
David
7 - Eric Olsen
oh, I thought this was about instant photography
8 - Eric Olsen
just keeeding - thanks and welcome Steve
9 - Steve Emanuelson
David:
You are correct, Frist did not act against the First Ammendment. So what? It does NOT make his actions acceptable.
What he did was imply that since he is a Chritian, that the Christian Conservatives should back him no matter what the circumstances. Not only on this issue, but on future issues. That is irresponsible in my opinion. Not the responsibilty I come to EXPECT from elected officials.
10 - Steve S
Power to theh People!