Moral Contradictions

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

I'm with Senator Salazer... wondering why Dr. James Dobson is so privileged to carry a secret about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, a secret that Senators know nothing about.

The president's lead political adviser, Karl Rove, reportedly called Dobson and other conservatives ahead of time to reassure them about the Miers pick.

Afterward, Dobson told The New York Times he supported her because of her religious faith and because he has reason to believe she opposes abortion.

"Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about," he told the newspaper.

That statement bothers Salazar, a first-term Denver Democrat who describes Miers as a "blank slate" whose views are little known.

"It's troublesome to me the comment would be made," Salazar said at a Tuesday news conference in Denver. "It seems to me, all of the (information) the White House knows about Harriet Miers should be made available to the Senate and the American people. If they're making information available to Dr. Dobson - whom I respect and disagree with from time to time - I believe that information should be shared equally with a U.S. senator."

Again, the mixture of politics and religion will only serve to corrupt religion... and corrupt and belittle our common faith.


  • So, are you saying Nathan, that simply because James Dobson is a Christian, he shouldn't be allowed to be an advisor to the president or his staff? Because you do know that all presidents and congressmen report to very large lobbying groups in regards to upcoming decisions, asking them to back them on whatever happens. The fact that the president's choice of Supreme Court nominees was a direct promise to social conservatives, led by Christians like Dobson, should be enough to explain Rove's call to ask him to back such a nominee as Miers, especially in light of what has happened with the conservative backlash in the last few days. It's politics whether there are Christians involved or card carrying members of the Planned Parenthood lobby.

    By Blogger D.R., at Friday, October 07, 2005 12:23:00 AM  

  • No that is not what I'm saying D.R. - and you know that.

    President Bush can call anyone he wants (and thank you for the political science lesson), yet in the end, Dr. Dobson doesn't get a floor vote. So why shouldn't Senators know what he knows, and furthermore, why did he make that statement in the first place?

    It's politics whether there are Christians involved or card carrying members of the Planned Parenthood lobby.

    As an addendum, Dr. Dobson is a Christian, as am I, yet he doesn't speak for me, nor do I think Christians should justify their political actions against those of Planned Parenthood. It is not just politics when Christians are involved, as our faith cannot be compartmentalized to fit one particular party's ideology nor can it justify the nastiness often involved.

    By Blogger Nathan, at Friday, October 07, 2005 11:05:00 AM  

  • First, I believe my assessment of what you said is accurate -- I am not trying to put words into your mouth (or blog). But I think that you have made a big jump from what Dobson said. He did not say that he had a secret that the senators did not have. He said he was not at liberty to discuss what Rove and others told him. The Senators are not privaledged to know anything about the nominee except what can be know by public record BEFORE the proceedings. At the proceedings, those things might be revealed, such as judicial philosophy and such.

    Additionally, what Dobson could have been referring to is the strategy of nominating Ms. Miers, strategy that no senator has the right to know. The statement is ambiguous to say the least.

    And finally Nathan, I don't get this statement: "It is not just politics when Christians are involved." Would you say that when secular humanists push an agenda such as partial-birth abortion or when the founder of Planned Parenthood as a racist attempts to impliment abortion as a means of black population control it is not merely politics as well? Everyone comes with an ideology, whether it be religious or monetary or moralistic, so in no one's case it is just politics.

    Simply because you don't like Dobson's techniques (which honestly I don't really either -- I hate politics myself) and the fact that he doesn't speak for yourself isn't grounds for suggesting that what he is trying to accomplish is such a mixture of politics and religion that in the end it will corrupt Christianity. We live in a democracy where all ideologies are free to push an agenda -- if Christians don't push their own, then there is a possibility they they will be completely pushed out of the public square, something I don't think would be helpful.

    Take for example the lack of response from Christians in the 70's when abortion became legal. Had Christians been mobilized then, a constitutional amendment banning abortion might have passed rather easily. 45 million abortions and the advent of the heinousness of partial birth procedures later, I think many wish the Religious Right would have had its way then.

    By Blogger D.R., at Friday, October 07, 2005 2:22:00 PM  

  • D.R.:

    As you well know, most of the real talking goes on behind closed doors, before the hearing. Why else is Miers meeting with the Senators? They should know what the public knows, because, well, they represent the public. For the record I'd have a problem with anyone saying what Dobson did - and no, it's not just because he's a Christian. It's because he's a Christian is why I mention him on this blog.

    Everyone comes with an ideology, whether it be religious or monetary or moralistic, so in no one's case it is just politics.

    I'm not comfortable with bringing religious motives into the political ring and equating that with those who come from monetary or moralistic motives. That's apples and oranges. We speak with a greater force, because we have God behind us, not the Dollar or whatever. Thus, we need to tread carefully and not justify un-Christian actions in the political sphere with "that's just politics". My concern is not enough people are careful with what they do in the name of God, and I think we see examples of that in national politics everyday (continuing to give me even more fodder for the blog).

    And if 1973 is when you believe the Religious Right should have gotten into politics, I beg to differ. I believe it should've been 1850 - or at the very least 1954, and definitely in 1963. Heck, even in 1965 Jerry Falwell said Christians should stay away from politics. Of course you know what I'm referring to - Civil Rights. Just as the RR has attacked abortion with vigor, where is that energy on other issues? Why aren't we more concerned with the working poor or the millions of un-insured families, or the increasing debt our country is slipping into, nationally and personally? There is a whole host of issues out there that daily affect millions of Americans, yet all they see is us working against abortion and homosexuality, with everything else ignored.

    I get annoyed at this selectiveness of the Religious Right (see the latest post for more on that). All too often it seems like a personal bias or intolerance is defended by religion, yet other pressing moral issues that Christians should concern themselves are lost.

    And after writing this comment over the last 30 minutes and continuing to get interuppted by work, I have no idea if this makes sense.

    By Blogger Nathan, at Friday, October 07, 2005 3:38:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home