NYT reported Right-wing Christian groups and the Republican politicians they bankroll have done much since the last election to impose their particular religious views on all Americans. But nothing comes close to the shameful declaration of religious war by Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, over the selection of judges for federal courts.
Senator Frist is to appear on a telecast sponsored by the Family Research Council, which styles itself a religious organization but is really just another Washington lobbying concern.
According to the FRC's websiteThe message is that the Democrats who oppose a tiny handful of President Bush's judicial nominations are conducting an assault "against people of faith." By that, Senator Frist and his allies do not mean people of all faiths, only those of their faith.The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.I see a reference to God and Judeo-Christian worldview, but I don't see them saying it is a religious organization. And Guidestar says they are a 501(c)(3) organization, and IRS Regulations say "no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)" so I don't see how it can be "just another Washington lobbying concern" as the NYT claims.
It is one thing when private groups foment this kind of intolerance. It is another thing entirely when it's done by the highest-ranking member of the United States Senate, who swore on the Bible to uphold a Constitution that forbids the imposition of religious views on Americans.
The Constitution says " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I.E. Congress may not establish a particular religion as an official State Religion, but Senator Frist does not seek to do this.Unfortunately, Senator Frist and his allies are willing to break down the rules to push through their agenda - in this case, by creating what the senator knows is a false connection between religion and the debate about judges.
Senator Frist and his backers want to take away the sole tool Democrats have for resisting the appointment of unqualified judges: the filibuster. This is not about a majority
You are wrong. It specifically is about a majority being sufficient to approve the confirmation of judges, and that a minority should not be able to block the appointment of judges.or even a significant number of Bush nominees; it's about a handful with fringe views or shaky qualifications. But Senator Frist is determined to get judges on the federal bench who are loyal to the Republican fringe and, he hopes, would accept a theocratic test on decisions. Senator Frist has an even bigger game in mind than the current nominees: the next appointments to the Supreme Court, which the Republican conservatives view as their best chance to outlaw abortion and impose their moral code on the country.
A moral code sounds good to me.We fully understand that a powerful branch of the Republican Party believes that the last election was won on "moral values." Even if that were true, that's a far cry from voting for one religion to dominate the entire country. President Bush owes it to Americans to stand up and say so.
How does a speach to an organization that promotes the promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview mean having one religion dominating the entire country. When the first amendment was written, four of the fourteen states recognized an official state church (and I believe all were Christian). The Founding Fathers did not fear religion, they just did not want the Federal Government to select one of those four churches and making it a national church (like the British had with the Church of England).Joe Gandelman blogged We've gotten emails saying "How can you call yourself a moderate? You don't sound moderate on this issue?" The answer: those speaking out and making it clear that they want the America in which they were raised — an America where other religions are respected and religion is not used as a tool to smear and stir up hatred against others — are moderate.
It would seem that appear on a telecast sponsored by an organization that promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview certainly respects at least two of the major three monotheistic religions, and it is not clear that the thrid is the "Religion of Peace" some claim it to be