ping
"The law and religion make for [an] interesting mixture but the mixture tends to evoke the strongest of emotions. The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago."
I've been skeptical about this nomination.
But this...wow. Dr. Dobson, somewhere, is waiting angrily for his phone calls to the White House to be returned.
It's getting harder and harder to think she would be an improvement on O'Connor.
I love James Dobson, but boy does he have egg all over his face!
I would bet he's feeling pretty betrayed right now.
The White House contacted Jay Sekulow and James Dobson, assuring them that the nominee was A-OK.
If this reflects Harriet Miers' true beliefs, it represents an astonishing betrayal by the administration. I would be willing to guess that both Sekulow and Dobson feel very used right now.
This goes well beyond abortion. She also favors government forcing affluent neighborhoods to have low income housing included. I was in Texas at the time of this speech - we had a lazy welfare slug living next door at taxpayer expense, while I worked 12+ hour days to make ends meet. Apparently it didn't occur to Harriet that the taxpayer shouldn't be forced to buy housing for slugs (in 2 years, he never worked a day) in nice neighborhoods - or that it simply isn't a matter for government involvement at all!
She also said Texas could no longer afford to NOT have an income tax - the needs of the poor outweigh the interests of the taxpayer in keeping their own money.
I would defy anyone to read this speech without concluding she is somewhere to the left of Jimmy Carter. I'm Southern Baptist myself, but she is one of those who would argue that Jesus would have us give to the poor (I agree) - and that if we don't do it voluntarily, then the government should help Jesus collect the cash.
I've opposed Harriet since the sart - but Good Grief! She'll be worse than O'Connor ever was!
drip, drip, drip...
I've commented on the disturbing echoes of pro-abortionist language in several parts of this speech. Now I want to call attention to another brief passage that I don't think anyone has noticed yet:
"Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."
This is virtually an echo of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, with its jargon about three trimesters in the life of an unborn child. "Scientists don't know when human life begins," Roe says in effect, "so let's just chop up babies from all three trimesters until science comes out with more precise answers."
No, sorry. Science says that an embryo is human from the moment of conception, and it also says that it is living from the moment of conception.
This is very odd stuff coming from a so-called Evangelical, because it's virtually an echo of the Darwinists. Religion is in one category, science in another, and never the twain shall meet. And if you want the truth, look to science, not religion.
Either way she's a loser for the home team.
<Sigh...>
First of all, everything we do is fundamentally religious, whether we do it unto God or unto god (ourselves). Secular humanism - the a priori religion that dominates our schools, workplaces, and government - is every bit as much a worldview held on faith as Christianity. Practically, it serves as a religion or praxis-guiding worldview and ought to be regarded as such. The free ride (i.e. they don't believe in God therefore secularism isn't a religion and is therefore exempt from the same discrimination due Christianity) is OVER... or ought to be.
Now that's out of the way... We've gone far enough down the get-along-with-'em road with President Bush. We've compromised. There are some things, though, that we must not and cannot compromise. Faith, and our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are among them. These are things worth fighting and dying for.
Miers should be pulled at this point.
Hecht said he had never asked Miers how she would vote on the issue of abortion if it came before the Supreme Court. "She probably wouldn't answer; she wouldn't view it as appropriate," he said.
"Yes, she goes to a pro-life church," Hecht said, adding: "I know Harriet is, too." The two attended "two or three" anti-abortion fund-raising dinners in the early 1990s, he said, but added that she had not otherwise been active in the anti-abortion movement.
"You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and can decide the Constitution requires Roe" to be upheld, he said, referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade that found a constitutional right to abortion.
Time for Dubya to find somebody else.
BTTT