Peter Mulhern: The Godly vs. The Godless

There's a spirited debate going on in The Corner over at NRO between Stanley Kurtz and Ramesh Ponnuru. The bone of contention is the much discussed Family Research Council ad that complains about Senate Democrats using the filibuster to target "people of faith." Ramesh believes that this formula is way over the top because it impugns the faith of believing Democrats and casts a partisan debate as a battle between the godless and the godly. Stanley Kurtz objects that the FRC deserves a bit more slack because it is just using the standard evangelical code for traditional Christians.

Ramesh is a very smart guy but in this case his argument is a very stupid one and the criticism of it outlined above doesn't go nearly far enough.

The basic problem with Ramesh's argument is that the Battle of the Judges really is a battle between the godly (with some secular allies) and the godless. There is no point in mincing around this uncomfortable truth.

Every now and then we have to step back and remember what all the noise about judges and filibusters is, at root, about. In 1973 the Supreme Court stamped a hideous moral mistake into our constitutional law. It held that abortion was a matter of no legitimate collective concern, a private matter in which the state had no interest. The necessary implication of this holding is that abortion raises no serious moral issues. All such issues fall within the state's purview under its police power (quick, name one grave moral wrong aside from abortion that the state cannot constitutionally regulate. Can't do it? Thought not.) If abortion falls outside the state's purview it raises no serious moral issues. QED.

All prominent Democrats are passionately committed to the proposition that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided and that judges should be empowered to make more moral mistakes of the same sort in the future. This is the bedrock of their creed and the basis of their objection to genuinely religious nominees for judicial office.

To be a Democrat is to accept the moral mistake of Roe and reject the idea that abortion raises serious moral concerns. In this respect one can either be a Democrat or "a person of faith" but not both.

The phrase "person of faith" may be just a tad overbroad. I suppose one could have a deep faith in Baal and still accept Roe v. Wade (along with human sacrifice and other aspects of barbarism.) But if you are fighting to perpetuate the tragic error of Roe v. Wade you know nothing about the God of love. You may consider yourself a Christian. So did the Lutheran pastors who preached in robes decorated with the swastika. Self-deception is a common human trait.

To accept Roe v. Wade is to reject the Christian view that human life is inherently and ineffably valuable. That view is the foundation for Christian ethics and for any other minimally decent ethics. The Christian view of humanity is an integral part of the faith and nobody who rejects it can properly be called a "person of faith."

The reality is that Democrats detest people of genuine faith because they are a living rebuke to the Democrat's moral bankruptcy. This is apparent in their rhetoric. The Battle of the Judges is not a disagreement among people of goodwill. It is a contest between the godly and the godless and nobody should be too squeamish to say so.

Comments

As Mother used to say, "When words and actions differ, always judge the individual on their actions." If a man or woman who is not obviously deranged espouses and actively supports unChristian policies and acts, I must conclude their subsequent claims they are "Christians" and "believe in God" are lies. The conclusion is inescapable.

Posted by: David/California | April 20, 2005 at 09:38 PM

Sir:
I love a man who can state the obvious clearly. You've got a loyal reader now!

Posted by: TJ Jackson | May 27, 2005 at 07:53 PM

It is so clear! If a person claims to be a Democrat, they support murdering babies. What can we do? They are like millions of weapons of mass destruction walking among us! A preemptive war would be a good idea. We can save so many babies if we just slaughter all the Democrats. --And get rid of those who say one thing but their actions prove they are liars. No one can believe in God if they are a liar. I know this because I have never lied. I can judge therefore without fear of being judged. I am the only one qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Posted by: thomas the apostle | October 30, 2005 at 05:24 AM