Religious Intolerance

In the span of only one week since President Bush announced his nominee for the Supreme Court, many people, including U.S. senators, have expressed concerns over John Roberts' Catholic faith. They are questioning his suitability for the high court on the basis of his religion.

George Neumayr wrote about this disturbing development for the American Spectator. He penned his column just over 24 hours after Bush made his announcement in a brief nationally televised address. It didn't take long for opponents of the Bush administration to display their bigotry.

Neumayr writes:

[T]he mainstream media have already begun to red flag Roberts' religion. On CNN, Miles O'Brien asked a guest: "And, you know, he's, you know, by all accounts, a Roman Catholic who adheres to the tenets of that faith. Do you suspect that he will advocate and when the opportunity comes up, reversing some of the key aspects of Roe v. Wade, which provide abortion rights in this country?"

On MSNBC, one of Tucker Carlson's sparring partners even raised an objection to Roberts' wife's personal views, reporting with alarm her ties to a pro-life group.

...Adele Stan, writing in the American Prospect, a barometer of Democratic thinking, paid special attention to Roberts' Catholicism, commenting sourly that "If you give nothing else to the strategists in the Bush administration, you've got to admit, these guys are good. By all accounts, Roberts is a first-class lawyer. In choosing a Roman Catholic, Bush is betting he's bought himself some insulation -- any opposition to Roberts, particularly because of his anti-abortion record, will likely be countered with accusations of anti-Catholicism. A timely pitch, one must say, to conservative Catholic voters prior to the midterm elections."

In her column, Stan urges, "So go to it, Senators Durbin, Leahy, Kennedy, and Biden. Don’t vote to let this nomination out of the Judiciary Committee on which you sit. Millions of liberal Catholics, and Americans of all stripes, are counting on you to vote your conscience."

On her blog, AddieStan, she says "Rome must be smiling" at Bush's choice.

In an entry she posted today, "Recuse Me," Stan continues to display her intolerance for Roberts' faith. Stan writes, "He's saying he's unwilling to uphold the Constitution if the Church says he shouldn't." I thought we were through with that sort of garbage after JFK was elected.

In her twisted, intolerant, liberal mind, Stan believes it was a brilliant move on the part of the Bush administration to choose a Catholic nominee, because the "Catholic card" can been played, charging religious bigotry. She's bent on stripping Republicans of this option.

What a nut!

Supreme Court nominees do not check their rights as American citizens at the door during their confirmation hearings.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment.

(I've been digressing a bit here, out of my extreme disgust for Stan's tactics. Back on track-- )

Neumayr goes on to say that he hopes Republicans "draw attention to the anti-Catholic test contained in the Democrats' criteria."

He believes:

They are not looking for a judge but a politically correct signatory to the ongoing Constitutional Convention they want the Supreme Court to remain. All the talk of a nominee's "personal views" is nothing more than a litmus test against those who subscribe to the theistic philosophy that informed America's founding documents. By "mainstream thinking" the Democrats mean thinking like those in the minority, a group of de facto secularists who only approve of followers of religion entering the public square if they promise to lose it.

Neumayr nails it when he says, "For many Democrats the only good Catholic is a bad one -- a Catholic ready to dissent from his religion for the sake of a spot in the secularized public square."

Catholic League president William Donohue composed this news release in response to the Catholic-bashing/ baiting that has taken place as a means to discredit and disqualify Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

July 25, 2005

RELIGIOUS LITMUS TEST FOR ROBERTS?

Catholic League president William Donohue wrote the following remarks today on the prospects of creating a religious litmus test for John Roberts:

“The Senate Judiciary Committee will not hold its hearings on President Bush’s nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court for some time, but already there are signs that he will be asked to submit to a religious litmus test. The informal discussions Roberts has had with some senators last week are cause for alarm.

“To be specific, Senator Tom Coburn complained last week that Roberts was reticent when asked to explain how his Catholic religion affects his views; the senator said he intends to ask Roberts about this again at their next meeting. Also, in today’s Los Angeles Times, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley says that he has learned that Roberts was uneasy when Senator Dick Durbin pressed him on a related matter: when asked what he would do if the law required a decision that conflicted with his religion, Roberts reportedly said he would probably have to recuse himself.

“The Catholic League is angry at Coburn and Durbin for asking these questions, and at Roberts for his replies. On June 15, 1993, the Boston Globe ran a story on Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wherein it printed a description of Ginsburg that was offered by a Georgetown law professor friend, Wendy Williams: she said Ginsburg had a strong ‘Jewish cultural identity,’ but was ‘not devout.’

“Ginsburg was never asked to explain why her identity as a Jew was mostly cultural. Nor was she asked how her secular identity might affect her rulings on abortion and church-state issues. Indeed, it would have been outrageous had anyone attempted to pursue such a line of inquiry. Why it is not seen as equally outrageous for Coburn and Durbin to go down this road is testimony to the double standard: Ginsburg was not asked to submit to a religious litmus test and neither should Roberts.

“If Roberts doesn’t defend himself on this matter, he will only feed the sharks. Playing it too safe isn’t cute: he’d better show some gumption.”

Bottom line:

1) It is totally out of line for a religious litmus test to be applied to John Roberts.

2) It's disgusting that libs are using Roberts' faith in hopes of keeping him off the Supreme Court.

3) The liberals engaging in this Catholic-bashing are exposing themselves as intolerant, arrogant bigots.

4) Charging these opponents of Roberts with bigotry is NOT playing the Catholic card. It's playing the American card.