PhotoDude.com

Sun. Oct 16, 2005

The Privilege of Church and State

One of the fractures the nomination of Harriet Miers has raised involves religion. And rather than the usual left-right debate, much of this one is happening within the Republican Party. At the end, we’ll see how vindictive some can be when those “of their own kind” dare to have an alternative opinion, but first, I have a more general “We, The People” kind of question.

You’ve probably heard this:

James Dobson, founder of the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family, told listeners to his radio program Wednesday that Karl Rove, Bush’s top political strategist, called him to discuss Miers’ religious beliefs before Bush announced her nomination October 3.

Dobson said Rove told him the nominee is “an evangelical Christian; that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life; that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion.”

CNN: White House defends talk of Miers’ religion

Now, I certainly understand if the White House wants to have advance consultations with members of Congress, or even recognized authorities in the legal profession, and clue them in as to who the nominee might be. But I’ll be darned if I can figure out why a private citizen like James Dobson gets the privilege of knowing who the nominee is before you and I do. Never mind be privy to information he himself said he probably shouldn’t know.

No one elected him to office, nor appointed him to a government position in any branch of government. Why is he due this special privilege that was denied not only to you and I, but most of Congress?

Because of religion? Gosh, doesn’t the Constitution have something to say about that? President Bush sure does:

President Bush suggested Wednesday that Harriet Miers’ evangelical Christian beliefs were part of the reason he nominated her to the Supreme Court.

“People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “They want to know Harriet Miers’ background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. Part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.”

Er, no, wait, what the President meant and what Karl Rove meant, well, let’s go to the Pillsbury Spokesboy: “Later Wednesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan denied Miers’ religious beliefs had anything to do with her nomination. ‘Harriet Miers is a person of faith,’ McClellan told reporters. ‘She recognizes, however, that a person’s religion or personal views have no role when it comes to making decisions as a judge.’”

And that’s why Karl Rove had to speak with James Dobson in advance about Miers evangelical Christianity, to assure him it would hold no sway when she made decisions on the court.

Sure it was.

While the Constitution specifies our that the government shall make no laws regarding religion, in my opinion, the moral thrust of its foundation would also preclude giving special privilege to religion … or religious leaders. It isn’t the same as passing a law … but it’s an executive act.

If President Kennedy had dared to have his #1 advisor consult with the Pope prior to a court appointment, would that have been OK? Dobson’s no Pope, but the principle is the same.

We’re well past that today, of course. We’re to the point that no one even blinks when Pat Robertson threatens retaliation against conservative senators who oppose Miers:

Rev. Robertson suggested that people should look at who is supporting Miers before they doubt her conservative credentials. He named James Dobson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jay Sekulow of the Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice, and himself as proof of support for Miers’ nomination from the Right. Robertson concluded by noting: “These so-called movement conservatives don’t have much of a following, the ones that I’m aware of. And you just marvel, these are the senators, some of them who voted to confirm the general counsel of the ACLU to the Supreme Court, and she was voted in almost unanimously. And you say, ‘now they’re going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative President and they’re going to vote against her for confirmation?’ Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office.”

Wow. Movement conservatives don’t have much of a following, eh? Let there be no doubt that people like “James Dobson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jay Sekulow” and Robertson truly believe they are the Republican Party now. And Hell awaits those who scorn them.

Unless, of course, those movement conservatives stand up and show who really runs the place. Oops … they’re in the crossfire:

Bush’s friends contend that it is the conservative elite, not the President, who miscalculated and that self-righteous right-wingers stand to lose their seats at the table of power for the next three years. “They’re crazy to take him on this frontally,” said a former West Wing official. “Not many people have done that with George Bush and lived to tell about it.”

Time: Mike Allen: Why They Can’t Hit The Right Note

Though it sounds more like a mob boss than a President, it does hold out the hope for entertainment over the next three years. Because that’s the most I expect out of DC anymore.

And about that “table of power.” I don’t know if those in the West Wing have noticed, but the chainsaw has been taken to that table quite a bit over the past couple of months. It’s not even a dinette set anymore. It’s more like the “TV Tray of Power.”

There’s just not that much to go around.