Monday, April 25, 2005

Senate Democrats Are Hostile to Faith

I listened to Dick Durbin, the dumbbell senator from Illinois piously (literally) claim he is a person of faith which makes it absurd to assert that the filibuster of appeals court judges has anything to do with their religious convictions. The filibuster instead is about how these judges interpret the law. Is there any evidence that these people of faith will throw over legislative intent and the text of the law and the constitution to impose some kind of theocracy? No of course not. On the other hand, there is evidence that many of these judges take their faith seriously, and attempt to live their lives according to Christian tenets. Oh, the horror! These people of faith are the types of people that the Democrats have chosen to filibuster. Is that a coincidence? Yes, of course, squeal the Dems.

My problem with the Dick Durbins of world is that when it suits them, they will take they will see a pattern as proof. Take for instance the idea about lack of blacks in law schools. While there is no proof that anyone in the admissions departments of these schools is racist in any way, the fact that there are proportionately fewer blacks in law school than in the population at large MEANS there is institutional racism in law schools that must be remedied. Yet dumbbell Durbin is flummoxed by the corollary that because Democrats filibuster judges of faith then there is some institutional Democrat hostility to judges of faith.

If you assert that results of actions imply some kind of moral deficiency that must be remedied in one context (law school admissions) then you cannot object when others do it you and your actions. The real question is whether the voters find the assertion of Democratic hostility to faith to be credible. I can tell you, having attended 6 different churches in the last 6 months, people of faith firmly people that democrats ARE hostile to faith, and would never consider voting democrat because of this hostility.