Beliefnet
The U.S. Senate showdown over judicial appointees and filibuster rules converged in my e-mail in-box last week in an apocalyptic stew of messages.

A relative sent me an e-mail from a liberal advocacy group warning that I must act immediately to prevent "radical right-wing Republicans from seizing absolute power to appoint far-right judges." A friend forwarded an e-mail from a conservative advocacy group warning that "people of faith and conservative values are being discriminated against by far left liberal advocacy groups intent on undermining the Constitution." An editor sent me a piece arguing that America was turning into a theocracy along the lines of Iran. Another sent a cartoon of the judges being held "hostage" by the seven dwarves with Grumpy holding a bullwhip.

This judicial fracas is testing everyone's nerves. Most incensed of all seem to be my more liberal family, friends, and editors who are flailing about trying to understand why conservative Christian political activists are so up in arms about the fate of a few judges awaiting confirmation votes in the Senate. They seem to think that this is all part of a grand conspiracy to create a new Christian theocracy.

My friends and acquaintances with blue-state sensibilities aren't sure how, but they know that the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion rights, a woman's right to vote, clean air, and our oceans are all threatened by conservative Christian political activism. Events like "Justice Sunday"--when evangelical leaders linked churches via video conference to decry Democratic "discrimination" against "people of faith and conservative values" and urge Christians to contact their elected representatives about the need to control a "runaway judiciary"--heighten their angst. Though they don't know how, they are pretty confident John Ashcroft is secretly involved. The rants of many columnists, lots of liberal talking heads, and the liberal interest-group direct mail convey an unprecedented level of hysteria.

Their anxiety is almost understandable. This country is deeply divided politically in the aftermath of the 2004 election. And blue-staters still harbor a tremendous amount of suspicion about these people called the "religious right." Who are these people who have taken the White House and the Congress, and what exactly do they want next? Why are they lobbying Senators about changing procedural rules? To gain control of the courts? Are conservative Christians' real views even represented by their leaders or are their leaders just using Jesus' name to advance their own political ends? Is this really just about raw electoral politics, or is there something substantive at stake here?

These are questions for books, seminars, college courses, documentaries, and maybe a TV mini-series or two. Nevertheless, some observations from someone raised in a politically diverse family, on a diet of tofu and grits, who has also experienced politics from both sides of the aisle, might be helpful in quelling the prevailing fears.

Conservative Christians have been smacked by the courts way too many times.
Judicial activism was one of the primary motivators for renewed conservative Christian political activism in the 1970s. After enduring a series of Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s and '70s that removed prayer from public schools, and liberalized and then enshrined abortion laws, Christian political activists drew the proverbial line and said, "No more."

So a bunch of kids can't pray in school, ask blue-state friends. So what? Pray before school. Pray at home. Pray to yourselves. Pray at lunch. After all, the prayer itself was a pretty insipid, "Dear God, thank you for America and our classroom and our families. Amen." No one was converted by these prayers. If anything, kids were taught that talking to God was boring.

All those things may be true. But those aren't the real issues. The problem was the perception by conservative Christians that America was simultaneously turning away from God and turning its back on people who believed in God. For many conservative Christians, the idea of America being "One nation under God" isn't about a particular set of moral laws or rules. It is about the nation acknowledging the Divine. That was turned on its head.

After these school prayer decisions, people of faith felt themselves increasingly marginalized from the American mainstream. They heard themselves described by others as "Holy Rollers" or "Jesus Freaks" or even in the unforgettable words of the Washington Post, "poor, uneducated, and easy to command." Whether accurate or not, to many Christians it seemed like a lot of this ridicule in the media began with the Supreme Court decisions themselves, which helped establish a certain national perspective about God and about Christians.

In much the same way, Roe v Wade (1973) wasn't just about abortion, it was about the value placed on life. After all, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that "the word 'person', as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." One leader expressed his anguish about it this way: "What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth." The leader was the Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1977. A lot of people still share that perspective and resent being mocked for holding it.

"Judicial activism" that led to rulings like school prayer, Roe, and recent gay marriage decisions was undemocratic.
Much of the passion displayed today in demands for an "up or down" vote on President Bush's judicial nominees comes from the pent-up frustration of decades of "unaccountable" judicial decisions. From their perspective, it is extraordinary that there was never a national vote on abortion, on gay rights, on prayer in schools. Like citizens of the puppet states the Soviet Union established in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, conservative Christians viewed these edicts from on high as matters beyond their control. Even more troubling was the fact that it was judges appointed by presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush who explicitly upheld Roe in the late 1990s.

Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus