focus on the tautology
First, let me candidly admit what a valuable resource Focus on the Family and Dr. James Dobson has been to my family. I remember well the films shown at my Church back when Dr. Dobson was relatively unknown and I was a young adult with a great need for Dr. Dobson’s wisdom. Since then, I have purchased and read a number of Dr. Dobson’s books, and my Son’s video library has a generous selection of the wonderful Adventures in Odyssey videos that Focus on the Family produces. I am grateful and will continue to be grateful for the professional wisdom Dr. Dobson has shared.
This gratitude, however, does not extend to the ever-increasing political activities of Dr. Dobson and the Focus on the Family organizations.
In the Focus on the Family Action April newsletter, Dr. Dobson wrote an article entitled Life, Death and Judicial Tyranny extolling the perils of the judiciary and calling the faithful to action with respect to the administration’s effort to get its judicial nominees confirmed in the senate. In his view, the Terri Schiavo imbroglio was solid evidence of an Imperial Court imposing its will on a Moral Majority and the way to set things right is by getting more right minded jurists to the bench.
It seems to me that the greater imperialistic risk of that episode came from a Federal Government intervening in a matter that was well adjudicated in Florida Courts. And while I am concerned with the make-up of the jurists on the Federal bench, I have trouble imagining how Dobson’s purposefully expanding upon the politicization of judicial nomination process can be calculated to improve the jurisprudential temperament of the courts. But the most disturbing thing Dobson wrote does not clearly tie to a specific public issue, but rather involves an extraordinarily misleading and erroneous "analysis" of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison .
In Dobson’s view, Marbury v. Madison is the root of all evil. Indeed, Dobson’s pièce de résistance in that newsletter was the argument that the founders never intended judicial review as a Constitutional power. Disingenuously he effusively quoted Thomas Jefferson’s remarks that possession by the courts of such a power would lead to oligarchy. His clear implication that this was the position of all the founders is clearly not so.
As you can imagine, there has been much ink spilt in the last two centuries on this very point, however absent from Dobson’s argument is even the scarcest hint of an objective inquiry into the arguments for and against judicial review. But then, I would not expect such a thoughtful analysis from someone who is so blinded by a political agenda that they omit from their diatribe the essential fact that when Jefferson was writing in criticism of judicial review, he was opining from the losing end of a political struggle.
And perhaps it might be worth noting that the man that opposed the Constitution with greater vigor than any of the other anti-ratification voices might not necessarily be the best citation on a point of Constitutional law in the first place. It seems worth at least a mention that in Federalist Paper number 78, Alexander Hamilton, one of the staunchest advocates of the new Federal Constitution, put forth a vigorous argument in favor of judicial review as being essential for the protection of the individual’s rights. Whatever happened in Marbury it is clear that Justice Marshall was not simply creating the doctrine of judicial review out of whole cloth as Dobson is suggesting.
Sadly, in the political realm, omitting inconvenient facts and demagoging on those found more useful has become the norm.
But in the process of demagoging this issue, Dobson has seldom been more out of his element. That he self-righteously calls on the name of Jefferson, a somewhat dubious source for Original Meanings, evidences a radical contempt for his listeners ability, or more likely willingness, to investigate the evidence for themselves.
If you have sympathy for Dobson’s view, I would urge a personal examination. Judicial review at one time troubled me too because on its face it smacks of judicial over-reaching. I am a big believer in courts deciding the cases before them and going no further than necessary to discharge their duty. But after some study I came to the understanding that judicial review is in fact a logical extension of a court’s inherent authority to apply law to facts. A logical extension of the founder’s desires to put the Constitution and the Courts above the political process in an endeavor to preserve the blessings of liberty for posterity.
Federalist No. 78 is actually quite compelling on this point.
Digging into the matter, you will discover that no matter where you come out on judicial review, there are a lot of tough questions you have to answer to get a clear understanding of how this should in fact work. Who would you choose to be the final arbiter of Constitutionality? And what sources are the arbiter to consider in determining Constitutionality? I for one do not consider it wise to submit our human rights to the Legislature or Executive for arbitration but those of you who believe in the virtue of the majority may feel otherwise. And anyone who tells you that constitutional interpretation is as simple as applying “strict construction” is either blowing political smoke or has not seriously studied the issue.
It is clear that Dobson does not expect to be questioned by his followers with any intellectual rigor.
As you might imagine, I have only just touched on the most abrasive of Dobson’s misleading arguments. The genuinely disturbing thing is that so few of my brothers and sisters in Christ will question the word of Dobson and I have no doubt that the bumper-sticker phrase “Judicial Imperialism” will be on the lips of many evangelicals for many weeks to come.
Fortunately for Americans, we still cling to the tatters of a body of law that knows no equal in history. Time will tell whether this audacious power grab by the majoritarian wolves, cloaked as Christian sheep, will run its course before the last vestiges of Liberty are wrested from We the People. Sadly I fear that in an age when politicians like Dobson get so much traction, perhaps we do deserve what we are getting.
Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.
31 Comments:
Well, I think every time I hear structural reform put forth, I always conclude that whatever the merits of the structural reform, we need political reform if we are to have any hope of making progress.
If you want a reform that I think would really matter, lets look at a Constitutional Amendment instituting term limits and campaign spending limits. How about an Amendment striking down the ballot access limits that the Democrats and Republicans have imposed on Americans and which make it very difficult for third parties to get a start. How about stiff criminal sanctions for corrupt practices such as Supreme Court judges that go on hunting trips with litigants?
Don’t misunderstand, I think changing the judicial nomination process can make sense, but it isn’t at the top of my list on urgent problems. That says more about the urgency of other issues than it does the importance of judicial system reform.
CG,
You are getting there if you understand that the next election is calculated to make nearly zero impact on our downward spiral as a nation. As long as we limit ourselves to the two parties and continue ratifying their bogus agendas, financial corruption and contempt for the general welfare, nothing significant will change.
Oh, if it is a Dem in office, the issues under consideration will be couched differently. And maybe there will be liberal program here or there that succeeds. But in the grand scope, by sticking with what we have, no significant progress can be made.
My hope is that perhaps we can become sufficiently deadlocked as to prevent further action by the Federal government. That would be a sad situation, but not nearly as sad as the stupid legislation we have been getting for some time that on balance does more harm than good.
CG,
You said, Of course, in the end, they probably wouldn't get anything done on health care, just like they won't get anything done on SS.
Exactly my point. Hey, if it makes you feel better to have the issues you care about “front and center”, I’m glad that works for you. Here on planet Earth, what matters is what actually gets done. And nothing will happen under the current regime.
When I advocate a regime change, I mean far more than just removing Shrub from the Oval Office.
TexaCon,
Welcome back to the disagreement side of the Curmudgeon ledger. I think the planets are indeed back in their courses!
First, where I think things went wrong in the Schiavo case. I totally believe that the law should be that absent a prior written expression of an individual's desires while incompetent, that there should be a legal presumption favoring continuing life. Now, absent that presumption, Florida had a procedure for determining what her choice would be. It was fully litigated and from what I read, I find their conclusion problematic but then I wasn't privy to even a small fraction of what the judges where. Courts are not a perfect finder of fact-this is certain, but neither is the court of public opinion. Either you trust our court system or you don't. If you don't trust the courts, we have all kinds of problems. (I don't, but that is another discussion.)
Now if Terri made the choice to commit suicide in this situation, I think she made a morally incorrect choice, but I do believe that it is fundamental to our freedom that she be allowed to make that choice. That there is no perfect mechanism for determining her will is why I believe that a presumption of life is desperately needed.
On jurisprudence. I have no trouble with the summary phrase "judges should interpret not invent". It is an accurate description of my own point of view. What bothers me is that people are so certain that they know how to do that or that by taking a sound jurisprudential approach, certain outcomes would necessarily follow.
Now, I would disagree with not only the fuzzy minded leftists on the nature of the Constitution, but Scalia as well. It isn't a living document in the sense of malleability. And it isn't a contract: it is something much more significant. The constitution sets above all other law and while it represents a contract in a sense, there are no clauses that get anybody out. No doctrine of Force Majure or Impossibility. I'd call it something more akin to a covenant. Nobody gets more irritated than I about the judiciary running roughshod over the law.
But I've read many of Scalia's opinions and for all his fine words about judicial temperament, he is as result oriented as they come. Read the Sacramental Peyote case sometime (I'm getting old and the citation escapes me this second)-no judicial restraint there let me assure you.
Left or Right our judiciary has become far to politicized and that is the root of the problem. Judges now have political interest rather than being committed to sound jurisprudence. Activists from either the left or the right will cause a breakdown in the rule of law. My desire is for genuine legal conservatism. A real return to the constitution. Not the phony version the Right is pushing.
On singling out Dobson. I have avoided writing to directly criticize him for some time strictly out of respect. It has been hard to resist as I have listened to his strident tone over the years and I really do get saddened by his vitriol. But when I saw the overt dishonesty of this latest push, I had to speak my mind.
Now you are correct, I am not the final arbiter of Dr. James Dobson or anybody's position with God. While I may not solely own knowledge of what constitutes a heart for Christ as opposed to a political agenda, I can speak out about facts. When Dobson starts inviting politicians on his radio show (Mark Levin) and adopting their arguments without any apparent independent research, I think it is a fair conclusion that he is playing a political game. And he isn't just adopting Levin's argument, he is doing so uncritically. He is laying out half-truths in furtherance of a political agenda no matter what his motives may be.
The truth is that Dobson should retract his statements on Judicial Review and Marbury v. Madison. If he wants to argue against Judicial Review, I think that is fine. A lot of fine people disagree with the concept. But he should make a reasoned argument and get his facts straight.
You suggested that there are others more worthy of my condemnation, and perhaps there are. But the fact of the matter is that Dobson is the key voice in a very dangerous movement that threatens the Constitutional protections such as the Free Exercise of Religion. I honestly directed my argument to his specific article and which was at best misleading. But if I were to write a general Critique of the Religious Right, it would be hard to avoid naming his name anyway because he is such a central player. But, I have avoided naming him in the past because he has not ever gone public with anything quite this absurd before.
As to how to explain this all to Joshua, I’ve given that a fair bit of thought. We have started discussing this stuff to some extent because we just finished a biography of Frederick Douglass. We have been over the difference between the laws of God and the laws of men and how they are different things. I think he will be well educated that the law often works for evil. And I will continue to encourage him to work to set things right while we await Christ’s return and the true healing that will bring.
You concluded by asking, “What, is more important than life? When did laws usurp the sustenance of innocent life?
Under the US system of laws, the right to life is of first order importance. To adequately vindicate this right, the law should protect an individual’s right to make choices that will result in their death as well. Terri Schiavo’s sustenance was not usurped. If I felt it had been, I would be as outraged as anyone. The Florida courts adequately litigated what Terri’s will on the matter was to the best of its ability. I might disagree with that choice, but by upholding her choice, the courts were in fact protecting her right to control her own life, not impairing it.
TC,
You said, “when the courts get it wrong, we NEED some kind of instant replay to make sure the best call available is made when it comes to someone’s life.”
I believe in the old John Adams line that we should be a nation of laws, not of men. The problem with your statement is that you are taking things outside the rules. Much like my criticism in the original post, I would ask you who is to be the final arbiter of such things? And what does this say about the court system?
The fact is that substituting the majority opinion for that of our judicial system undermines the very basis of our legal protections because suddenly all human rights are subject to the whims of the majority. As I have said many times and many ways, I can think of nothing more immoral than defining human rights by majority vote. You only have to look at our own history to see this.
You asked a question that I did not understand: “…but the premise should be that we can trace decisions that deviate from 200-year traditions to the constitution in some way. Do you agree?” I can give you a rather long list of clear deviations from the legislative intent of the founders. I think those deviations are wrong and should be rethought and fixed by the Supreme Court.
Next you asked, “How can you say: ‘The Florida courts adequately litigated what Terri’s will on the matter was to the best of its ability.’ And STILL say we should error on the side of life?” Very easily. I want the law to be changed so that it will always err on the side of life. Florida courts have been disturbingly comfortable with euthanasia over the last four decades. I actually researched this in some detail in law school. But, whether you or I like the law is not germane to what the law actually is. As I said above, I have a rather long list of bad law. Bottom line is I believe on balance that respecting the rule of law is the best way to protect our individual liberties.
Understand me on Schiavo: I am NOT saying that if I were a Florida judge that I would have found the facts the way they did. I am saying I don’t know without seeing all the facts. From the limited reports that you and I have, the best you can say about Terri Schiavo’s will is that we do not know.
Again, I would take this out of the courts hands and create a presumption for life in the absence of a prior written expression. And I’m genuinely sad that this is not the law. I’d be happy to work with you to support this change.
I do not share your view that we took a step back because Terri Schiavo died. We are pretty much already in the toilet. It is a matter whether we can have the guts and gumption to reclaim our heritage and move forward. The Schiavo imbroglio is a symptom of greater problems.
TC,
Well, I’m glad we agree about majoritarianism. I see to remember a very long post from you once upon a time that sounded like you were miffed about the homosexual marriage because the majority opposed it. If I have lept to conclusions, you have my sincere apology.
As to bad jurisprudence, I didn’t “admit” to anything new or different suddenly. I’ve been decrying the state of affairs loudly for over ten years. It is pretty messed up.
Next you characterized my position as, “this decision was right because the judge was right but the law is wrong but sometimes the law is right and the courts decisions are wrong but not in this case.”
I’ll take it clause by clause just for clarity.
1) this decision was right because the judge was right but the law is wrong
This happens all the time. Judges should not make law.
2) but sometimes the law is right and the courts decisions are wrong
Well, this happens all the time too. In fact this is the category I’d put most of the Constitutional stupidity of the Supreme Court under.
3) but not in this case
What I am saying that about the Shiavo case is closest to #1. I’m saying the law is wrong. The judges applied the law correctly. And you and I are unable to ascertain whether the lower courts found the facts correctly.
Next you asked, Do you not believe that the judge had the ability to do this [change the law to err on the side of life]? Do you think the judge had his hands tied and HAD to come to this conclusion?
Great question. No, I do not think judges should make law. They were charged with determining Terri’s wishes. Their hands should be tied and that would be the only issue before them.
Now, what you are touching on is the fact that courts go outside of appropriate judicial reasoning all the time. I saw and Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion once where a judge wrote up a statute and stuck it right in the opinion. I think this is just as broken as anything can be. The irony here is that you are arguing that the judge should have made new law while claiming to side with those who want to treat the Constitution, and by extension legislation, as situational and malleable. My view is that it is the Legislature’s sole prerogative to promulgate positive law.
Next you ask the even better question of, How is Dr. Dobson threatening the 'Constitutional protections of Free Exercise of Religion?' By exercising HIS rights?
Gotta love a softball. I actually have only this one time singled out Dobson. I don’t mind when discussions go off topic, but if you will remember my primary purpose in the original post was to call Dobson on the carpet very specifically for his misleading arguments on Judicial Review and Marbury v. Madison. I have no interest in addressing Dobson specifically on this point except to the extent that he is one of the key leaders.
Instead, I charge the entire Religious Right with threatening their own free exercise of religion. There are two ways this is a concern.
First, by encouraging legislation on things like gay marriage. I don’t want to go into that specific issue because it will obscure my fundamental point that by pressing religious doctrines into our law, especially at a human rights level, we will set a precedent where the government can and should regulate religious practice. Now technically, this is unconstitutional, but we as a society have chosen to wink at all kinds of unconstitutional things. Perhaps, one might argue, this is a small intrusion on civil liberties compared to the other things are out there. And that might be so. But I fear the cumulative effect of ignoring our Constitutional protections leads to haphazard and uncertain law.
Second, the Religious Right is by its militant tone inviting (and receiving) a backlash of negative public sentiment. Now that by it’s self would not dissuade me. If the price of having an unpopular opinion is oppression, then we as Christians must stand up for truth. But the negative backlash is quite unnecessary. If we adopt the traditional rhetoric of love and compassion, recognize that the United States is but a part of an evil world system that will not fall until the second advent of our savior, and back off from unseemly political entanglements with corrupt politicians, then I believe the backlash will moderate. As it stands, we are inviting more negative legal and social consequences in the near term.
Part of me thinks that perhaps that I should remain silent on this point because I think perhaps a bit of real persecution might help remind us all that we are strangers in a strange land.
Randy,
Sort of. I do think the tone of Dobson is a greater problem than the substance. But I have a substantive problem as well with his attempt to further politicize the judicial nomination process. Now, he didn’t start that and if you are in the blame game, we can go back to the Robert Bork nomination. But regardless of how we got to this retarded nomination mess, I don’t think further politicization is helpful.
I have substantive issues with Dobson in other areas as well.
Randy,
Well, I’d have to say the biggest substantive issue that I have with Dobson on is the homosexual rights issue. It is pretty clear to me that in a free society, people should be treated equally. We have covered all this ground before.
Next, I’d say the issue of his using highly manipulative and misleading arguments on the judicial review thing is suddenly really huge for me. Keep in mind, I’m not dissing the viewpoint per se (although I do disagree) but more importantly I am criticizing his method of argument. It was at a minimum irresponsible.
I’m sure there are other issues we are at odds over and that I am not remembering, but really, these specific issues are far less significant than is my abhorrence of his close alignment with political figures and the Republican Part specifically. He makes great claims about holding them accountable, but continues to cozy back up. I think allying so closely to politics is unnecessarily damaging to the great commission.
And when you couple this with an attitude that usually comes off as condescending and arrogant, and you have a real problem. We are to reach out to the World in Love. But then, I’ve never been real happy with the Hell, Fire and Damnation approach to Evangelism. Best I can tell, Jesus seldom took that approach. I have no problem with speaking the Truth at all. But speaking the Truth in a way that guarantees it will not be heard is no more useful than just keeping your mouth shut.
Dobson has been a great resource at times. And frankly, the family information from Focus on the Family is stuff I still trust. But I think the great Christian voices do us a great disservice when they cross over into the public political realm.
Let me also add that I know a few Christians who think my criticism is right on the mark, but who are reluctant to go on the record being critical of this man. For whatever reason, they choose to correspond with me privately and I understand that.
Finally, let me ask those of you who think I am being too hard on Dobson: doesn’t his dishonesty in his argument on judicial review bother you at all?
Randy,
I have said consistently that I have no problem with Dobson saying homosexuality is wrong. This is what the Bible teaches. If you have any interest in what I have said in the past about it, I wrote about this a little less than a year ago in a post entitled shouting down the world.
I don’t think it is necessary to feel divided on this issue. The reason for the internal conflict that some Christian’s feel is because of the phony notions that they have inherited regarding some supposed special position that the United States has in the eyes of God. I too was sucked in by the notion when I was very young. But with maturity I have come to understand that the United States is just another cog in the world system. Sure, we have the greatest legal system ever developed and more wealth and freedom than the World could’ve ever imagined 150 years ago. I actually am a big believer in America, within appropriate limits.
But increasingly it becomes evident what Jesus was talking about when he said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. We have become a nation of rich men and we are spiritually poor as a result. In so many pious places in this land, legalism passes for Christian virtue. I grew up in these types of places so I know first hand of what I speak.
When it finally dawned on me how ordinary the United States is in the eyes of God, things became much simpler to understand. For one thing, I could see more clearly, as did our founders, why freedom of religion is such a crucial thing. My libertarian notions on civil liberties arose from a sincere fear for my own personal freedoms. In my view, granting people the room to live freely is a small price to pay to protect my own freedoms. Nobody loses.
For me the final pieces fell into place as I reflected on what God would have to say about all of this. And I began to see that God did not lock away the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but rather granted unto man the free will to sin. God was the first libertarian.
And Jesus did not come to castigate sinners, but to extend his loving embrace. He admonished us to render unto Caesar that which is his, and to God, that which is of his Kingdom, thus clearly admonishing us to understand that the two realms are intrinsically divided. He did not rise up to throw off the yoke of Roman Rule but rather the yoke of our sin debt. And in my view we are called not to throw off oppression through political means or protect people from sin through legislation even if we can be marginally successful with that endeavor. Rather, through simply speaking the Good News of Jesus Christ, and living our lives for his glory and honor, we can achieve a far greater victory than the mere institutions of man can ever give.
You see Randy, for me, the divided state ended when I fully submitted my thoughts and ideas to God and stripped away the accreted junk of religious legalism and sacrilegious nationalism.
Yoshi,
I am not saying that the risk of the Arizona border is the greatest one before us. Merely that it is a risk. And besides, I find it kind of inhumane. Far better to just admit these people legally and make proper provision for them.
But if you think the risk of harmful people and things crossing our border down there is as low as you describe, I think you are kidding yourself. It might not be the best or preferred route, but you can bet your life that people will exploit it.
Sally,
First let me say welcome to the non-lurking World. I can’t imagine why you would regret posting here. We tend to be opinionated but cordial.
I’m glad that I was able to convey to you what Dobson has done with this latest campaign. It is pretty clear to me that when you mix religion and politics, both end up poorer as a result. I think Dobson let politics blind himself to the need for a substantive argument.
I don’t agree that Jefferson “hated” the Constitution. He was fearful of a strong central government. I don’t think his Contemporaries would have made him President if they had thought he simply hated the Constitution. As a body of Law, I think he greatly respected the Constitution: his practice in office bore this out. But, he was an opponent of the document in not a small way because of political reasons. And with Marbury v. Madison he lost the ability to stack the courts. The rancor between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had been quite severe and they were anxious to assert a new order on things. Having lost an important political battle, Jefferson was unsurprisingly upset with the ruling and vented his spleen as he was wont to do (although often through third parties).
Also, can you be specific on how I should change my approach with criticizing Dobson?
As far as agreeing more with TexaCon than myself, hopefully I can be of some assistance and help provide some healing. If you have anything else specific to argue with me about, don’t hesitate to bring it up. I love a good debate.
And again, welcome!
Randy,
Enjoyed the post.
I assume by trying to separate “moral” issues and “religious” issues you are trying to separate those things that have a public dimension (murder, theft) from those that do not (redemption, sexual proclivity). So I’m trying to understand what exactly what moral issue you are concerned about that is going to lead to “mayhem”.
In my view, more mayhem is caused by people trying to force their views on others than the exercise of a few liberties ever could. Look at the stress over creationism in the public schools. Or Terry Schiavo. I think the mayhem comes from secular humanists attempting to impose their beliefs on others, and Christians attempting to impose their beliefs on others. Ironically both camps are in utter denial that they are doing it or want to do it.
On the Sayers quote. She ought to see how somebody like myself gets treated who attacks the hypocrisy of both Christians and Materialists. Actually, I do not mean to falsely paint myself as important, I’m just saying I tend to get it from both sides. But then, I do pretty much ask for it.
Sally,
I guess I would respond by saying that I am entirely uncertain of how to draw a line between criticism and meanness. For what it is worth, my attention was not to be “mean”. I thought I had stuck to the facts pretty well.
But I think the problem is that I am calling Dobson dishonest and you just can’t say that with out it sounding harsh. It is harsh on its face and you can soft pedal with other words, but it is what it is. What separates this from actual malice, in my mind anyway, is that I gave the facts to support the position.
Note that nobody has disagreed with my assertion on the merits.
Listen, I have given Dobson a lot of credit over the years. Still listen to his shows daily, though I do often turn the dial when he is on a political rant. But in this instance, who is giving the black eye to Christ? While I have done that to my own shame in the past, in this case it is Dobson.
And what would generate the poorer opinion of Christians? The body of Christ standing moot? Or if we as a body are willing to call something what it is and not brush it under the carpet?
TexaCon,
Obviously, I haven’t been clear about a number of things I’m saying, as I don’t think your characterization of my position is entirely accurate.
You said, ”Your rancor against Dr. Dobson makes your compliments seem very insincere and back-handed.”
I can understand that perception. I just don’t think you gain much ground with an opinion piece directed primarily toward evangelicals and criticizing one of the most prominent and respected of their number without acknowledging the positive they have done. Plus, I am trying to write op-ed type pieces for syndication and that forces a certain amount of brevity so I purposely don’t labor points that otherwise I might spend more time upon.
In this case, what I was trying to describe was what I perceive to be a trend in Dobson’s work that has accelerated over time. I found his early work inspired. I find his recent political machinations to be made of a very different cloth. I still listen to his radio broadcast, but often flip the dial when he goes off on politics. If this seems backhanded, I suppose then it is the best I can do. I do in fact mean what I said.
And by the way, I still like you a whole lot too. I hope if I do nothing else in my life right that I can at least disagree vigorously with my friends and still share the bond of friendship. I think one of the great tragedies of modern American political discourse is that we assume that disagreement is automatically personal. That somehow the person on the other side of the argument is morally deficient. Now while the person on the other side is morally deficient, as the Bible tells us clearly, and the other side may have immoral intentions with respect to the argument, disagreement does not automatically flow to that later conclusion.
Back to the regularly scheduled programming.
You said, ”Your assessment of Dr. Dobson as the purveyor of death and destruction to religious freedoms is unfounded in truth, nor facts. Even the examples you cite only go to show that Dr. Dobson is not a journalist that has agreed to sharing a balanced perspective on what those on the left and right of the issue of good jurisprudence in our country believe.”
Obviously, if you don’t believe I have been factual before I would understand your not accepting my argument as valid, much less correct. But I do believe I’ve been truthful and factual and I’ll flesh that out later in my response. I disagree that Dobson was merely unbalanced. My key point was that he was deceptively selective in his arguments to paint a picture that was highly misleading at best.
Now I agree with your restatement of earlier things I’ve said, but I think it was somewhat misapplied. Our earlier discussion which you mentioned was in response to your assertion (and if I’m being inaccurate, please correct me…I did not take the time to reread that discussion) that terrorists dislike of the President was some kind of evidence of his doing the right thing. Something about the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is a little different than parsing logical arguments. But even if it were not, I do not think I would quote Marx on the virtues of capitalism. Now Jefferson was not that diametrically opposed to the Constitution, but still, he would not be anywhere close to a starting place to discuss Constitutional Law. I know you know this, but others may not: Jefferson wasn’t even at the convention.
You see, in print and on the radio, Dobson is taking the position that Judicial Review is an utter fabrication by the Marshall court. He isn’t making some qualified remark. Unfortunately, I don’t have a transcript of his interview with Levin, but his remarks were scathing. And he is endorsing Levin to an extent that it was embarrassing for me to listen to it.
I wish Dobson’s position was as you describe. I wish he had merely cherry picked some resources and then said that he agreed with Jefferson’s opinion. Unfortunately, he has gone much further than that.
But listen, I’m happy to moderate my tone in some way if I can. I’ll even retract anything that might have been unfairly harsh. But when somebody is not being truthful, it is just hard to come up with a way of saying that which is polite and easy on the ears. More than anything, I want my opinion on this point to be received even if it isn’t agreed to. Anything that gets in the way of that is a problem for these arguments that I feel strongly about making.
In the just so it doesn’t look like I’m ducking category: I still think that Kerry appeared in that moment more sincere about his religion than did the President. I said then, and repeat now, that this was how it appeared. I’m not able to judge hearts, only actions. Our President may indeed know Jesus as his personal savior. But the Plank paraphrase of Jesus goes something like, many will say “Lord, Lord”, but I will say “I never knew you”. I don’t know what Jesus will say, but I do know that invoking the name of Christ in and of itself is inadequate.
I also know that were I subjected to the same scrutiny, that I would come up equally short in the eyes of most people. And my critics would be fully justified in pointing out my shortcomings.
Saurav,
No problem. This is a totally open blog. People can talk about whatever they choose here.
Here is an example I just stumbled across off a Nominal Christian politician’s “hypocrisy”.
This is the kind of danger that makes me warry of Christians marrying too close to politics.
Sally,
Sally,
I reread the Dobson newsletter and I can see where you come from when you say that you do not see quite how he is attributing the Jefferson opinion to the whole of the founders. He certainly doesn’t explicitly do that, though I think he pretty correctly implies it. And, he did actually say it on the air. All in all his newsletter is much more reasonable on its face than was his radio program on this topic.
Here is what Dobson said immediately before the invocation of the ghost of Jefferson:
How did this happen to us? How could such a great and freedom-loving people have allowed themselves to be dominated by a handful of unelected, unaccountable, arrogant and often godless judges, many of whom receive lifetime appointments and regularly circumvent the democratic process? It is a breath-taking and ominous development. Was this the desire of the Founding Fathers when they designed this great representative form of government? Hardly!
Granted, he was speaking mere of an out of control judiciary, but then proceeds directly to his critique of Marbury. I think he is clearly implying that the founders thought that judicial review was just a bunch of junk. And if you get a copy of that transcript of a tape, you will hear that he actually said it too.
TC,
I think it is pretty obvious that he has become slowly more overly political over time. Now days you can seldom hear his show without being treated to political diatribe. And I do think diatribe is the right word as he sounds kind of whacko when he goes into that mode. I don’t know if it is old age or what.
Now it is true, he has been somewhat political for some time. He was involved in the Reagan administration on some special commissions and stuff. I remember that, though I don’t in detail. I’ll admit that perhaps a bit of my perception of his change is partially a change in me, but that would not account for the daily bombardment on his program.
You say my argument is inefficient-I’ll challenge that. How do you respond to that quote I posted to Sally in light of what we all know about what the Federalists thought about Judicial Review? From where I sit, you don’t appear to have made a dent: he was highly misleading. Just admit it and you’ll feel better.
Randy,
Your point is well taken. But I still believe that by inserting religion into the midst of the policy agenda, you leave yourself open to this type of attack. Sure, the person who wrote the story might have an agenda of their own. All journalists do they just like to deny it. But the good gentleman is himself responsible for putting religious practice at the forefront of policy. If it were not for that, he would be just another adulterer in a nation where the practice is more common than church attendance.
Randy,
Well, I don’t know if the inmates at camp X-ray would agree with you that we have come so far from Manzanar. Perhaps we have made some progress-I’ll take your word for it. What I remember is the little posters and bumper stickers right after 9-11. The ones I remember most vividly were the ones about nuking Afghanistan. Lake Afghanistan was a pretty popular concept. The hatred for Arabs I heard coming out of the mouths of friends and family stopped me in my tracks and I am still aghast. When people are afraid, the ordinary rules of decency can and did get thrown aside.
You said, “Did I get mad and feel like my rights were being taken....NO. If for every five or six people detained for this reason, one is caught that needed to be caught, all the better for everybody.”
This is the very thinking I find so scary and dangerous.
I have written about the unconstitutionality extensively, including my post entitled evil in our midst, so I’m not going to elaborate again right now. To some extent my concerns are technical in dimension, though Brackenator summed it up pretty well in his last post. My wife is among the dangerous people who get the extra scrutiny for her sin of having an advanced degree in an area of concern. I have no idea whether this statement would apply to you or not, but I have observed that people who are actually imposed upon by these sorts of draconian measures tend to not be nearly as offended as those who actually are imposed upon. Funny how that works.
On education, let me say I share your concern about how the public educational system is assaulting the values of many, if not most Americans. This why I have consistently called for school vouchers or and end to the public educational system. There is no other way around this problem. The religious right’s attempts to “fix” things by imposing their viewpoint on the general public is no more useful than the secular left’s insistence that they do not deny religious freedom by imposing a modern definition of tolerance on our children.
On the filibuster. I do not keep track of most political topics in detail because they get lost in the incompetent media coverage that allows politicians to define the terms of the debate. Personally, I am split on the filibuster. It has never struck me as a reasonable parliamentary rule, but then it has been around a while and tends to slow the creation of law which I generally view as a good thing.
Yoshi,
No great theories on Africa. I personally have always attributed the hotter climate to part of the problem. There is no question that a hotter climate impairs the ability of people to get work done. But then, it clearly isn’t that simple and tons of progress and innovation have come from hot climates.
I think you have to look at political development. I do not know why Africans did not evolve past tribalism. I know there was some attempts at building larger kingdoms, but unlike Asia, the Middle East and Europe, they were not successful This would be an interesting study. But what I am getting at is that progress has tended to come out of politically well-organized societies. China, Islam and Europe have had there respective success in this regard and their high points seem to be at the points of there greatest political organization.
I also vaguely remembered reading one analysis a long time ago that attempted to tie such things to physical geography. I remember not finding the argument compelling, but was interesting and left me with an appreciation that such things can be very important.
Note: still no serious attack on the substance of my argument.
Randy,
First let me say that all of you who have heard me repeat this over and over, go ahead and tune out.
The problem with the Patriot Act is much more than just the ridiculous infringement on civil liberties that it imposes on its face. If the only issue was trading a few rights short term for some security, as it is constantly, dishonestly portrayed, then I would not be nearly so angry over it. The major problem is that it is a legislative act that claims the power to encroach our human rights. This is against both the letter and spirit of our Constitution. The legislature was not given these powers in the Constitution, and if any one of our “leaders” actually cared about their oaths to defend the Constitution, they would raise the issue. These are matters that clearly need a Constitutional amendment. And it isn’t even a close call on whether the amendment should be necessary: this is way, way, WAY over the line.
But now we are stuck with what we have wrought in fear. All of those freedoms that so many have fought and died for exist only at the whim of the majority and legislature. The legal protections are gone. That copy of the constitution you have at home: just chuck it in the trash can because it is now officially worthless.
CG,
You inadvertently fall into the same error as Dobson when you suggest the views of Franklin as being the thinking of the whole. The founders by and large where of the landed class and would have not had much agreement with Franklin on limiting property rights as he suggested.
But there is no question that Franklin was two centuries ahead of America in both good ways and in bad. You can see some of the bad in his whole doctrine of good works which in its essence is the extension of personal arrogance typical of enlightenment thinkers.
An amazing man that seldom gets his due.
Now I have no interest in a Junto if part of it means we “should at least feign naïve curiosity to avoid contradicting people in a manner that could give offense.” I stand for the bare-knuckled argument. That kind of discussion where nobody is left wondering what you really think. More House of Commons than House of Representatives. Were phony civility to break out, I might just have to shut down the old blog.
Not that I’m opposed to civility. You don’t have to be rude about things. But when you are just jousting with ideas, let the last idea standing claim the field.
David,
I pretty much agree though I do think there is some content to the term “activist” in this context, though that is pretty much diluted by current discussion. Whatever you want to call it, I do stand opposed to those people who advocate judge made law in its various forms. But I would agree that the way the term is being used, “activist judge” has no more content than the phrase “strict construction”. The terms have been co-opted for political purposes and have no place in an informed discussion.
CG,
Well, I would not say it is the Christian view that good works mean nothing. Jesus said himself that faith without works is empty. Good works alone as adequate for justification in the eyes of God is the problem. I am happy to get into this theological stuff deeper if we need to, but I don’t think it is probably where we need to head in this discussion. Though the arrogance of man is an important thing to understand.
David,
I totally agree. It is only activism if they don’t agree with the decision.
CG,
What I said on arrogance was, ”You can see some of the bad in his whole doctrine of good works which in its essence is the extension of personal arrogance typical of enlightenment thinkers.”
The arrogance of which I speak is that arrogance of certainty that as an individual, I can rise above human nature and achieve Goodness. As you know, I believe, and experience amply demonstrates, that Man is incapable, on his own, of achieving Goodness.
This is the arrogance of wisdom. Every age thinks itself smarter than all before it. They have been writing such things for well over two thousand years.
CG,
If you look more closely at what Franklin said and wrote, he believed in good works as the way to achieving virtue. You are arguing semantics by and large.
Christians in fact are exhorted by God to perform good works we are just taught that those works by themselves are insufficient to make one virtuous (to borrow Franklin’s terms). In my view, Franklin’s approach to virtue is wholly impracticable. Experience teaches us of the avarice of man and in my view to expect wisdom to alter this fundamental truth is to ignore what recorded history teaches us. But this is exactly the Franklin view: that by individual dedication to the common good we can attain virtue.
Christianity turns that on its head and teaches that only by God’s grace can we be redeemed from sin, and through good works we become sanctified. The good works, in my view, are a fruit of a changed being. The materialists would say that good works changes our corporate being.
CG,
You ask a couple of questions.
”Are you suggesting any direct involvement in our society by God, due to religious beliefs[?]”
No, I don’t suggest it. Rather I believe that God intervenes in the affairs of men for his own purposes. Maybe I don’t understand the question.
”Are you suggesting the Christians in our country represent a group that are more likely to address social justice and common good due to their ‘fruits of being changed’?”
I believe that as individuals that Christians are more likely to agents for the common good. It is pretty clear that acting in concert, the record of the Church is much more spotty. This is a historical pattern and I forsee no imminent change. I, for one, am no big fan of large institutional religion of any faith including my own. I see this contrast in many, many people I know. It is altogether common for Christians in America to be some of the most personally generous people you will find while at the same time ascribing to a view on social justice in America that seems somewhat Neanderthal. I’ve discussed this many times, so I won’t go in depth at this time, but I would say that if I were to set down discreet goals for the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon, one prominent one would be to get my Christian brothers and sisters to see more clearly the error of allying too closely with the institutions of men.
So bottom line is nobody except TexaCon was willing to even take a stab a defending Dobson on the merits. This probably says more about the readership here than it does anything else. Still, I'd love to see an attempt at a defense by ANYONE. The thing is, I just don't think that his political supporters are interested in the substance of the matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home