Your post is thoughtful and I was glad to read it. I agreed with it until the closing paragraph.
We're not advancing abortion and gay marriage, we're defending individual rights, using the courts to protect those rights, to ensure the fundamental freedoms our country promises us.
Cultural revolution? I think the left would agree but posit that the revolution stems from the right. It's not the core values that the left points to when the phrase "theocratic morality" is used. It's the belief that the far right wants to legislate a religious value system - one that goes beyond a common morality.
And separation of church and state matters. If you want a Christian thing in a public arena you should imagine the same thing from a religion that you disagree with - imagine Congress opening with a prayer to the Goddess or a school class praying to Allah. It doesn't fly. Separation of church and state keeps us off a slippery slope that heads to that end.
Kathy, thanks for your post. I am not talking about a Christian thing in a public arena. I am saying that Judeo/Christian morality is the foundation of our moral perspective - in this country. Indeed, I cannot envision Congress opening with a prayer to a Goddess, or a school class praying to Allah, because our moral sense does not rest upon such faiths or philosophies. Our moral foundation is derived from the Judeo/Christian tradition, of its explanation of right and wrong. To pry that moral anchor from our culture would result in moral chaos - a moral relativism, where notions of political correctness play substitute for a moral core.
This country can be accepting and tolerant of all belief systems, but such systems are not the bedrock of American culture and morality.
I agree that minimally deism founded in Judeo/Christian faith was the tradition from which our country's moral foundation arose. I don't think anyone on the left argues that point.
You say you're not talking about the Christian thing in public. But you specifically decry efforts to remove such references from schools, courthouses, and public places. So I'm confused. If the issue isn't religion in public places, then what is it?
We're not trying to "pry that moral anchor from our culture". It's an anchor, not a rulebook or a state religion or a citizen's pledge. We don't want it removed - but we don't want it to stay an anchor and not more. We're a country of laws, derived from legal, social, and religious traditions. The law is our social contract, not faith. The law is rooted in the traditions of the founders' faith, but it is not a mirror of that faith and shouldn't be.
BTW, I too welcome the dialog. Thx.
Kathy, You make some valid points. If I'm not misinterpreting what you are saying, you're concerned that we don't stagnate as a society, that our 'moral anchor' does not prevent us from progressing as a society.
I concur that the law (in part) is our social contract. I'm not sure that I wholly agree with your statement that "The law is rooted in the traditions of the founders' faith, but it is not a mirror of that faith and shouldn't be." I think that the sense of right and wrong expressed in that law echoes the morality of that faith. The constitution also resonates with the tradition of that faith.
You also state, "You say you're not talking about the Christian thing in public. But you specifically decry efforts to remove such references from schools, courthouses, and public places. So I'm confused. If the issue isn't religion in public places, then what is it?" The problem with politically correct notions of banning traditions such as Chanukah and Christmas is that once you begin, there is no way to stop, if you want to assure that no single person in this country is offended by something. You'll have to ban Labor Day, as it may be offensive to the idle rich. You'll have to ban Independence Day, as it may offend some British person, etc., etc., etc. If you remove every tradition or facet of our lives that may potentially be offensive to someone, there will be nothing left. Ultimately, we will be prohibited from doing or saying almost anything. In the place of freedom we will have political correctness, to tell us how to think and act. In the place of morality, we will have the whims of judicial fiat.
The trouble with an activist court, and "legislation" by judicial decree, is that a handful of judges supplant the democratic process. It is up to the legislature, elected by the people, to make law; the judiciary's only proper role is to make a determination, when asked, as to whether or not the law lies within or outside of the constraints of the constitution.
The problem with abdicating your democratic prerogative to the court is that the court may quickly turn on you. Thus far the agenda of the political left has been promoted by the activist court, to the consternation of much of the electorate. But what if the court becomes more conservative, as it is likely to do? Will you still want to see an activist court? I think the left and the right are both best served by a court that understands its proper role in a democracy.
I'm not ignoring your response. But I'm doing some reading so I can better understand the "activist courts" argument. I'm trying to be open minded. I haven't given credence to the charge that our courts are making law instead of interpreting it. But maybe that's because the courts are generally coming out with laws I agree with. So I'm stepping back and reading up on both sides of the argument. If nothing else, I'd like a better understanding of why the courts are preceived as activist when they extend rights than when they limit them.
An intelligent, good-faith posture.
Doug,
As I said, I've been looking in to the whole activist courts issue. Unfortunately, almost everything I've found is political opinion with no real information about specific cases in which justices went outside the law. I know that there's a belief that this occurred with Roe vs Wade and with gay marriage in MA, but I can't find actual information on why people believe the justices went beyond the law, just that they did.
Can you point me to any resources? I'm serious about looking at this issue since I do believe that the balance of powers in our government is a critical element in our success as a country. So if you can help me out, I'd appreciate it. I suspect this is the most likely issue for me to actually shift to the right (but don't' hold your breath, okay?).
Thx.
Commenting by HaloScan
