Playing the ‘Religion Card’

Playing the ‘Religion Card’

Personally I was disappointed when U.S. District Appeals Court Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi chose to retire from the federal appeals court bench when his recess appointment expires in 2006 rather than face another confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate. Pickering is a well-qualified judge. He deserved the opportunity to sit on the appeals court bench longer than the two-year recess appointment allows. Previously I have written in support of his nomination.

But Pickering, an active Baptist, was one of 10 judges caught in the filibuster activities in the Senate. Although these nominees make up less than 5 percent of the 215 judges President Bush has submitted to the Senate for approval, the 10 attracted significant attention when supporters could not muster enough votes to force a vote on their nominations on the Senate floor.

Pickering, Alabama’s former Attorney General William Pryor and eight others were in the unusual position of having been recommended by the judiciary committee of the Senate and having enough committed votes for confirmation (51), but all lacked the 60 votes to break the filibuster against them.

Some observers charged that strong personal beliefs opposing abortion was the reason some senators seemed determined not to allow a vote on these nominations. President Bush circumvented opposition to the 10 with recess appointments in 2004. Pickering, a federal district judge since 1990, was placed on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals; Pryor on the 11th Circuit Court. Because these appointments were made when Congress was not in session, the judges must be approved by the Senate by the end of the current regular session of Congress in order to stay at their posts.

Seven of the 10, including Pryor, have been resubmitted to the Senate for consideration, and the threatened filibuster, coupled with threats to change the rules of the Senate to prevent a filibuster, is generating great debate.

Recently the tone of the debate over these appointments was ratcheted up several notches when the charge was made that the filibuster against the judges was targeted against people of faith. Some good and godly men, leaders among evangelical Christians, said the filibuster was an effort to keep judges with conservative Christian beliefs off the federal bench. As such, the filibuster was an attack on people of faith, they reasoned.

Such views were articulated during a nationwide-televised program April 24 called “Justice Sunday.” The event included both religious and political leaders. Two days later, President Bush distanced himself from this position. During a nationwide press conference, Bush was asked about the charge. He responded, “I just don’t agree with it.” Later he added, “I don’t … ascribe a person’s opposing my nominations to an issue of faith.”

All of President Bush’s reasoning in distancing himself from the position is unknown. Perhaps it was because at least eight other judges confirmed for the powerful Court of Appeals had public pro-life or anti-abortion records prior to their appointments. Perhaps it was because more than half of the federal judges approved by the Senate voluntarily identified their religious affiliations in their biographical backgrounds and no questions were raised.

Let’s be clear. Christian people care deeply about the debate over moral issues going on in this nation. They should. The soul of the nation is at stake. That is why The Alabama Baptist provides regular information about issues addressed in Montgomery and Washington, D.C. That is why the state Baptist paper prints stories about moral and ethical issues as they are played out in towns and cities across America.

Christians must be in the middle of the public square contending for a society structured around the values of their faith. Christians must show society a better alternative to the negative and destructive patterns often evidenced by selfish secularism.  The courts are going to be in the middle of this debate. Issues end up before the courts precisely because there is disagreement about them. The courts must determine if the laws adopted by the majority fall within the bounds of the rights guaranteed to all citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

Ours is not strictly a majority rule government. Some rights are so precious that not even a majority vote can violate them.

That is one reason Christians are needed in the courts of this nation. Judges have to know the law and have a demonstrated record of upholding the law. In addition, we believe judges whose understanding of the law encompasses biblically based values are more in tune with the vast majority of Americans. Such a background should be an asset, not a liability, for any judge.

As we have written before, Christians have the right — even the obligation — to work for the confirmation of such nominees. Still Christians must be careful about playing the “religion card” in the give and take of public debate. To charge that an opponent is “against people of faith” because that person differs with a political position is a serious step.

It does not take a long memory to recall when Christian organizations distributed voter guides across the nation boldly declaring that support for a new missile system was the only “Christian” position on the issue.

The implication was that all who opposed the missile system were “against people of faith.” That was not true then, and it is not true now. Today such an argument seems absurd. Yet it shows how quickly passionate participants will play the “religion card” during debate over issues about which they are deeply concerned.

Whether the filibuster in the Senate is right or wrong is a complicated issue. Pryor and the others may or may not be confirmed by the Senate. Still we are confident that demonizing opponents as being against “people of faith” because they differ with one’s political positions is an unwise step.

It is far more dangerous to carelessly play the “religion card” than it is to risk the outcomes of the political process honestly conducted in the public square.