-Caveat Lector-
Perhaps the Democrats and all the who oppose Ashcroft for AG should take a look at
what the
Constitution says about what there doing to Ashcroft because of his religious beliefs.
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this
Constitution, shall
be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the
Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof; and
all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the
supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state
legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and
of the several
states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious test
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.
-----Original Message-----
From: MICHAEL SPITZER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: [CTRL] LAT: The Conscience of a Pentecostal
>-Caveat Lector-
>
>Sunday, January 28, 2001
>
><http://www.latimes.com/print/opinion/20010127/t000008151.html>
>
>The Conscience of a Pentecostal
>
>By MARTIN E. MARTY
>
> CHICAGO--Some defenders of former Missouri Sen. John
>Ashcroft, President George W. Bush's nominee to be attorney
>general, say he is attacked because he is a person of religious
>faith. That is not accurate. Most citizens are religious, and
>most public officials profess a faith. What critics have
>questioned is whether the specific content of Ashcroft's faith,
>and his manner of expressing it, might compli- cate his work as
>attorney general.
>
> During his confirmation hearings, he told the Senate
>Judiciary Committee that "as a man of faith, I take my word and
>my integrity seriously." That stance, Ashcroft said, means that
>he will enforce the laws "as they are written" and not enforce
>his "personal preferences." Also, it "means advancing the
>national interest, not advocating my personal interest."
>
> The words "preferences" and "interest" are terribly weak. A
>man of faith like Ashcroft is guided by convictions grounded in
>profound belief, not preferences. His commitments go far beyond
>"personal interest." By choosing softer words, Ashcroft hoped to
>make himself more salable to skeptical senators and the American
>public.
>
> But Ashcroft's "preferences" are not what led Bush to
>nominate him to be attorney general. The new administration
>needed someone unassailably acceptable to the far-right
>Republican constituency, notably conservative evangelical
>Christians. That constituency does not regard Ashcroft's
>positions on abortion, gun possession, homosexuality, and the
>size and scope of the federal government as mere preferences.
>They represent God's will and way.
>
> Ashcroft's posture represents an extreme version of a
>familiar American dilemma. For example, if, on religious grounds,
>he thinks that abortion is murder, can he with integrity enforce
>laws that permit such murder?
>
> Public officials, including Cabinet members, have often
>faced such a dilemma. In 1915, Woodrow Wilson's secretary of
>state, William Jennings Bryan, then an avowed pacifist, followed
>his conscience and resigned when he saw the president drawing the
>nation into World War I.
>
> Resigning is not the only way some officials face issues
>where private faith and public duty clash. In 1984, former New
>York Gov. Mario Cuomo delivered a classic speech at Notre Dame
>that disturbed anti-abortion foes. He drew on a version of
>Catholic teaching that made it possible for him to claim that a
>Catholic could oppose abortion in private life but be called in
>public to support laws that permit it.
>
> C. Everett Koop, a physician with deep evangelical
>convictions, had to remind the Christian right, whenever it
>disapproved of his policies and administration, that he was
>"called"--good Calvinist language--to be the nation's surgeon
>general, not chaplain general.
>
> Now comes Ashcroft, a firm and proud member of the
>Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the
>world. Pentecostals are new to high government posts. According
>to historian Edith L. Blumhofer and sociologist Margaret M.
>Poloma, Pentecostals tend to be "apolitical." Yet, many have
>recently been drawn into politics because of their opposition to
>abortion.
>
> The American public, according to polls, consistently favor
>public servants who have "integrity" and promote morality. They
>go on to say that, ordinarily, such morality is grounded in
>religion. Ashcroft, in speeches to Christian conservative groups,
>has suggested that the grounding must be in religion, an
>affirmation appealing to fewer, but still not widely disfavored.
>
> The public, however, is uneasy when personal faith is too
>closely applied to specific legislation and policies. Ashcroft
>may ground his views in his reading of the Bible, his grasp of
>Pentecostal faith, his loyalty to his Assemblies of God roots.
>But the public knows that other people of faith and integrity
>have come to opposite views on the basis of the same Bible and
>similar religious traditions.
>
> How will Ashcroft reconcile his conviction that abortion is
>"murder" with his duty to enforce laws that permit such "murder"?
>
> Public officials as "persons of faith" approach such
>conflicts in a variety of ways. Ashcroft's religious tradition is
>"literalist" about the Bible, ready to refer to "absolutes" and
>intent on using biblical teaching to fashion civil law.
>Literalists and absolutists--and staunch Assemblies of God
>members say they are both--cite biblical passages against
>homosexual acts and find passages to support their "abortion is
>murder" claim. Senators who pressed Ashcroft on his views did not
>learn how, they only learned that he had worked all this out and
>that his oath of office would dictate his responses.
>
> Conscience has come into play in a different way for
>Ashcroft the lawmaker. Lawmaking is easier on the conscience: One
>fights for what is congruent with one's outlook, including faith.
>One loses? Conscience is intact. Enforcing laws that are
>incongruent with that outlook? That is another matter.
>
> Another option is to take the Bryan road and not serve when
>demands on conscience are too conflicting. Many citizens, often
>Christians for whom Jesus is king and who take his "turn the
>other cheek" admonitions literally and absolutely, have refused
>military service and paid the price for their refusal. For people
>like Ashcroft, refusing appointment would have been an expression
>of integrity. Indeed, some of his co-religionists may feel he
>gave away too much to appease his Democratic critics, and that he
>cannot work his way back satisfyingly.
>
> Also, public officials of faith and integrity are not always
>literalists or absolutists. The Roman Catholic bishops' letters
>on nuclear war and the economy, as well as Protestant councils
>and thinkers, show another approach, what Reinhold Niebuhr, the
>20th century's top theologian, called "Christian realism." They
>need such resources when they deal with the "impossible
>possibilities" that face those who would respond to Jesus'
>radical words. Non-Christians, like Jewish Sen. Joseph I.
>Lieberman, find parallel ways in their traditions to deal with
>conflicts of conscience in public life. To enter politics is to
>enter a world of compromise and conflicting interests and faiths.
>
> Finally, other people of faith and integrity find occasions
>when a "higher law" compels them to disobey civil law. Lutheran
>theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer became a traitor when he plotted
>against Adolf Hitler's life. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. appealed
>to higher law when he violated civil law. But they were not
>public officials sworn to enforce laws that they think permit
>murder or gross sin.
>
> Not all clashes are as profound as those convoked by
>pro-life, pro-choice issues. Catholic judges have accepted church
>teaching against divorce but granted divorces, following civil
>law. But on the life-and-death issues, and to people of
>Ashcroft's faith, "killing babies" through abortion or flaunting
>divine law through permissiveness in respect to homosexuals are
>profound transgressions.
>
> As so often is the case, two integrities are at stake in the
>soul of a public figure. How Ashcroft, if confirmed, will relate
>the two will provide a drama that will be much on view in the
>seasons ahead.
>- - -
>
>Martin E. Marty Is Emeritus Professor of Religious History at the
>University of Chicago and Author of "Politics, Religion and the
>Common Good."
>
>
>=================================================================
> Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
>
> FROM THE DESK OF:
> *Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
>=================================================================
>
><A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
>DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
>==========
>CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
>screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
>sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
>directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
>major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
>That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
>always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
>credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
>
>Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
>========================================================================
>Archives Available at:
>http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
> <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
>
>http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
>========================================================================
>To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
>SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
>SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Om
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
