June 27, 2005    

Dear Concerned Citizen,

 
by Dinesh D'Souza

The courts have become the place where some of the most important issues of American social and moral life are now settled. Should abortion be legal and under what circumstances? Ask the court. Should the State of Texas be permitted to have a monument displaying the Ten Commandments? Ask the court. Can a state outlaw certain forms of pornographic material it deems offensive to minors, or to the moral sense of the community? Ask the court. Do homosexuals have a "right to marry" that no legislature can constitutionally deny? Ask the court.

Since the courts now operate as a kind of super-legislature (super because the legislature's rules can be vetoed by the courts, but the court's rules can be vetoed by no outside body), one of the most important questions in American politics has become: Who gets to sit on that august body? What could be more consequential for determining the rules under which we live than who occupies the nine seats of the Supreme Court? These positions are of enduring importance because their occupants serve for life.

Another reason that court nominations have become a battleground is because the Supreme Court is evenly divided, with the liberals and conservatives controlling an equal number of votes, and "swing votes" like that of Sandra Day O'Connor typically determining the outcome. Thus, one or two new appointments could swing the balance of the court toward social conservatism. This is an especially painful prospect for liberals who have lost the presidency and the senate and the House and the state legislatures and now must rely on the courts to enact a liberal social agenda that has little hope of passing the legislative bodies or being enforced by the executive branch of government.

So for the foreseeable future America is reduced to the ridiculous spectacle of seeing major social and moral questions being resolved not by national consensus or debate or even voting but by recourse to the mystical question, "How will Sandra Day O'Connor vote?" The nation's eyes are riveted on this one woman whose whimsical views on school prayer, affirmative action, abortion, and other issues now assume the status of settled law.

There is only one way out of this bizarre and unhappy place, and that is to return to the American people the right and the responsibility for making the rules under which they live. This is not to say that majorities decide everything. Minorities have enumerated rights against majority rule, and yes, it is the job of courts to enforce these rights. But the right to abortion, like the right to gay marriage, is nowhere contained in the Constitution. These are not rights but rather ideological causes masquerading as constitutional privileges.

The reason that courts invent these rights is that the people who want these things cannot persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to go along with them. The courts are essentially their political instrument for achieving a result that they cannot win through the give-and-take of democratic debate.

 

Responses to How to win it back!:

How disappointing! Here is an article raising the crucial issue of ethics in the biomedical field, but done with unfortunate polarizing rhetoric. Cameron rightly lifts the issue, but seriously misdirects us by immediately framing the discussion in “us” versus “them” rhetoric, talking about “winning” in a complex area that needs more light and less heat. He disdains the “Made up term” of bioethics, then spends the whole article talking about his own expertise in bioethics. The large number of question he received at Saddleback are because people are interested in knowing more about these critical issues, not in organizing to “beat” someone else in some kind of political game. This is one are where the whole range of Christians need to look, think, and pray clearly, rather than just take marching orders to the next legislative battle. - S. S.

Re: Bioethics piece 23 June, are you aware of the National Catholic Bioethics Center or of their publication, The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (now in its third year)? Thank you for your piece—you are surely right that we need to make a concerted effort to address this gaping and widening wound. - S. C. S.

The last two articles I have received have been troubling to me, on bioethics and the founding fathers. I just finished reading the Christian Century (6/28/05) where it gives statistics on US citizens belief in God: 2% do not believe in God 4% do not know and don't believe there is a way to find out 11% does not believe in a personal God but a higher power of some kind 2% find themselves believing in God somtimes but not others. 10% have doubts but feel that they do believe in God. 1% is not sure if there is a God. 70% say, "I know God really exists, and I have not doubts about it. That means 80% believe in God. Unless the other 20% of whom only 7% say they do not believe, don't know and we can't know, are running everything in this country, where is the secular society pushing its agenda? If the Religious Right's withdrawal from society has increased its secularization, I think it is because many people have been turned off by their absolute certainties and judgments of others. Sometimes I fear that it affects my faith and I'm a Baptist minister! About bio-ethics. If Bush's concerns are true about stem cell research, this would suggest that all the work with invitrio conception is morally wrong since many fertilized eggs are destroyed or frozen for ever. I have never heard any conservative mention that. - J. B.

Regarding your recent articles on bioethics and why "Ywe" lost it, I would offer the following: First, the American right wing, led prominently by the Christian Right, has not "lost" this battle at all; it is actively fighting it on its own terms, even if it is not sending thousands of acolytes into bioethics degree programs. They are fighting it on the political and social and judicial fronts, and they are (alas) succeeding all too often. Second, to the degree that the American public disagrees with the Christian Right's positions on bioethical issues, it is because You Guys have bought into the religious precept that Life Begins at Conception, and You spend all your efforts pushing all ramifications of that position and opposing all programs and policies that differ with it. While most Americans would agree that that a fertilized egg is at least a "potential life" and that it should be accorded a degree of honor and respect and a shot at a "real life," but they simply don't accept that it has the full rights of a human being. Thus most Americans recognize that birth control, including condoms and Plan B pills and social programs that utilize birth control as a part of their arsenal of tools, are worthwhile and are an overall benefit to society. Similarly, most Americans recognize that while stem cell research is still unproven, it must be given the chance to find out whether it can help cure a wide range of diseases and save countless lives. Your opposition to these and other programs that infringe in the least on the Sanctity of Every Fertilized Egg cause you to lose out in the battle of public policy and opinion. Americans of all religions are willing to agree that "potential life" is valuable and should not be treated like stale bread; but they are not willing to see thousands of young women give birth to unwanted children and replicate the generational cycle of poverty and crime at its expense. They are not willing to see thousands of young people get terrible diseases because of fear of using condoms or teaching teenagers how and why to use them. They are not willing to see thousands of raped women forced to give birth to children out of fear of abortion. They are not willing to watch their parents and spouses suffer for years and ultimately die of terrible diseases that might have been cured, if we simply used the fertilized eggs that were otherwise being destroyed anyway. Those are a few reasons why you're losing the bioethical war. - R. P.

Editor's note: Click here to read Wesley Smith's article Stem-Cell Sleight of Hand

On Target!! I have just written a book entitled Virtual Grace...surrounding Dr. Assisted Suicide issues and the problems of the new medical ethics. I am a retired United Methodist Minister and teacher of Medical Ethics for many years. I hope you'll look at my book or email me for more information.. God Is With Us. - M. L. W.

Responses to Misquoting Our Founding Fathers:

Your concern about whether or not the "Founding Fathers" were Christians or Deists misses the point. They were individuals who knew only too well man's proclivity for wanting his own religion or opinions to be more equal than anyone else's! That explains the 1st Amendment There is much to be said for not allowing religion to be pushed aside in our culture, but there is also much to be said for not allowing the major religion or religions to push aside those who do not accept the dominate religious truisms of the day. That is what true freedom is all about. - H. J. B.

Your series of quotes was excellent. One suggestion: document the quotes so that we can read them on their own in context and if/when we use them we can authenticate their source. Thank you. - D. S.

I’m late to the party, but thought I could toss in two cents. There are probably better quotes to demonstrate the Christian faith of the founders, but I believe that at least ¾ were active members of Christian denominations. In response to some letter writers who questioned the founders’ faith because they had “rebelled against authority”, they certainly wrestled with that problem more than Christians today. The publication of the treatise “Vindici” in the 1770s (translated and privately published about 15 years ago – but I can’t find my copy just now) helped provide the Biblical justification for resistance to a tyrant. Whether you agree or disagree with the theological argument, it is clear that the founders sought Biblical justification before rebelling against the king. (At least, many of the respectable ones did. That may not include the Sons of Liberty and other rowdy groups.) - D. N.

I am completely outraged by some of the comments to you from certain individuals in this latest article, "Misqouting Our Founding Fathers". Several of them compared the "moral outrage" of tax supported stem cell research to the war in Iraq where children and innocent people are getting killed. If you don't correct this distorted thinking I would like to by saying that 1. I suppose these people would have also been morally outraged by the Revolutionary War and the war against Hitler. 2. President Bush and the Coalition are not the ones killing innocent people, it is the terrorists that are doing this. The war in Iraq are against the terrorists, not the children. Children do get caught in the crossfire. But if we don't fight the terrorists there we will surely fight them here at home and then our children will get caught in the crossfire. These people who have made these comments don't seem to have clarily in their understanding of these issues and seem to have had their morals adjusted by the liberal media. I believe many americans have had their morals distorted and these comments are evidence of this. - J. S.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.

Click for a Printer Friendly Version
 
THE REAL HISTORY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS PROJECT
Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500, Ten Commandments case from Texas (argued March 2, 2005);
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, No. 03-1693, Ten Commandments case from Kentucky (argued March 2, 2005);
America's supreme court awaits final judgment in the politics of succession
Biography of Chief Justice Rehnquist
Judge: Ten Commandments can stay at Capitol
Recent Supreme Court Decisions
ReligionLink - Resources for Reporters
 
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Dinesh D'Souza
Dinesh D'Souza, the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, served as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House in 1987-1988. He is the best-selling author of Illiberal Education, The End of Racism, Ronald Reagan, The Virtue of Prosperity, and What's So Great About America. He is the designated expert on current American culture for tothesource.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.