So, you all may have heard about "Judicial Sunday", the televised rally of sorts that the religious right put on to criticize Democrats for wanting to use the filibuster "against people of faith". In the last few days, a variety of newspapers and online journals have published articles discussing this event. The PI has an editorial criticizing Senator Frist for his involvement, and a great cartoon on the topic of judicial nominees and evangelical Christians. And Salon.com has an article that points out the faulty logic that the evangelicals are using to claim that they are victims of religious discrimination, and the way they claim that putting the Bible above the law is desirable behavior in a judge, which is certainly troubling to me.

One of the things that has long seemed a little strange (and very frustrating) to me is the way that some mainstream (conservative) groups claim that extending rights to a different group somehow restricts their rights and freedoms. For example, the issue of gay marriage: allowing gay people to marry does not prevent straight people from doing anything that they could do before, except prevent gay people from getting married. Allowing civil marriage between gays does not force churches to perform religious marriages of gays. Likewise, abortion: legalizing abortion does not force anyone who believes it is wrong to have one. No one (at least, no one legitimate from the pro-choice movement, I guess I can't use an absolute) is out there saying that they think people should be forced to get abortions. It's simple: if you think abortion is bad, don't have one! On the flip side, though, criminalizing abortion would restrict the rights of others who perhaps see it as a last resort, albeit not a desirable one, if they are not ready to have a child.

The same sort of logic is now being used by some Christians who claim that they are under assault by liberals, the judiciary, you name it. From the article in Salon:
"For 44 years, the Supreme Court has been on a campaign to limit religious freedom," Dobson said. He continued, "We do have a right to participate in this great representative form of government." From the way the crowd cheered, you'd have thought someone had told them they didn't.
It seems that they are arguing that because they can't impose their religious beliefs on others, they are being discriminated against. In my memory, I don't recall any recent decisions that prevent people from attending a house of worship, or praying in private, or generally following the dictates of any given religion. The exception, of course, is when a religion dictates that to practice it fully, you must impose it on others who are not of that religion, because then you are imposing on that person's freedom of religion. This exception is necessary to follow the first amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." because, as it has been interpreted, passing a law that requires people to follow dictates specific to a religion is effectively establishing a state-sponsored religion. After all, the less-frequently quoted ninth amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Yes, I looked it up...)

One of my friends, in a conversation about these sorts of issues, once said that he doesn't have a problem with people who disagree with him, as long as they have fully thought through and accepted the consequences of their positions. I agree, and this is where I feel these groups are lacking. These sorts of groups cry out about the horrors of judicial activism, yet the very judges that have been blocked by the Dems using the filibuster are some of the most extreme judicial activists out there. In my humble opinion, if you are going to ask for a strict interpretation of the constitution and the law, then you have to ask for it across the board. You know it's gotta be bad when Bush's own attorney general has described a ruling by one of the nominees as an "unconscionable act of judicial activism". Pick one, guys, is judicial activism good or bad? And no, saying "only if it's to follow the Bible" is not a valid answer.

And with all that, we haven't even begun to discuss whether the filibuster will be eliminated - but that's a topic for another day.