Faith-based justices

Faith-based justices

If you’re Catholic, the only reason you might have to take moral or principled stance is because you’re a mindless drone taking orders from Rome. That’s been the consensus of the liberal establishment after the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban.

Joan Crawford Greenburg, ABC News’ legal correspondent, looks at the phenomenon in her official blog, in a post entitled “Faith-Based Justices”.

While she starts with the inanities voiced by crackpot conspiracy theorist Rosie “fire doesn’t melt steel” O’Donnell, Greenburg also includes more mainstream liberal voices like Geoffrey Stone, former law school dean and provost of University of Chicago:

“Ultimately, the five justices in the majority all fell back on a common argument to justify their position. There is, they say, a compelling moral reason for the result in Gonzales,” Stone writes. “By making this judgment, these justices have failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality.”

What the reaction tells us is that many of these people don’t understand just what religion is, or if they do, they don’t accept the traditional understanding of its role. For much of society, religion is a comforting fairy tale we tell ourselves for an hour on Sundays, but which should have no real effect on the rest of our lives. At worst it’s just another form of power grab by an age-old institution.

They just can't accept that one might believe in God and believe that God has a plan for the right ordering of society and believe that God has communicated that plan in a sensible and ordered fashion.

Only in rejecting one's faith is one principled

Technorati Tags: | | | |

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli