5/23/2005

Thomas Sowell's Article on Judicial Bigotry
reasoned audacity at charmaineyoest.com: "
Bigotry and the Bench: Sowell is Brilliant

In her blog REASONED AUDACITY, Charmaine Yoest quotes an article by conservative columnist Thomas Sowell. Her quote is as follows:


"Maybe the non-stop denunciations of judicial nominees by Senate Democrats will seem relevant to some people but it is in fact wholly beside the point. Senators who don't like any particular judicial nominee -- or any nominee for any other federal appointment -- have a right to vote against that nominee for any reason or for no reason. . .
. . .The real issue is whether those Senators have the right to deprive all other Senators of the right to vote on these nominees. . . The essence of bigotry is denying other people the same rights you have. For generations, it was racial bigotry which provoked filibusters to prevent the Senate from voting on bills to extend civil rights to blacks. But bigotry is bigotry, whether it is racial bigotry, religious bigotry or political bigotry.
The truth is, the Left lost the election in November. And they simply refuse to accept the loss. After all, 'those people' couldn't have won, could they?
Case in point: Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation, on This Week yesterday talking about those 'right-wing Christians.' Voice dripping with scorn. That's bigotry. And it's not any prettier dressed up with intellectual pretension."

This article interests me because of another opinion that I saw posted on the blog
TEMPUS FUGIT TEMPUS FUGIT at TXFX.NET. The article, entitled 'Don’t Like It? Walk Away"
was talking about walking away if things you did not like did not affect your personal freedoms. At least, that is what I think it was saying. So I agree with Mr. Sowell in that, while senators have the right to vote against nominees, they do not have the right to deprive others of the right to vote on the nominees.

I had not thought of this as bigotry, exactly, but it does seem as if the left has defined any conservative view as Christian. And while I AM a Christian, I don't think that many moral things can necessarily be defined solely as Christian. There were other codes of law, Hammurabi's being one, that laid down MORAL statutes that were not defined as Christian.

Why is being Christian or conservative such a bad thing nowadays? Why is it only OK to voice your opinion if you are liberal?

As Mark, who wrote the post on TEMPUS FUGIT, put it, "There is no “right to remain unoffended."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home