--- by Micheal Shackelford:
What stood out as noteworthy in the otherwise over-scripted confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts, was how often the word "fundamental" was being uttered by Democratic Senators.
Senator Biden (D-DE) repeatedly agonized about a citizen's "fundamental right to die." Senator Leahy (D-VT) spoke proudly of being "protective of our fundamental rights and liberties," as well as fundamental rights of all Americans. Senator Durbin (D-IL) also spoke of an unalterable "fundamental right of privacy".
Nowadays, "fundamentalism" is touted as a bad thing (from the left's point of view). Fundamentalists are cultists, extremists and bombers. Yet why were so many Democratic Senators preaching to Judge Roberts about the need for standing firm on fundamentals?
The term "fundamentalism" began in the early 20th century as a reaction against liberal modernism in churches, which allowed just about any teaching as true. For instance, that Jesus might not have really existed, but was just a spiritual mythic character, that the Bible was just moral stories, that the real center of the universe was to be found "within", etc. A segment of Christendom rebelled against the modernist slide into relativism and drew a line in the sand. They stated that some things could not be watered down and redefined to suit a whim de jour. Things like: Jesus did live, was born of a virgin, performed real miracles, died and rose again, were not negotiable. They were "fundamental" beliefs. Hence, a fundamental Christian was not a cultist, or an extremist, but one who held to those fundamental beliefs.
From their recent heavy use of the word, the many Democratic Senators do clearly understand the original meaning of the word fundamental. They are worrying out loud about the possible erosion of liberalism's fundamental doctrinal points -- espeically the sovereignty of Self. They were demanding liberal fundamentalism of Judge Roberts.
Apparently it's not so bad to be a fundamentalist, as long as you're the kind they like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Michael:
No Democrat has an issue with a "fundamentalist" here in America (unless they really are bombers or gun men...more on that) -- what any good American has a problem with is when that/those fundamentalist(s) seek to force others who do not share their beliefs to live as they would live, or when they insist on trying to blur the lines between religion and government, decide arbitrarily what is good vs. what is evil, etc.
When that happens, of course Democrats get pissed...as well we should.
Most if not all who identify themselves as Democrats would be repelled by the idea of attempting to force others to live in a manner that we might think is best, or believe what we believe.
In contrast to all of the oh-so-boring bleatings of the conservative establishment about how "un-American" we are, Democrats uniformly support the importance of, as you put it, the Sovereignty of Self -- truly a "fundamental" American value.
You would think that a hard-core Democrat and hard-core Republican would share that in common...but the difference is that the latter group seems to only want individuals to have that right to privacy and sanctity of self AS LONG AS they are living according to a set of rules written by Conservatives (and frankly, steeped in religious doctrine).
And THAT is quite UN-American indeed. That is what those Democratic Senators were pressing Roberts so hard on...and the fact that Roberts refused to address those questions means that all of us, Dems and Republicans alike, are in danger of living in an America where what you say, teach, what you smoke or who you have sex with and how often is at risk of being outlawed by whomever is in power.
As for the comment about "Fundamentalists are cultists, extremists and bombers"...if the shoe fits and all that. Abortion clinic assassinations & bombings, the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing, Okalahoma City bombing, unibomber, etc, etc. Don't recall any of those folks being card-carrying members of the ACLU.
Post a Comment