[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 50 (Friday, April 22, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4144-S4148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RELIGIOUS McCARTHYISM
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah for his usual
courtesy. After all, he has in his lineage a Senator. His father, as
does he, served as a Senator. He knows, as did his father, the normal
courtesies that make this place run so much more smoothly. So I
appreciate it.
I spoke at the beginning of the week about the alarming rise of
religious McCarthyism. I hoped that by drawing attention to this
situation the majority leader and other Republican leaders would speak
out against any campaign that improperly characterizes Senators as
being ``against people of faith.'' That demonizing of Senators and
their motives has no place in this country, and absolutely none in
debate among Senators. It is a slur. It is a smear. It is untrue. Every
Senator, Republican and Democratic, knows it. The Republicans should
denounce a campaign based on bigotry and demagoguery.
With rare exceptions, they have refused to do so. And even the
majority leader will apparently act in support of such a campaign this
weekend.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield for one, but I would prefer--
Mr. BENNETT. It is only one.
I wonder if the Senator heard my denunciation of that kind of thing
when I gave my speech?
Mr. LEAHY. I was about to refer to that. So I now do refer to the
fact that the Senator from Utah said people should not be demonized as
being against people of faith if they oppose somebody.
I appreciate it. It is the first time I have heard that said on his
side of the aisle. Unfortunately, many others have been saying just the
opposite. That is why I wish the majority leader would not act in
support of such a campaign this weekend.
The upcoming telecast to incite congregants with the false charge
that those who oppose judicial activists are anti-Christian or anti-
faith is wrong. It is divisive and it is destructive. That Republican
officials will lend support to that effort through their silence,
rather than denounce it, is disturbing and disappointing. I appreciate
the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, finally speaking out, or having a
voice finally speak out from that side of the aisle denouncing it.
To divide the American people along religious lines is wrong. It has
always been wrong. Smearing political opponents as anti-faith is
despicable. Apparently, some will stop at nothing and stoop to any
level. No scurrilous charge is too coarse; no baseless accusation is
too outlandish. When a few of us had the honor of attending the funeral
of Pope John Paul II in Rome as part of the official Senate delegation
recently, guess what happened. Democrats, but not Republicans, were
castigated for not being present in Washington. There were, of course,
seven Republicans and seven Democrats. The same people who make these
charges castigated the Democrats for being in Rome.
When we explain in public session the basis on which we have decided
to oppose a nomination of somebody we believe does not merit a lifetime
appointment to the Federal bench, the judicial activism we detail is
ignored and we are smeared as anti this or anti that. So I thank the
many religious leaders who have come forward this week to uphold
America's great traditions of respecting faith, honoring faith, and
ensuring that the constitutional prohibition against any religious test
for public office be strictly observed.
Christian leaders from a variety of denominations, Muslim leaders,
and Jewish leaders, have joined to reject these disgraceful efforts of
a few partisans injecting religion into the discussion of judicial
nominations. They have publicly denounced the efforts of the religious
demagogues making slanderous charges in a win-at-all-costs bid to rile
the passions and to further divide Americans one from another. I am
grateful for the voices of these religious leaders. We need less
division, not more. We need to work together more, not less. We need to
unite, not divide.
I share the disappointment of the more than 400 religious leaders who
have written to Majority Leader Frist urging him to ``repudiate those
who misuse religion for political purposes and who impugn the faith of
any who disagree with them.''
All of us need to repudiate the message of divisiveness and religious
manipulation.
The Reverend Dr. Weldon Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance,
recently wrote to Senator Frist to warn against transforming ``religion
by baptizing it as a disciple of partisan politics.''
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League,
reminded Senator Frist:
Religious liberty has flourished in our nation precisely
because Americans have been steadfast in their commitment
against sowing religious discord as a means to achieve
political success.
My Irish and my Italian grandparents, like so many others, came to
this country seeking a better life for their families, not just a
better job but the freedoms that have always been so much a part of
America's great attraction. But it has taken time and pain for us to
realize as a nation that dream of religious freedom and tolerance.
I remember my parents talking about days I thought were long past,
when Irish Catholics were greeted with signs that told them they need
not apply for jobs. Italian Catholics were told that they and their
religious ways were not wanted. That is what my grandparents
experienced and my parents saw. The smears we are seeing today mock the
pain and injustice that so many American Catholics endured. We have
come too far to turn back to the darkness of intolerance.
Partisans these days are seeking to rekindle the flames of bigotry
for
[[Page S4145]]
short-term political gain. That is more than just wrong, it is
despicable. To raise the specter of religious intolerance in order to
try to turn our strong, independent Federal courts into an arm of a
political party is an outrage. It is shocking that some would
cavalierly destroy the independence of our Federal courts and with it
the best protection Americans have of our freedoms.
This tactical shift follows on the rhetorical attacks on judges over
the past few weeks in which Federal judges were likened to the KKK and
``the focus of evil.'' At an event attended by Members of Congress, we
have heard calls for Stalinist solutions to problems; the Stalinist
solution being, of course, if you have somebody you don't agree with,
you kill them. Stalin said: No man, no problem.
We have heard the calls for mass impeachments. Last week the Senate
Democratic leadership called upon the President and the Republican
leadership of Congress to denounce the inflammatory statements against
judges. This week I renew my call to all Senators--and in particular to
my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans--to denounce
the religious McCarthyism that is again pervading this debate. I am sad
to see so many Senators stay silent when they should disavow these
abuses. Why Republicans do not heed the clarion call that our former
colleague, Senator John Danforth, an Episcopalian priest, sounded a few
weeks ago, I don't know.
The demagoguery and divisive politics being so cynically used by
supporters of the President's most extreme judicial nominees needs to
stop. These smears are lies and, like all lies, depend on the silence
of others to live and to gain root. It is time for the silence to end.
The Bush administration has to accept responsibility for the smear
campaign. They have to end it. This kind of religious smear campaign
doesn't just hurt Democrats, it hurts the whole country. It hurts
Christians and it hurts non-Christians. It hurts all of us because the
Constitution requires judges to apply the law, not their personal
views. Remember that all of us, no matter what our faith--and I am
proud of mine--are able to practice our religion as we choose or not to
practice a religion. The beauty of the first amendment is we can
practice any religion we wish or none if we wish. It is a fundamental
guarantee of our Constitution. The Constitution's prohibition against a
religious test in Article VI is consistent with that fundamental
freedom.
All Americans should understand the Constitution is there to protect
all of us. It is the protection of the Constitution that has allowed
this country to evolve into a tolerant Nation. It was not always a
tolerant Nation; it has evolved into one. But the Constitution has
protected that evolution.
Those who would try to drag us back into religious intolerance for
short-term political gains subvert the Constitution and damage the
country. There are those who say that we are against people of faith if
we have opposed a handful of the President's nominees. By their false
logic, the 205 judicial nominees nominated by President Bush whom
Democratic Senators have helped to confirm would seem not to be people
of faith, if that is our litmus test. Of course, that is as false and
ridiculous on its face as are the slurs being insinuated against those
who have opposed the few other nominees who have not been confirmed.
Those who hurl these false charges never mention that the same
Senators they are slandering have supported hundreds of nominees who
are people of faith. They never hesitate to stoke the flames of bigotry
and to encourage their supporters to continue the smear in cyberspace
or the pages of the newspapers or through direct mail or radio ads.
Maybe this slander is the only thing that tests well in their political
polls so that even though untrue, it is the one thing they can agree
upon. Sort of the equivalent of the weapons of mass destruction, the
justification for attacking Iraq: it turned out it wasn't true, but it
was certainly convenient.
Not only must this bogus religious test end, but Senators should
denounce the launching of the so-called nuclear option, the
Republicans' precedent-shattering proposal to destroy the Senate in one
stroke while shifting more power over the Senate to the White House, to
destroy the kind of checks and balances the Senate has historically
had.
I would like to keep the Senate safe and secure and in a ``nuclear-
free'' zone. The partisan power play Senate Republicans are now likely
to employ will undermine the checks and balances established by the
Founders in the Constitution. One of the beauties of this country is we
have always had checks and balances. That is how the most powerful
Nation on Earth remains a democracy, and it does not have the
temptation to become a dictatorship, something that none of us,
Republicans or Democrats, would want.
If you remove the checks and balances so that you can nominate judges
who will be basically an arm of one element of the Republican Party,
then you have taken a giant leap toward an unfettered executive
controlling all three branches of the Federal Government--a Republican-
controlled House, Republican-controlled Senate, the Presidency, and now
the Federal judiciary, the one part that should be above politics.
It will not only demean the Senate--a Senate I have been proud to
serve in for 31 years--but it will destroy the comity on which it
depends. It also will undermine the strong independent Federal
judiciary that has protected the rights and liberties of all Americans
against the overreaching of the political branches, whether the branch
is controlled by Democrats or by Republicans.
Our Senate Parliamentarian, who steps away from politics and simply
tells us what the rules are, and the Congressional Research Service,
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have both said the so-
called nuclear option would violate Senate precedent. I would ask my
friends on the Republican side, do you really want to blatantly break
the rules just for some short-term political gain? Do you really want
to turn the Senate, this unique Chamber, into a place where the
parliamentary equivalent of brute force is what prevails?
The recently constituted Iraqi National Assembly was elected in
January. In April it acted pursuant to its governing law to select a
presidency council by the required vote of two-thirds of the Assembly.
It required two-thirds, a supermajority. That same governing law says
it can only be amended by a three-quarters vote of the National
Assembly. The use of the nuclear option in the Senate would be akin to
the Iraqis in the majority political party of the Assembly saying they
have decided to change the law to allow them to pick only members of
their party for the government, and to do so by a simple majority vote.
That is certainly different than what our own President has praised
it for in requiring that supermajority. They might feel justified in
acting contrary to law because the Kurds and the Sunni were driving a
hard bargain and because governing through consensus is not as easy as
ruling unilaterally. Governing by consensus is not supposed to be. That
is why our system of government is the world's example.
If Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds can cooperate in their new
government to make democratic decisions, I would think it would be a
lot easier for Republicans and Democrats to do so in the Senate. If the
Iraqi law and Assembly can protect minority rights and participation,
so can the rules in the Senate. That has been the defining
characteristic of the Senate. It is one of the principal ways in which
it was designed to be so distinct from the House of Representatives.
This week, the Senate debated an emergency supplemental
appropriations bill to fund the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The justification for these billions of dollars being spent every
single week--billions of dollars in American taxpayers' money--is that
we are seeking to establish democracies.
How ironic that at the same time we are undertaking these efforts at
great cost to so many American families, some are seeking to undermine
the protection of minority rights and the checks and balances
represented by the Senate through our own history.
This week the Secretary of State said in Moscow that ``the
centralization of the state power in the presidency at the expense of
countervailing institutions like the Duma or an independent
[[Page S4146]]
judiciary is clearly very wrong.'' Just as those developments undercut
democracy in Russia, so, too, our American democracy is undercut by the
concentration of power in the Executive, removing checks and balances
and undermining the independence of the Federal judiciary. It is ironic
given that the President and Secretary of State speak so eloquently
about the fundamental requirements of a democratic society--and I
applaud them for doing that. They do it when they meet with President
Putin of Russia. At the same time, the Bush administration and Senate
Republicans are intent to employ the nuclear option to consolidate
power in this Presidency in this country.
The President has, in his own words, acknowledged that democracy
relies on the sharing of power. I publicly applauded his inaugural
speech when he talked about this issue. He acknowledged that democracy
relies on the sharing of power, on checks and balances, on the
independent court system, the protection of minority rights, and on
safeguarding human rights and dignity. But the so-called nuclear option
is in direct contradiction to maintaining those values and those
components of our democracy.
Just as Abu Ghraib and other abuses make it more difficult for our
country effectively to condemn torture and abuse when we speak to the
rest of the world, the nuclear option used as a partisan effort to
consolidate power in a single political party and institution would
make all the lectures on democracy we give to leaders of other
countries ring hollow.
I spoke to a group of Russian Parliamentarians--if I might tell a
short story--who came to see me shortly after the Soviet Union
collapsed. They wanted to talk about our Federal judiciary. Like other
representatives I heard in other emerging democracies, they asked: ``Is
it true that the U.S. Government might be a party in a lawsuit, but
then the Government could lose?''
I said: Absolutely right.
They said: You mean people would dare to sue the Government?
I said: It happens all the time. We have an independent judiciary.
Yes, they could.
They said: Well, if the Government actually lost, don't you fire the
judge?
I said: No, they are an independent judiciary.
I have argued cases on behalf of the Government where it might have
been nice to fire the judge, but that is not the way we do things. It
amazes people in other parts of the world. They are amazed that people
have disagreed with their Government and could actually go to court,
bring a challenge, and seek redress, even if it meant the Government
would have to lose to get that redress.
Chief Justice Rehnquist is right to refer to our independent
judiciary as the crown jewel of our democracy. It is more than a crown
jewel, it is a dazzling jewel, a light to the rest of the world,
especially those parts of the world that want to become democratic
nations.
Judicial fairness and independence is also essential if we are to
maintain our freedoms. I would say to the majority leader of the other
body, Mr. DeLay, and others, stop slamming the Federal judiciary. We
don't have to agree with every one of their opinions. And we don't on
either side. Let us respect their independence.
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Presidential election in
2000, I thought that the 5-to-4 majority--a very close majority, a one-
vote majority--engaged in an incredible and overreaching act of
judicial activism. But I went on the floor of the body and before the
television cameras and I called for Americans to respect the opinion of
the Court, even though I disagreed with it.
On the Judiciary Committee at the time, I attended the argument of
Bush v. Gore, side by side with my Republican counterpart. We wanted to
show the country that we had to get along and work together. Democrats
didn't ask to impeach Justice Scalia when we wholeheartedly disagreed
with his action. Instead we took to the floor of this body and the
other body and to the airwaves and said the Supreme Court has spoken.
We must uphold the decision of the Court.
Part of upholding the Constitution is upholding the independence of
the third branch of Government. One political party or the other will
control the Presidency, as they have for over 200 years. One party or
the other will control Congress.
In my 30 years here, I have been in the majority several times and in
the minority several times. These things go back and forth. No
political party should control the judiciary. It has to be independent
of all political parties. Think of it, that was the genius of the
Founders of this country: one branch of Government, totally independent
of the other, independent of political parties. That genius has
protected our liberties and rights for well over 200 years. It is a
genius of this country that will continue to protect us, unless we
allow some to destroy it for short-term political gain. It would be a
terrible diminution of our rights if we were to remove the independence
of our Federal judiciary. We are liable to do something that no army
that marched against us have ever been able to do to this most
wonderful of democracies. If you take away the independence of our
Federal judiciary, then our whole Constitutional fabric unravels. And
that bright promise that brought my ancestors here from Italy and
Ireland would be diminished--the bright promise that I hope continues
for my children and grandchildren.
Mr. President, I have spoken long and I appreciate the courtesy of my
colleague from Utah.
I close by asking unanimous consent that copies of letters sent by
hundreds of religious leaders to Senator Frist, the letter from the
Interfaith Alliance to Senator Frist, the statement by the National
Council of Churches, the letter from the Anti-Defamation League to
Senator Frist, and a statement from Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of
the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
April 21, 2005.
American Religious Leaders and Supporters Opposed to ``Justice
Sunday's'' Manipulation of Faith
Hon. Bill Frist,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Frist: We write as religious leaders who
cherish America's distinctive tradition of religious respect,
tolerance, and pluralism.
We write as members of religious traditions that revere
truth and are guided by prophetic calls to seek justice.
We are gravely disappointed that you have lent support to
those who are trying to create confusion and sow division
with false charges of religious discrimination and
persecution. Good people can and do differ on policy
questions like the filibuster. We emphatically reject claims
that those who seek to uphold the country's traditions of
checks and balances are forcing Christians to choose between
their faith and public service.
It is simply not truthful to assert that supporting the
filibuster amounts to an attack on people of faith. Most,
perhaps all, of the 95% of the Bush nominees who have been
approved, have been people of faith. They enjoyed support
from both sides of the aisle.
As Senate Majority Leader, you have a responsibility to
defend your colleagues on both sides of the aisle, public
servants whom you know to be deeply religious people, from
shameful and divisive accusations that they are attacking
people of faith. You have a responsibility to defend the
Nation from efforts utilizing deception and fear-mongering to
manipulate Americans of faith. And, perhaps most importantly,
as one of our Nation's highest elected officials, you have a
responsibility to repudiate those who misuse religion for
political purposes and who impugn the faith of any who
disagree with them.
Your participation in the ``Justice Sunday'' event gives
your personal stamp of approval and legitimizes an event
built on inflammatory falsehoods. We urge you either to
withdraw your participation in this event or, if you
participate, to use that opportunity to repudiate the message
of divisiveness and religious manipulation that is at the
core of the gathering.
Sincerely,
Signed by 406 religious leaders.
____
April 17, 2005.
Hon. William Frist,
Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Frist: As President of The Interfaith
Alliance, a national, grassroots organization with 150,000
members coming from over 75 different faith traditions, I
write to you again about your interest in introducing to the
United States Senate your so-called ``nuclear option.''
However, the focus of this open letter to you is the
association being made between a person's political position
on the nuclear option and the
[[Page S4147]]
legitimacy of that person's religion. Though my personal
language to you does not reflect the precise manner in which
each of our 150,000 members would speak to you, the crucial
concern in my message to you represents a primal interest and
resonates with the mindset of these diverse individuals in
this inter-religious movement.
Senator Frist, I suppose it was bound to happen. Leaders of
the religious right and politicians pushing a partisan agenda
in the name of religion have so intermingled politics and
religion that, now, even you, the leader of the United States
Senate, appear unable to discern the difference between
authentic faith and partisan politics. I can think of no
other reason that you would address a group of people and
even offer encouragement to people who have announced that
opposition to the elimination of the filibuster signals
antipathy toward religious faith, thus fostering a
redefinition of religion that is blasphemy and a redefinition
of democracy that is scary.
Politically-based judgments about faith are inappropriate
at best, but, at worst, they raise suspicions about the
motivations of those who make them. Do such politically-
motivated judgments about religion come from people--
political leaders or spiritual leaders--attempting to
manipulate religion to advance their personal brand of
politics? Regardless of the reason for the out-of-bounds
judgment, the judgment does not work. Oh, to be sure, it may
gain a person or a group an edge in political advantage, but
it fails as a valid criterion for evaluating religion. A
particular political posture never will be the standard by
which to measure the authenticity of a religious conviction!
Even the suggestion that a person's support or opposition to
religious faith can be determined by that person's support or
opposition to a political initiative called ``the nuclear
option'' is derogatory of religion and an insult to
democracy. I would think that you would want to disassociate
yourself from such thought.
Though I personally disagree with your enthusiasm for
eradicating the historic practice of the filibuster, viewing
your efforts as a broadside to a democracy that values the
rights of the minority whether in the Senate or in society
as a whole, I never would pass judgment on the integrity
of your religious faith because of your commitment to that
political strategy.
Senator Frist, I grew up in the state that you represent.
In a fundamentalist Baptist church in West Tennessee, I was
taught the value of religious liberty--its value for
Christianity and its value for government. The people in that
congregation knew the sad history of a denial of rights to
religious minorities prior to the passage of the First
Amendment to the Constitution. With gratitude to God for that
invaluable education, my conviction about the dangers of
entangling religion and government (not faith and politics)
has intensified across the years. Please understand that many
of us are scared to death that we see a precious
constitutional principle being dismantled in order for a few
religious people who claim to speak for all religious people
to have their religious views imposed on the entire
population of the nation through the power of the United
States government.
With a religious conscience as enflamed as the conscience
of anybody in the religious right, I oppose the election of
judges who will, in the name of religion, make decisions that
politicize religion and blunt the vitality as well as
compromise the integrity of the rich religious community in
this nation. Must my religious conviction be attacked as
``anti-faith'' simply because I do not agree with you when
you attempt to destroy a democratic process that has been
tried and true? If I feel that way as a person who is a
member of your faith tradition, you only can imagine what
people from other religious traditions and people within no
religious tradition are feeling about such tactics and the
implicit, if not explicit, endorsement of those tactics by
you and other political leaders.
For you to use your prestigious Senate position to
encourage ferocious attacks on the judiciary launched by the
people to whom you plan to speak next Sunday and for you to
condone their framing of partisan political posturing as an
act of faith so that all who are opposed to their theocratic
aggression are dubbed anti-religion are insults to the
Senate, a blow to democracy, and a cause for great anxiety in
the broader community committed to the historic values of
democracy.
All of us should be clear in understanding that the most
anti-faith initiatives in our nation right now are those that
seek to transform religion by baptizing it as a disciple of
partisan politics. A call for respect for balancing the three
branches of government and for respecting minority voices in
Congress even as in society is not a religious act, but it is
a pervasively patriotic act on the part of people who feel
like a few are trying to steal the nation from the many in
the same way that they have tried to hijack religion and
claim that only their voices represent people of faith.
Members of The Interfaith Alliance like me personally love
this nation too much and appreciate the role of religion in
the nation too much to allow a destructive entanglement of
religion and politics to go without challenge. I urge you
to reconsider your commitment to speak to a group on
Sunday evening that seems to love the nation only when the
leaders of the nation favor their particular religion and
their preferences in politics. If you proceed with the
speech, however, I urge you to make clear that neither
your politics nor their politics, whether those two are
the same or different, represent a religious position.
Even though you will be speaking to people gathered in a
church, we all know that you are doing politics and
claiming a divine blessing depicted as exclusive to your
position. Such an act has no place in a house of worship
or, for that matter, in the repertoire or rhetoric of a
statesman in this great, diverse nation.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
President, The Interfaith Alliance Pastor of Preaching and
Worship, Northminster Baptist Church, Monroe, Louisiana
Member of the Council of 100 Leaders, World Economic Forum.
____
Disagreeing Without Demonizing
A partisan political campaign to change the Senate
filibuster rules has taken a detour through church-state
territory, and NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar has challenged
the tactics as ``dangerous and divisive'' to the nation's
religious and public life. In a statement issued Tuesday,
Edgar says:
``We are surprised and grieved by a campaign launched this
week by Family Research Council and Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist, who said that those who disagree with them on
President Bush's judicial nominees are `against people of
faith.'
``This campaign, which they are calling `Justice Sunday,'
should properly be called `Just-Us' Sunday. Their attempt to
impose on the entire country a narrow, exclusivist, private
view of truth is a dangerous, divisive tactic. It serves to
further polarize our nation, and it disenfranchises and
demonizes good people of faith who hold political beliefs
that differ from theirs.
``To brand any group of American citizens as `anti-
Christian' simply because they differ on political issues
runs counter to the values of both faith and democracy. It is
especially disheartening when that accusation is aimed at
fellow Christians. The National Council of Churches
encompasses more than 45 million believers across a broad
spectrum of theology and politics who work together on issues
important to our society. If they disagree with Senator
Frist's political positions, are these 45 million Christians
now considered `anti-Christian'?
``In the spirit of 1 Timothy 6:3-5, we urge Senator Frist
and the Family Research Council to reconsider their plan. We
will be praying for the Lord to minister to them and change
their hearts so that they will not continue to take our
nation down this destructive path.''
____
April 15, 2005.
Hon. Bill Frist
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Frist: We are deeply troubled by reports that
you will be participating in the upcoming telecast ``Justice
Sunday,'' scheduled for April 24, and we strongly urge you to
reconsider lending support to that program. The heated debate
regarding the status of the filibuster in the United States
Senate is a quintessentially political contest, not a
religious struggle. Nor should it be portrayed as such.
Whatever one's views may be on this or any other issue,
playing the ``religious'' card is as unacceptable as playing
the ``race'' card.
The proposal to change the Senate's procedural rules draws
both support and opposition from people of all faiths, as
well as from citizens who do not ascribe to religious
beliefs. ``Justice Sunday's'' message--that the filibuster is
being used as a weapon in the judicial confirmation process
to discriminate against ``people of faith''--is deeply flawed
and a dangerous affront to fundamental principles of American
democracy.
Religious liberty has flourished in our nation precisely
because Americans have been steadfast in their commitment
against sowing religious discord as means to achieve
political success. History shows that doing otherwise
promotes destructive religious competition, discrimination,
and even persecution. Responsible leaders must avoid taking
this country down that road.
Sincerely,
Abraham H. Foxman,
National Director.
____
[From the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, April 15, 2005]
Reform Jewish Movement Calls on Senator Frist to Repudiate Claim That
Judicial Nominees Are Victims of a ``Filibuster Against Faith''
Washington--In response to Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist's plan to join a telecast whose organizing theme is
that those who oppose some of President Bush's judicial
nominees are engaged in an assault on ``people of faith,''
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action
Center of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement:
The news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to
join a telecast whose organizing theme is that those who
oppose some of President Bush's judicial nominees are engaged
in an assault on ``people of faith'' is more than troubling;
it is disingenuous, dangerous, and demagogic. We call on him
to reconsider his decision to appear on the telecast and to
forcefully disassociate himself from this outrageous claim.
[[Page S4148]]
Senator Frist must not give legitimacy to those who claim
they hold a monopoly on faith. They do not. They assert, in
the words of Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research
Council and organizer of the telecast, that there is a vast
conspiracy by the courts ``to rob us of our Christian
heritage and our religious freedoms.'' There is no such
conspiracy. They have been unable to ram through the most
extreme of the President's nominees, and now they are
spinning new claims out of thin air.
Alas, this is not an isolated incident. This past week, the
Christian Coalition convened a conference in Washington
entitled, ``Confronting the Judicial War on Faith.'' Their
special guest speaker was the House Majority Leader, Rep. Tom
DeLay. When leaders of the Republican Party lend their
imprimatur to such outrageous claims, including, at the
conference, calls for mass impeachment of Federal Judges, it
should be of deep concern to all who care about religion. It
should also be of concern to President Bush whose silence, in
the wake of the claims made both at the conference in
Washington and in the upcoming telecast, is alarming.
The telecast is scheduled to take place on the second night
of the Passover holiday, when Jews around the world gather
together to celebrate our religious freedom. It was in part
for exactly such freedom that we fled Egypt. It was in part
for exactly such freedom that so many of us came to this
great land. And it is in very large part because of exactly
such freedom that we and our neighbors here have built a
nation uniquely welcoming to people of faith--of all faiths.
We believe Senator Frist knows these things as well. His
association with the scheduled telecast is, in a word,
shameful. We call upon him to disassociate himself from the
claim that the Senate is participating in a filibuster
against faith, and to withdraw his participation from April
24th event.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is
recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________