Friday, October 21, 2005


I would like to thank the stereotypical conservative evangelicals who have made it impossible for any morality issues to be discussed without being tainted by their hate and inability to see the gray area. If I speak out against the current cultural climate I am immediately put in a category with Falwell, Robertson and the like.

I was watching a segment on the Today Show that spoke of the sexual activity of today’s teens and I wanted to say: of course our children are more violent and active in the seedy side of casual sex. Did you think that by cloaking immorality in words like ‘capitalism’ and ‘free speech’ that there would be no repercussions? Have you seen MTV lately? Have you noticed the amount of parents who ‘medicate’ their children with filler tv and video games as they continue their quest for the almighty dollar or their own right to feel good? Did you not think suburban warfare would have any casualties?

But I cannot say that because even my own mind flinches in horror and says to me “you sound like a faith-based initiative.”

And while I'm at it how come during the last inquisition of the proposed Supreme Court justice the media and democrats were chastised for bringing religion into it saying it should not be allowed in the equation and yet for the current proposed Supreme Court justice it has become the platform of choice and the stated reason why she should be approved?

Can anyone red and 'right' please just acknowledge the hypocrisy of it all so we can move on towards a better government blue, red or whatever color you choose?!



brother terry said...


I'm not one of those guys even though they "claim" me as a brother.


Quotidian Grace said...

I agree that it is hypocritcal to urge people to support Harriet Miers because she is an evangelical Christian after objecting to questions about John Roberts' Catholicism was irrelevant.

I don't think Miers has the qualifications needed for the Supreme Court. You and I would probably disagree on who should be nominated in her place.

But we should be able to agree that whoever is nominated should have experience on a federal appeallate court and a body of respected written opinions that demonstrate the ability to understand and adjudicate issues of federal and Constitutional law.

In Texas legal circles there is a rumor going around that two better-qualified people refused this nomination because they didn't want to subject their families to the "Borking" promised any conservative nominee by the liberal Democratic caucus in the Senate. Witness the shameful attempt by the NY Times to open the adoption records of Roberts' children in an attempt to find some irregularity to discredit him with.

If we want to see well-qualified candidates for the Supreme Court agree to be nominated, regardless of their judicial philosophy,this has to change. If not, then we'll continue to see nominees with no "paper trail" of experience to examine--so ad hominem attacks will continue and discourage qualified people from agreeing to be nominated.

And mark my words, if a Democratic administration comes in after Bush--the shoe will be on the other foot. And this will hurt the administration of justice in this country.

will smama said...

QG, I agree with everything you wrote (although I am not sure I would disagree with who you think should be nominated).

I had wondered who in their right mind would actually be willing to put their family through the grilling of a Supreme Court nomination. Your Texas insider info made sense.

I agree there are no innocents here: republican, democrat, media, etc...

Sometimes my idealistic heart wishes our government could just have one big do-over since I'm pretty sure this is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

go 'stros.

Quotidian Grace said...

I agree on the "do-over" and of course on the 'stros!