ShareThis Page
Faith and governance: Where’s the line? |

Faith and governance: Where’s the line?

| Wednesday, August 6, 2003 12:00 a.m

There has been some uproar about a recent commercial accusing Democrats of blocking Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor’s nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because he is a practicing Catholic.

The commercial shows a sign on the courthouse doors that says “Catholics Need Not Apply” — an obvious reference to the “Irish Need Not Apply” signs that were common in 19th-century anti-Catholic America.

There are those like Oren Spiegler (“Unsavory GOP Tactics,” Aug. 3), who deplores the commercial as “seeking to hoodwink impressionable Americans into believing something that is not true.” Were it only so!

The accusation that the pro-abortion Democratic Party is anti-Catholic became inevitable once it began to consider conservative ideology and, specifically, pro-life sentiments as fair game in confirming federal judges.

The problem for Democrats is that political ideology and pro-life sentiments are specific applications of a person’s worldview, which is generally based on religious belief. Thus, Democrats not only want strict separation between church and state, they want individuals to separate themselves into public and private persons.

They want a country where the religious private person (the Catholic) has no influence on the secular public person (the appeals judge). For the devout Catholic (or, in general, the devout Christian), such a separation is impossible.

Maybe a more accurate sign on the courthouse doors in that commercial should have been “If you apply, check your Catholicism at the door.” But “Catholics Need Not Apply” communicates the intent, which is that Democrats don’t trust qualified people with strong religious belief to serve as federal judges.

Paul E. CantonwineUpper St. Clair

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.