In a departure from the norm, this Article today is about an example of unfair criticism by the Left against the Right.

Check the LAW category archives here on Radmod.com for a discussion of the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination. I have given you a LOT of information to form your own opinion of Roberts.

Roberts is a Catholic whom the Left fears might not believe in the “right to privacy” (the right to contraceptives and abortion stems from the right to privacy under Constitutional law).

The Christian Right rejoices in the hope that Roberts might actually believe we have no “right to privacy”, and therefore be a vote to overturn the Roe and Griswold cases.

—–
The Christian Right attacks the Left, accusing the Left of hating Roberts BECAUSE of his Catholic faith. In other words, the non-Catholic Christian right is allied WITH the Catholics now. [That kind of attack from the Right is unfair, but I’m not talking about the excesses of the Right in this post]

—

Remember, this Article today is about an excess of the LEFT.

Over at DailyKOS a diarist has dug through American political history and highlighted a time, long ago, when the Christian Right was NOT allied with Catholics politically.

The Diarist wants us to conclude that the Christian Right are hypocrites who would say anything to get another vote to overturn the right to privacy.

The two main examples the diarist uses to make his point are as follows, in brief:

1) In 1928 presidential candidate Al Smith (a Catholic) had to pacify us that the Pope would not control him, and that the Catholic religion would not be considered superior any other.

2) And in 1960 presidential candidate John Kennedy (a Catholic) had to do the same as Smith.

—

Well, I understand the diarist’s attempted point, but the comparison is not worth anything, because far too much time has passed and far too much water has passed under the bridge for the comparison to have any meaning.

Here’s why I dispute the value of the comparison: Back in 1928, and even in 1960, the USA had not experienced a social libertarian upheaval, such as began in the 1960s.

Prior to the social libertarian upheaval on the 1960s, politicians on the national stage were almost uniformly conservative on social issues, so I think. Where there were HUGE disagreements, they seemed to be settled with Constitutional amendments, such as amendments giving women the right to vote, and amendments (con and then pro) about alcohol.

Moreover, we lacked many of the kind of social issue controversies that we face today (other than race). For example, states were free to outlaw abortion and birth control, and it was not a huge issue on the national stage. And so, the Christian right (and everyone else) could peacefully co-exist politically and decide whom to support based on other issues that were not matters of faith.

—

But the Christian right, back in 1928, needed some reassurance from Catholic politicians, so it seems to me. Back in 1928, not too many Catholics had been in leadership positions in the USA, and people wondered how such politicians would balance their duty to the Constitution with their duty to the Pope and the Church.

After almost 80 years of experience with high-profile Catholic leaders, the Christian right (and the rest of us) feel comfortable with Catholic-American leaders, and so we no longer demand assurances of the type we asked for in 1928 and 1960.

So I do not believe that the Christian Right can be criticized for it’s support of the Catholic nominee John Roberts, based on things said in times long past, when the scene was so different.

And so I conclude that the Left is acting unfairly.

—-

Final thought: My disagreement with this example of the excesses of the Left should not be construed as being a RARE thing. I recognize propaganda and distortion regularly from all sides, and I commit my own of course.

But there’s just so much MORE of it on the Right :). And the Right has a vastly superior media voice in the blanket coverage of the nation with right wing talk radio and right wing religio-political broadcasting.

And so I think the propaganda of the Right is more important to address, at this time in our history, than the excesses of the Left

Daily Kos: Extreme Sunday’s Amnesia On Anti-Catholicism

[T]he main irony is that the intended beneficiary of all the sermonizing, Judge John Roberts, is a Roman Catholic. And you can expect many of the sermonizers to claim that any and all opposition to Robert is based on anti-Catholic bigotry, on the theory that questions about his position on a constitutional right to privacy, or of a woman’s right to choose, involve excluding judges with religious convictions that impinge on their judicial philosophies. Indeed, the whole point of both “Justice Sundays” is that religious views can, do and must affect judicial philosophy, and to think otherwise is to persecute people of faith.

This is, of course, richly ironic, since the theological and denominational ancestors of the conservative evangelical Protestant leaders most prominently on display in Nashville frequently and vehemently made the opposite argument against earlier Catholic political figures.

[. . .]

[Quote below is attributed to the Catholic Al Smith, presidential candidate in the 1920’s, attempting to assure voters that the Pope won’t control the USA through Smith, and that Catholicism won’t be made the official religion of the USA]

“I recognize no power in the institutions of my church to interfere with the operations of the Constitution of the United States or the enforcement of the law of the land.

I believe in absolute freedom of conscience for all men and in equality of all churches, all sects, and all beliefs before the law as a matter of right and not as a matter of favor.

I believe in the absolute separation of church and state.”

[. . .]