Roberts and the role of government

I’ve tried to write this post twice now, and both times, it has been deleted by blog word processing errors. Aaagghh! Trying again in Word…

When the legislative and executive branches of government are torn by partisan strife, stability in the judicial branch is at a premium. Thus the high-intensity of Roberts’ hot seat. When the senators on the committee are saying the judges are referees for the rest of government, it’s a little amusing and disturbing at the same time.

More disturbing were Roberts’ comments on faith. Something like, “I work from the law books, not from my faith, convictions, beliefs or Bible.” Well, what good are convictions if they don’t take you anywhere? What’s the point of having beliefs or faith if it doesn’t mean anything in real life? I’ll decide based on what judges in the past have said, but not based on what God has said.

This belies the myth of the religiously neutral and pluralistic public square, where every faith has a seat at the table. Not true. The RELIGION of Secularism is on display when judges and senators all assume that we’re not letting any faith-based ideas in to our courtrooms.

What if Daniel had responded to King Darius’ law to pray only to the king like this: “My faith will not play a role regarding this law.” No lion’s den for him. Of course, Roberts’ temptation, if he is a Christian, is not one of instant death by lion. It’s much greater and more subtle: “you’re not going to have work in this town with THAT attitude, pal.” Persecution much more along the lines of Rev 13:16-17 (go ahead, look it up, it’s worth it), than instant death. The Chinese Christians huddled in their house churches are way ahead of us in understanding in these matters. (A hint: litmus tests, their assumptions, and government policy that flows out of them all look a lot like beastly marks to certain 1st century writers.)

Much better were Roberts’ comments on the 1st Amendment: founders were reacting to actual established churches with state support, not advocating an “absolute separation.” Good stuff. Yet he tries to carry out an absolute separation in his own life…