Stones Cry Out

I understand your concerns, and identify with them. And if somebody like Dobson started calling for death squads to hit federal judges, then, yeah, he's a nut and needs to be arrested.

However, I guess I just don't see what is ultimately wrong with polarizing language, when used sparingly, and only against oppositional forces that deserve it.

Secular forces have always made fun of Christians with their fire and brimstone, their vivid imagery, use of terms like "evil", etc. I say, so what? Are the secular types really going to despise Christians any less if they don't use such language? Doubtful. On the other hand, does such language stir the troops? Sure, some of them at least. So I'm not sure I see much of a downside to it.

Re: National Review and Weekly Standard, they are primarily intellectual enterprises, and therefore speak in the appropriate voice. Religious figures like Dobson have leeway to use the more emotional language of a sermon, and I for one think we need more public figures using terms like "evil" to describe things that they truly believe are evil. Even if it is hyperbolic. The naked honesty is bracing and refreshing, for me.

So reasonable people can differ on this, I think.

I don't mind the term evil to describe abortion or euthanasia. Once the judiciary gets involved, however, and Congress is debating judges, etc. we begin to move away from abortion as the direct issue. At that point, I think it's unnecessary to start labeling Democrat obstruction as evil. I'm not going to go far as to say it's wrong, but I will say it's unnecessary.

Concerning NRO and the Standard, if Dobson is going to be a religious figure, then he needs to not use such hyperbolic terms to describe most, though not all, legislation. Like I said, abortion is an evil, but using such a term to describe a judicial filibuster, however unconstitutional, is just rhetorical excess.

All that said, I think the use of a term like the KKK, even though Dobson did not directly make the analogy, is just a step too far.

Rick I normally agree with you, but I have noticed that you seem to be a little timid or something I don't know exactly. I can't imagine what is wrong with calling evil, well, evil.

Rick didn't make that post: Matt did. And I just said that abortion is evil. If you feel comfortable calling a judicial filibuster in the Senate evil, then be my guest, but I'm just not.

Is it ok to describe what is happening as judicial tyranny? I think so. How much stretching does it take to get from tyranny to the terrorism (i.e. the KKK)?

Given the weight that a term like KKK carries, I think it's too much.

I think that hyperbolic language, particularly from a Christian leader, does tend to have the effect of getting the conversation off topic. When a Dobson, or any other Christian leader for that matter, utilizes such rhetorical devices, it allows those who disagree with him (and I don't mean Matt, I mean the Dobson's secular critics) an easy out: Focus on the language, ignore the substance. So, I think that judges who are a law unto themselves are a great danger to our system of self-government. However, I also think that Dobson's phrasing neither serves to focus the debate on the issue nor does it serve Our Lord particularly well.

Mark

I was 15 years old in 1965 when I went to a local college campus to hear Brent Bozell -- brother-in-law of Wm. Buckley and an editor of National Review -- give a talk on his forthcoming book about the Warren Revolution.

The liberals present were outraged at his claim that the Warren Court had shredded the Constitution, but I took umbrage at Bozell's claim that the Constitution had remained intact until the Warren era. Since I had read my John T. Flynn on the New Deal Court, I knew that the Constitution had been overthrown during that era.

Thus it is with mordant amusement that I have watched the conservative movement ever since that time. It's like the cartoon where the character draws a line in the sand and dares a bully to cross it, then draws another line, then another, and then another. Every few years some prominent conservative decides that, by golly, the courts have gone too far this time and the Constitution is in jeopardy. Then it is all forgotten until the next crisis.

A few years back, a bunch of neo-cons, in high dudgeon, quit First Things magazine when Robert Bork suggested that the federal courts had reached the point where they could no longer be considered legitimate. The neos said that conservatives who talked about the illegitimacy of the courts were no different than the Left. I almost decided to add my two cents to this imbroglio, but concluded that it wasn't worth bothering about. Neither side to the controversy could be taken seriously: whether Bork being "shocked" that the Constitution was finally being overthrown or the neo-cons being "shocked" that anyone would say such a thing.

Frankly, its amazing the whole dog and pony show keeps going on, but I guess it serves a deep psychological need. We are all conservative by nature. Even Leftists are compelled to believe that they are just "interpreting" the Constitution.

It was about two hundred years after the last Roman emperor of the West was strangled in his retirement villa that someone finally wrote the momentous words that they thought that it was on this occasion that the Western Roman empire ceased to exist. I myself sometimes wonder how long it will be before it sinks in that Constitution is gone and that it isn't coming back.

You might take note of the context of the discussion, as provided by Mark Levin at The Corner.

Still, overall I think a caveat to any Christian leader is to assume your remarks will be taken out of context and use discernment.

Jeff - Concerning the split between the neocons and the FT crowd, Norman Podhoretz and Fr. Neuhaus have made amends and they are good friends. In fact, Midge Decter (Podhoretz's wife) is on the FT editorial board. Though I seem to remember that First Things split from Chronicles. I can find it later. Either way, I take no umbrage with the idea that our Constitution is being greatly harmed. I will make a longer post this afternoon regarding Mark Levin's post on the Corner.

My chief objection is this: Christian leaders must be judicious in their comments at all times. Comparisons between the modern judiciary and the KKK may or may not be valid (I would argue they are not), but a Christian leader with the notoriety of Dr. Dobson should avoid such comparisons like the plague. Recalling Plessy v. Ferguson is one thing; recalling images of burning crosses and lynched black children is something altogether different.

Just to pick up where Matt left off in the immediately above comment: The remarks by Dobson strike me as being similar to the recurrent cant of liberals in calling any conservative a "Nazi". First, it ain't true factually. Second, it denigrates the suffering of Jews and others at the hands of the Nazis. Third, it debases the language, thereby eliminating the sharp contrast between very real concepts like good and evil. Given all of that, I think, again, that Dobson should cool his rhetoric, and apologize for the inflammatory statement. He can still make strong statements. Contrast "the federal judiciary has simply crossed a line and now has, in essence, become the highest lawgiver in the land since they have given themselves the ability to override any action of the other branches, and the Congress ought to take this seriously and go clean house" with "the federal judiciary has gone too far and now is acting no better than the KKK." Both are strong criticisms that call for action. I hope all can see, however, why one would be more appropriate for a Christian leader.