Dishonest Judges: A Case-Study in the Myth of Neutrality
Living overseas, I’m often a little slow in finding out about what’s newsworthy in the US. So I’ve only just begun to find out about who the next Supreme Court justice is likely to be. Reading the news today, I suppose I would be expected to be happy, since being a Christian means I’m expected to be a Republican. Or perhaps I could dive under the surface a bit and express concern that John Roberts won’t openly condemn abortion. Yet there is something far more troubling than Roberts’ views on abortion, whatever they may be.
As Senators question, interupt, and otherwise dignify the conversation that takes place during recess at a typical American junior high, Roberts attempts to keep himself out of hot water. I don’t envy the guy; people on opposing sides of the aisle are trying to pin him down and he can’t gain the support of some with losing that of others. So I guess his tactic is to appear as neutral as possible, at least until he is confirmed. And so he hides behind court precedent and refuses to state his own views because of cases that are likely to come before the Supreme Court in the not too distant future. In the midst of his ducking and dodging, he assured the Senate that his Roman Catholic beliefs would not influence his decisions if he were confirmed. “There’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis,” Roberts said.
Well that’s a relief.
And so, the soon to be chief justice of the highest court of the United States panders to the illusion that he is, in fact, totally neutral, despite what he may believe on Sunday morning. If Roberts’ “personal views based on faith” will not be influencing his decision making, I think the American people have a right to know which of his personal views will be influencing his decisions. The idea that he can simply make decisions based on the precedent set by previous court cases is utter foolishness, and the fact that such a position is actually the favoured one in our culture is even more absurd.
Without wanting to make personal judgements about an individual’s spiritual state (much less an individual I don’t know), I have to say that the flavour of Roman Catholicism John Roberts has swallowed is akin to a religious starvation diet. If such a religion does not provide an all-encompassing, comprehensive worldview, then it is not worth subscribing to at all. What’s more, the liberals (and conservatives) that are trying to pin him down know as much, and have refused to live according to the supposed neutrality they set as the standard for everyone else.
The fact is, no one is neutral. The idea that we can set aside our personal beliefs and judge neutrally is pure fiction. Everyone has a religion (whether they call it a religion or not), everyone is living according to their religion, and everyone is evangelising for their religion. Allow me to prove this by using a fictitious, though entirely realistic, illustration. I walk into a high school biology class to learn that the subject of the day is Darwin’s theory of evolution. After listening to the lecture for 15-20 minutes I raise my hand a remark that evolution is patently false, because it is in clear contradiction to the Bible. My teacher responds by saying that whatever my person beliefs may be, this is a science class, and for the purpose of the class I must set aside my private beliefs. And just like that, my teacher has expressed her religion (naturalism), lived according to it, and attempted to proselytise me.
Naturalists believe that nature is all that exists, and therefore everything must be explainable in terms of nature. Few naturalists would view their beliefs as religious in any way, yet I suspect that if I were to tell my science teacher that though she may personally believe that God doesn’t exist, for the purpose of the class she must set aside her private beliefs and adopt the assumptions of the Bible, the outcry would be very religious. The fact is that we all have beliefs, and we all make decisions based on those beliefs. The science teacher’s belief that humanity evolved from nothing is an outworking of her belief that nature is all that exists. My belief that evolution is wrong is an outworking of my belief that the Bible is true. Neither position is based on some kind of neutrality. Neutrality is a myth; every decision is based on a belief of one sort or another. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
In the case of Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, he is claiming that he can perform his duties without reference to his Roman Catholic faith. That may well be true, but if it is, he is still basing his judgments on some other belief. The claim that he can judge a case neutrally is stupid at best, and dishonest at worst. So Roberts owes it to the Senate, and to the American public, to disclose what his beliefs are on the basis of which he will pass judgement on Supreme Court cases. Not all beliefs are created equal and we may not like what he has to say. But at least we can have an honest discussion, instead of hiding behind myths and lies. As it stands now, Senators will have to guess what Roberts believes about abortion, and make their decision on the basis of that guess. The larger issue, however, is that whatever his position on abortion, Roberts has been dishonest about how he will judge cases. If he is confirmed, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will have entered into his position through the use of the sort of lies that are not supposed be allowed in a court of law, and he will make judgements of behalf of a country that espouses a myth as virtue.
If the current trend of polarisation continues in the US, and there is every reason to believe that it will, I suspect public figures of all kinds will be under increasing pressure to bow to the myth of neutrality. This, of course, has serious ramifications for Christians; I will perhaps explore these in a couple days.
September 14th, 2005 at 6:33 am
It is the courts job to rule on a case based on one’s interpretation of the constitution, so I think Roberts is trying to keep the constitution as his divining rod and not his religion.
September 14th, 2005 at 8:03 am
Yes, and which of his beliefs will affect how he interprets the constitution? Roberts wasn’t born with an innate knowledge of case precedent, therefore he learned it at some point, and at that time he had to process it against the background of his previously existing beliefs. Once again, the idea that he can just “interpret the constitution” neutrally is a myth.
BTW, I don’t know if you intended it or not, but your use of language (divining rod) is rather ironic.
September 14th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
That is quite a bold statement to make, Bryce, and I think that your accusation of Roberts being a liar is a bit extreme. It is your interpretation of Roberts’ statement that leads you to believe that he is outright lying to the Senators and the American people, but that does not make it so. In the quote you provided, Roberts merely stated that there is nothing in his personal views or personal faith that will keep him from applying precedent faithfully. That doesn’t say that his faith doesn’t affect his thought process at all. But what if he had said, my personal faith will prevent me from applying precedent faithfully? That would be an inappropriate way for a Supreme Court justice to apply the law; that would not be a secular government. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the law in terms of specific cases, but they are to do so in the context first of the Constitution itself, and second in the context of court precedence. There is, in an official manner, no room for personal beliefs to come into play. However, as you stated, true neutrality is a myth, which is why we have 9 justices on the Supreme Court and not just a single all-powerful magistrate. What we ask is that each justice at least strive to be as neutral as possible. This doesn’t mean that they are to pretend that they are a bunch of machines that have no memory of what happened in their lives, but it does mean that even if your personal views, deeply held as they might be, contradict the law in a given situation, you have to set aside your personal views and rule in favor of the law. You can be as vocal as you want about how you think that the law is morally wrong, but that cannot be the basis for your official ruling on the subject. That’s what we ask of all of the justices, be they Christians, naturalists, or Muslims. After all, as Roberts stated, “Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.” Notice that he said “striving to live up to the judicial oath,” not always and every time successfully living up to the oath. I have been trying to find whether Roberts made an outright statement about his faith not influencing his thought process in any way, and I have yet to find it. Sure, I have found lots of articles/features from news outlets who say that Roberts said his faith won’t have anything to do with his decisions, but most offer no supporting quotes and those that do offer the same quote that you did. I simply don’t find that quote to be strong statement that it is being made out to be, but rather, I see that it is a statement of being fit to be a Supreme Court justice. Not to mention that, all of the questions about “faith” really just boil down to one issue… abortion. And those who are asking whether or not his faith will influence his decisions are not asking because they want to know if he’s going to be neutral or not, but they want to know whose side he’s on; this is hardly a request for neutrality. Really, since he is a Roman Catholic, it’s more a request from one side to “make sure and agree with with us, after all, you’re a Catholic” and from the other side to “make sure and ignore your church and agree with us.” Neither side is asking him to be neutral.
Finally, the “ducking and dodging” that you talk about is because the Senators are asking totally inappropriate questions that have nothing to do with how fit he is to sit on the Supreme Court, but are about specific cases. It is one thing to ask, what procedure would you follow in coming to a decision in a given situation, it is another to ask, “What would your decision be?” The former is appropriate, the latter is not. He appears to be doing his best to give appropriate answers to inappropriate questions. After all, when a case is brought before the Supreme Court, it all begins with the arguments presented by both sides. To give an answer as to how he would decide a hypothetical case (whether based on a previous case or not) is totally inappropriate since he hasn’t even heard the starting point for the case… the arguments.
Having said all this, I don’t know a whole lot about John Roberts, so I’m not really defending Roberts as being the greatest person ever who can sit on the Supreme Court. However, from what I have listened to and read so far, my opinion is that he does meet the specifications to sit on the Supreme Court and I think it unfair to call the man a liar for trying to fulfill his (likely, soon-to-be) position. But, then again neither your statements nor mine are without their biases…
September 14th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Wow, Ken. That was great! What a wonderful explanation of how a justice is suppose to make decisions.
September 14th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Ken, welcome back.
I actually agree with much of what you’ve said, and I don’t think much of what you said really negates what I’ve already written. As I said, I don’t envy the guy; it’s a tough position to be in, and I wouldn’t want to do it.
I did not say that “he is outright lying to the Senators and the American people”. Stating it that way makes it sound like he is making a self-conscious effort to delude people, and I have not said that this is his intent. In fact, I make no judgement whatsoever about his intentions. What I am saying is that, under pressure, he has made a statement that is simply impossible to fulfil, and this is intellectually dishonest.
The point at which we disagree is that you have attempted to make a distinction between his faith influencing his judgement and his faith preventing him from upholding court precedent, but such a distinction isn’t as cut and dry as you make it sound. I don’t know a great deal about the sort of cases the Supreme Court hears regularly, but I think it is a fair assumption that they don’t often hear a case that fits cleanly into the mould of a previous case; such cases would never make it all the way to the Supreme Court. What I’m saying is, it’s not a matter of simply looking at the facts of the case, checking the Constitution and court precedent, and issuing the clear and obvious judgement. There is a quite a bit more interpretation involved, and this is where the personal beliefs of the justices come into play. While you have acknowledged that neutrality is a myth, you nevertheless have presented the situation as though neutrality is possible. If it were as clear cut as you make it sound then there would never be a need for a dissenting opinion.
You can say that what I have written is only my interpretation, and stated as such, it seems to lessen the force of my words. I have, however, never claimed to be putting forth anything other than my interpretation. The alternative would be to claim to make neutral, objective statements, and I make no such claims. Rather, my intention is to write about the events as they relate to the Word of God. I don’t claim to be infallible in my interpretation, but I do refuse to submit to false standards of truth. So yes, I have made a bold statement, and I hope I will continue to do so. I see no reason to regard the Bible as authoritative if I am not willing to speak with humble boldness on issues that it clearly addresses. The idea that truth can be discovered through neutral methods (for example, that a case can be judged on the basis of the Constitution alone) is a product of the Enlightenment, and such an idea is fundamentally opposed to the standard of truth set forth in the Bible.
September 14th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
[...] …on using current events to get at one of the intellectual idols of this age…the myth of neutrality. Enjoy. [...]
September 15th, 2005 at 12:18 am
I don’t know Ken, but he made most of my points. In fact don’t know you, but through your connection to Ben & Liz. BUT, I too, was surprised at your post and felt compelled to defend the judiciary. The title of this post ITSELF implies that John Roberts (and judges themselves?) are “disposed to cheat or defraud or deceive” as that is the definition of the word dishonest - an intentional act. I’ve watched the hearings, I combed the actual transcript. However, his careful and considered statements, which a student of the law will not see as evasive, also never imply that truth is to be found in the interpretation of the constitution, or that his faith has no role in his decision making, or that he would be complacent and not overturn any prior precedent. He only pledges to apply the law, and the constitution, to the facts of any particular case brought to the courts for adjudication. Sorry, but I just felt the need to speak up for those of us who take on this work with noble and honest intentions.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:27 am
There are a couple of issues that you bring up that I was to address: first, neutrality and second, truth. I do agree with you, that it is not possible for a human being to be truly neutral when looking at any issue. However, I think that there is a distinction between Roberts’ faith directly influencing his decisions as opposed to preventing him from faithfully fulfilling his duty to upholding precedent. I agree that, the court will very rarely hear a case that perfectly fits the mold of a previous case, but that doesn’t change the fact that in the process of coming to a decision, a justice is to draw upon written and case law first, not personal beliefs. Naturally, as they are studying any given case and researching the laws and cases that apply to it, their personal beliefs will color everything that they read and so they will of course be influenced by those beliefs. I do not view this as preventing a justice from fulfilling their duty. However, if a justice is unwilling to first look to written and case law in deciding a case, and first looks to his personal beliefs or any source that is not permitted within the U.S. judicial system, that is preventing him from performing his duties.
That said, I did not mean to present the situation as if true neutrality exists, I was merely trying to state that the system was set up in such a way as to try and reach as neutral decision as is possible, given that it is made up of non-neutral people. I do say that justices are to strive for neutrality, which, as I said, is one of the reasons that we have 9 justices and not 1, so that as the justices discuss the case amongst themselves after hearing all the arguments, they can do their best to counteract each others’ biases. This doesn’t mean that the final opinion of the court is going to be a perfectly neutral one, but it hopefully does give a better chance that the opinion will have less bias than it would coming from a single person. But yes, it is still an opinion (they don’t call it an opinion for nothing!) that comes from a group of people who are not truly neutral observers, which is why, yes, so often a dissenting opinion is written. Also, the more I think about this issue, it is worth acknowledging that the Supreme Court justices do not always adhere to the standards set forth by written and case law (there was relatively recently an example of a justice including references to laws from other countries in an opinion on a case). So, really, ultimately who knows where these men and women will look to when deciding a case? It seems to me the best we can hope for when examining them is a sincere promise to strive to adhere to the Constitution and precedent.
Now, as far as truth goes, I don’t claim that the Supreme Court, Congress, Constitution, etc. are the true standards for truth. So, please understand, I don’t claim that justices of the Supreme Court can give us truth, but merely that they are to approach every case they hear by following the guidelines set forth by law. It is a fallible framework, but it is the framework that is in place in our country to hear and decide cases in regard to the laws that we enact. As stated by a former Supreme Court justice, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” He’s obviously not claiming to truly be infallible, but he is correctly pointing out that within the confines of the judicial system that we have set up in this country, the Supreme Court’s decisions are the highest “truth” you can get to. Even if our court system were based on the Bible, we could not expect the justices to turn out Truth with all of their judgments.
Now, that is very much why I am so glad that Truth is not ultimately decided by the court and I why I am so glad to have a higher standard to look to for truth. So, in closing, let me say that I do appreciate that you, as someone who has been called to lead God’s people, will not submit to false standard of truth! And, you’ll never make it as a Supreme Court justice.
September 15th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Mrs. Wilkinson, as you said, we don’t really know eachother, but with all due respect, I don’t think your position is under-represented.
Language is more complicated than your comment allows. There is a difference between calling someone a liar and saying that someone’s words are dishonest. The former is inflammatory and attempts to judge their motives; the second does neither. I hope you can recognise the difference.
September 15th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Ken, I think you came about as close to agreeing with me as you could have without abandoning the Enlightenment ideal of truth.
You said “that it is not possible for a human being to be truly neutral”, and that you “did not mean to present the situation as if true neutrality exists”. Can you tell me what the difference between neutrality and true neutrality is? I’m not able to recognise any difference. Either neutrality exists or it doesn’t. The Bible teaches that it doesn’t.
How, then, is it possible for justices “to strive for neutrality” (your words, my emphasis)? How can they strive towards something that doesn’t exist? According to what standard are their efforts to be measured? Who is to decide it they succeed? If there is no such thing as neutrality, striving for it is (at best) an exercise in futility.
To be clear, I never said that the Supreme Court, etc., is claiming to establish truth. What I am saying is that they are attempting to conform to a standard of truth which is the product of the Enlightenment; a standard which doesn’t exist. I guess this points to a problem with the system itself (a topic I don’t intend to get into at this point). The quote you provided from the former justice is indicative of the problem: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” This is entirely arbitrary; why are they final instead of someone else? In contrast, the Word of God is final because it is the Word of the God who created everything that exists, and without which nothing would be intelligible.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Ok, Bryce, so the more I think about this the more I realize that I’m probably misusing the term neutral. No, no one can be neutral in any situation because, yes, everyone always brings a different context to his understanding of said situation. And, of course, this includes the justices of the Supreme Court when they consider a given case, read and apply the relevant (in their estimation) written and case law. They do each bring their own viewpoint to the situation. But really, this can even be applied back to your original problem with John Roberts. You asked why he didn’t disclose his personal beliefs, but even if he did, his descriptions of his personal beliefs are colored by his own experiences, and every listeners’ interpretation of what those beliefs will mean in the context of the courtroom will not be a neutral one. You’re right, the fact that the Supreme Court is final is arbitrary, but it is the arbitrary point that our country has chosen to be the final one. We have to have some end point in our justice system. (I’m not saying that this is the right end point, by the way, but within our system, that’s just the way it is.)
As far as judges striving for neutrality, I do have to say you’re right. I agree, that would be an exercise in futility. My real sentiment behind that statement is probably better stated by saying that the justices are to try and conform to the standards set forth by the justice system, in a given situation weigh both sides of an argument in light of the law. As I have mentioned before, our system tries to take into account the inherent non-neutral nature of humans by forcing multiple people into debate over each case that is heard (be it a jury trial or a case before the Supreme Court). The system may be built on an idea that is ultimately intellectually dishonest, but at the same time, the system is also built keeping that problem in mind. Does this mean that our court system is THE standard of truth? No, not at all, which is really quite obvious given that even the final court in our country reverses its own decisions from time to time.
Finally, getting back to the whole reason I responded to your initial post, and it appears that others responded as well, I think that it is worth pointing out that you are kind of stepping back from how strongly you worded your judgement on John Roberts in your initial post. You said “If he is confirmed, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will have entered into his position through the use of the sort of lies that are not supposed be allowed in a court of law…” At worst the guy is being intellectually dishonest, but that isn’t the kind of lie that for which you get convicted of perjury. The sort of lies that are not allowed in a court of law are the willful lies, the kind that get someone called a liar.
Anyway, Bryce, I wish I had more time to spend on this, I’m learning a lot here and this discussion is forcing me to take a good, hard look at my views on standards of truth, reality and really, even the nature of man and what I am really basing those views on.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Ken, thanks for your gracious response.
I don’t think the fact that we are all biased means we can never say anything true or meaningful. The first step is acknowledging that we are not neutral, nor can we be (it sounds like we are agreed on this point). The second, and more difficult, step, is testing our own beliefs and ensuring that they are the right beliefs. In other words, our biases have to become the biases of Scripture. This is, of course, easier said than done, but it’s worth the thought and effort.
I may be stepping back from my original wording, in one sense. I as implied in my related post, my objective was to get people to think. Sometimes this means being a bit controversial, and I don’t shy away from that. I have avoided making a judgement on the motivation behind Robert’s words; I’m not in a position to do that. I have tried to avoid being inflammatory, and I think I have avoided it, but I suppose that is a matter of interpretation that is dependent upon the biases one has when reading my words :). I said he lied, and I granted that he did so under pressure, but I have not called him a liar. I realise that in terms of strict definitions there is no difference. I also think that in terms of cultural usage, being labelled a liar has more stigma attached to it.
For the record, I think that the Supreme Court strives for standard that is fundamentally false. I do NOT, however, think this renders the system as totally bankrupt. In other words, it’s not perfect, but it generally works. My larger concern is to call into question the emphasis that many evangelicals place on politics, especially as it affects their functional view of the authority of God’s Word. Wow, that was an academic sounding sentence; let me state it differently. I question the value many/most evangelicals place on politics. While all evangelicals affirm the absolute authority of the Bible, I think in practical circumstances, they often default to another standard of truth. This is what I’ve been trying to get at in this post. I’m not saying to get rid of politics; I’m saying that the Kingdom of Jesus is not political, and my allegiance to that Kingdom far surpasses any other.
Ken, I appreciate your discussion on this. I’ve enjoyed thinking about these things, and having you press my logic. Thanks.
September 16th, 2005 at 12:06 am
Bryce,
Sorry that I’ve been late with this subject. I hope that you will still accept my thoughts, though it looks as though you have hashed a lot out. I’m thankful that you are wanting people to think. It seems to me that we are not talking about this from a judicial perspective but from another perspective (perhaps theological, perhaps Christian faith? I’m not sure of your intention)
Having thus said that, let me address this from a judicial perspective. Ben and I have been listening on NPR to the events as they have occured and really enjoying that process.
I must say that the accusations that you bring up against Roberts would reflect poorly on any judge - as with the precedent set with Ginsburg. From what I can tell, it is more the NORM for a judge to act in the way that Roberts has - this has been discussed extensively with the process. Furthermore, Roberts has said that he has been candid about issues that he does not think will come up in the court - he describes himself as practical, not as theoretical.
Roberts is claiming adherance to the law - that is not nuetrality - that is a basis for making decisions. Roberts believes that there are right answers - as with his discussion of baseball and the umpire motif - that there are balls and strikes whether he calls them correctly or not.
It sounds to me like you are leaning toward a post-modern sense about how nothing can be nuetral. However, this contradicts your thoughts, from what I can tell, on how God interacts with the world, and is tied to our disagrement about pacifism. The question here is, what is the work of the Christian? And more importantly, how does God’s authority come?
In thinking about Roberts, we should probably consider that the Roman Catholic faith does not embrace these ideas of post-modernity - that basing his decisions on the law is his job - and not a moral issue. That even if you don’t think he can be right, he is not being intellectually dishonest. He probably just believes in God in a different way than you do.
“Without fear or favor” - the idea of justice is to uphold the law without fear or favor. Again, this is adherance to the law. Remember that this Robert’s job - it isn’t his soul. If you think it is never appropriate to keep one’s personal beliefs out of one’s job, please let me know.
Having said that, I am concerned about your stance on seperation of church and state. This seems to me the central issue. For me, it is not a problem that Roberts be an excellent judge according to the standard of the judicial world. I do not think he is being intellectually dishonest. I think he is being a judge. I think that his aim is bringing people together. He is passionate about the law - he is passionate about it bringing our nation to a better place.
All the Roberts has done is maintain the American law - seperation of church and state, etc. He has not assumed that he is the mouthpiece of God, but has only worked in his chosen profession. I do not understand why he is under attack from you.
I do not know what you are looking for in a judge - do we not want peacemakers? Must God be defined so narrowly that an intellegent, skilled man falls under fire for this?
Anyway, I address this to your respectfully but forgive me for my thoughts all muddled together - I am sure that some of it will be misunderstood, but all this to say…
How do we know? Is not God still God and cannot a man be a good judge? You are attacking the polictical system - not Roberts - with your accusations.
September 16th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Elizabeth, thanks for you comment. By the way, use your dishwasher; I can’t tell you how jealous I am.
Regarding you comment, I am absolutely not a post-modernist. One of the great lies of modernists and post-modernists alike is that you have to be one or the other. This is a false dichotomy. I believe in absolute truth, therefore I am not a post-modern; I reject the methods and standards of attaining truth set forth by modernity, and therefore I am not a modernist. Therefore, the contradiction you charge me with does not exist. I am neither a modernist nor a post-modernist.
Your comment seems to ask me to set theological issues aside a look at this from a judicial point of view. For me to do this would be dishonest in the worst way that word can be understood. Not only would this require that I deny my pressupositions, it would require that I do so intentionally, and therefore deceptively. So I must decline. I am not not neutral, and I can’t set theology aside and just talk about this judicially. I am a Christian–I was created in the image of God, I am a fallen sinner, and I have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus. These categories affect every aspect of my being, actions, and intellect. I can’t set theology aside.
It is not only wrong to keep one’s personal beliefs out of one’s job, it is impossible to do so. That’s what this whole discussion is about. Doing so requires a compartmentalisation of knowledge that is simply impossible. If, in your job, your boss asked you to lie, would you not decline to do so because you are a Christian? Why won’t you just leave your personal beliefs out of your job?
It is wrong of you to accuse me of defining God narrowly. I am arguing that God and his revealed will is the ultimate, overarching standard; this is anything but narrow. Those who have represented a different position here have been attempting to restrict God’s authority to a narrow sphere of life.
You are right to bring up the issue of the separation of church and state, since that is lurking in the background of this whole discussion. I indicated in my last response to Ken that the problem lies more in the system than in Roberts as an individual. To put it succinctly, the separation of church and state is not a biblical concept. That is not to say it is un-biblical; it is simply not required by Scripture. My understanding is that, historically, the separation of church and state was motivated more by a desire to keep the state out of the church than to keep the church out of the state. My mom was the first person to suggest that to me, anyway (the reason I mention this is that Sally who commented about is my Mom). There is a fine balance to be struck here, and a lot lies in the way “church” and “faith” are defined. I have no problem with the notion of keeping the institutional church out of governmental affairs. I do have a problem when people try to keep “faith” out of governmental affairs. If we prevented anyone with a “faith” from being in the government, we would have no government. That is to say, everyone has faith in something, an atheist has as much faith in the non-existence of God as I have in his existence.
I do not expect judges, etc., to have faith in the Bible (that is, in order to be qualified to be judges in the U.S.); I do, however, expect them to be forthcoming about the fact that they have faith in something. The claim that one’s religious views will not affect their interpretation (and there is always interpretation) of the law is only possible if they concede that their religious views mean nothing to them and what actually shapes their interpretation is a bias of some other kind. That is, everyone has faith in something, whether that faith is strictly religious or otherwise, and that faith will affect their interpretation. To fail to recognise and acknowledge as much is (to paraphrase the words I used in my original post) naive at best, and dishonest at worst.
September 16th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Spot on, Lizzy! Bryce, I apologize for interloping in your blog. I am not a student of theology. I assumed that my Catholic upbringing, my undergraduate majors in language and literature, and my sixteen years on the bench (not a baseball analogy) allowed me to understand both the context and intent of Judge Roberts answers and your post. I understand, and agree, that both man and his institutions are fallible. I am loath to find any context of the word “dishonest” which isn’t pejorative, especially when used as an adjective to the noun judge. To paraphrase, thus while I disagree with your use of that word, under the protection of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, that attempt by man to codify your God-given rights, I defend to my death your right to say it.
September 16th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Mrs. Wilkinson,
Thanks for your comments. You are more than welcome to take part in the discussion, so there is no need to apologise. Furthermore, this conversation isn’t limited to students of theology. I appreciate that your experience as a judge gives you a different perspective on what I have said; please understand that it was never my intention to insult you (or any other judge). If I have done so I apologise.
Having said that, I have to say that I am stunned that you have so twisted my words. It is somewhat insulting that you are cheering on Liz, when I have already responded to her comments, and yet you made no effort to interact with them.
I must again point out that language is more complex than you are allowing. I never said that the word “dishonest” was not pejorative. I certainly didn’t mean it as a compliment. To repeat, I said that calling someone a liar judges their motives and is inflammatory, while calling someone’s word’s dishonest does neither. This does not imply that the word “dishonest” is a positive characteristic. You are attempting to push my words to the extreme, and this is unjustified. I can appreciate that your experience as a judge may cause you to take offence at some of what I have said. That does not, I hope, nullify our ability to have a fruitful interchange. Furthermore, you experience does not, I hope, require you to misrepresent my words.
Your comments have been entirely directed at my use of the word “dishonest”, yet the main thrust of my post was dealing with the myth of neutrality. You have cheered on others who are taking issue with my stance, yet have not attempted to demonstrate a fault with my logic. I am certainly not implying that you must be an expert in logic, theology, culture, or anything else to take part in this discussion. Yet I would think if you are willing to identify with those arguing against me, you would also care to take part in the main part of the discussion.
You appear to have taken my words as an insult to judges as a whole, and by implication, to yourself in particular. Again, if this is the case, please allow me to apologise. I have been very careful in all I have said not to direct any negative remarks at anyone personally. My post was an occasion to take one particular event that lots of people are thinking about, use it as indicative of a larger issue, and relate that to the Word of God. The issue I am addressing is the final authority of God’s Word. As I have indicated, and as I think this discussion demonstrates, it is one thing to affirm the Bible as the final authority in all matters, it is another to live as if it actually is the final authority. This is as much an occasion to help me think through these issues and (hopefully) better live according to the gospel as it is an attempt to help others do the same.
September 17th, 2005 at 4:23 am
just because my mother may choose to cheer for the persons at bat (or pitching, fielding, etc) in this discussion does not mean she is required to go to bat herself. Furthermore, you support the the “myth of (maintaining) neutrality” yourself if you are insulted by anything said in this “objective” discussion. Sorry to detract from the discussion.
b
September 17th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Ben, your assertions are simply without any foundation.
I don’t think this discussion is proving to be very fruitful any longer, so I’m going to leave it with this:
Is God’s Word the ultimate standard, or not? Is king Jesus ruler over all creation, or only just part of it?
September 20th, 2005 at 1:44 am
sorry to make this last comment, i realize the dialogue is closed and this probably my attempt at a parting shot, and, it’s probably “below me” or not “respectable”, but, Bryce, you really have a way for pissing people off with your objective statements about the validity of their arguments. If you wanted to debate logic, then, you should debate logic not theology. It does no good to the innocent readers of your blog (and therein supporters if they choose to comment) to alienate them with your opinion about their syntax or language.
b
September 20th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Ben, you would be well served to learn how to disagree with someone without being rude.
This has never been a debate about logic. Such a debate would focus on the nature and source of logic, it’s use and applicability, or something of that nature. Clearly that is not what I have done. This does not mean, however, that logic plays no role in a discussion of theology. Indeed, every conversation, regardless of subject, makes use of logic.
If you have a problem with anything I have said, you should point it out and be prepared to defend it. But you have not done so; all you have done is made blanket assertions without any support whatsoever.
You continue to refer to this as an “objective” conversation. I really have no idea where you get this idea. I have been saying time and again, from the very beginning, that no one is neutral. Everything I have said is open to correction in light of the Word of God. But you have not even attempted to point out where my thinking is ought of live with Scripture. So, again, if you want to backup your assertion, go ahead. Otherwise, drop it.
Ben, throughout this entire conversation I have been calm and respectful of everyone who has disagreed with me. If you are getting pissed off, you might want to think about what it is exactly that is pissing you off; but don’t try to shift the blame onto me.
Feel free to respond to this comment if you want; but if you are rude, or intend to write something that makes you apologise before you even post it, then it will be deleted.
September 20th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Wow.
That was a fun read, in spite of the ad hominum stuff that was rounding it out at the end.
I see where everyone is coming from. OF course the idea is that a “Secular institution” is charged with making decisions that affect the life of people with a broad base of faith so that the application of those decisions uphold the inherent rights of the individual as expressed in the Declaration of Independance, and quantified further by the Constitution.
How does anyone do this honestly asserting the oath that was made in fulfillment of the office, and also being true to themselves. The idea that our ethics and faith which are connected inexorably (did I spell that right?) would not find their way into whatver decisions we make is patently false. Our belief system effects itself into our decisions. If one believes that the “unborn” for instance are truly humans that also have the rights protected by the constitution, then the beliefs of a judge so disposed would compel them to protect those rights for the unborn.
I can not become “neutral” when my ethics say that to not do so would be to commit murder, and my faith would compel to uphold that law before a law that would minimize that life.
So here is the rub. Roberts opponents want to know if he believes life begins at conception. If he does, then to allow abortion on demand would be making him an accomplice to the murder. If he violates his own ethics in this regard in favor of “neutrality” then what other morals would he set aside in favor of “neutrality”
In essence that is the question that is begged by the “myth of neutrality”.
If we do not affirm that we have a faith that informs us, we have presented that we have no basis, since the laws of this country were themselves written with a determination to express a “superior morality” to that of previous and currantly extant governements in defending the “inalienable rights” of the individual. Furthermore, “Seperation of Church and State” aside, these “self evident” truths are expressed to have come froma basis of faith since we are “endowed by our creator.
Our founding fathers did not make a show of neutrality, but posited a higher authority as the basis of the need for this Country, it’s Governance, and it’s Constitution.
“Absolute” neutrality was not the intent of the forefathers in the sense of the source of their decisions, but rather without regard to the position of the parties within society. All men are created equal. Rich or poor, presidential, or paperboy. Before the court, their rights are to be the same. There is our neutrality.
Now, before another person lambasts me, please understand this is my opinion to what neutrality should be referenced to in the court.
The question should be asked. If our laws are set on precedent, follow those precedent decision. What were they based on? What of the ones before that? There was a basis for these decisions that birthed the laws at the beginning. What was that basis?
It started with a person or persons who sat down and wrote. They were inmformed but what they believed was “Right” in writing the laws that founded this country, and while they may even still be subject to interpretation, you can not avoid that they were written from a basis of belief that infomed them of “What should be” and “what should not be”
There is absolutley nothing neutral about that!
I think that this is finally the point that Bryce would like to get at from a Christian worldview. Birth to death, a Christians idea of what is right and wrong for a country and its people is necessarily will inform his decisions when working in favor of those people. If not then by his own ethics, he would be working against them.
Bryce, while I am sure this is at best a partial satement, and many more paragraphs could be written coveing this subject, do you agree this at least gets to some fo what you are trying to say?
eager to hear!
Joe
September 21st, 2005 at 6:42 am
Bryce.
I never claimed to be the one that was “pissed off” about your responses, I was using colourful language to describe an emotional (not academic) response to your statements, so please be careful before giving me advice about my motivations and emotions.
As you so aptly pointed out, I did preface my rude word. I believe we all reserve the ability to be “rude” and I chose to exercise that ability with a particular phrase which generally carries a common understanding (all of that is qualified) without attempting to make any personal offense at you. I apologise for using that that word to communicate with (emotionally, not academically) whether or not you are willing accept it meant no harm.
Assertion: “you would be well served to learn how to disagree with someone without being rude” I do have to say that you are the pot calling the kettle black Support: Other people I have communicated with have felt you were being “rude” in your disagreements with their comments, whether or not you believe and accept this. You call me rude, in your understanding. And equally so, I call you rude in my understanding. There, we are at an impass.
“I hope you can recognise the difference.” This was the first response I saw that I have a problem with. Intentions aside, it seems to imply an inability in the person who participating in the discussion. By having illustrated the difference in the previous sentence, you needn’t reaffirm the reader/commenter’s need to consider it, if, (intentions aside) doing so could possibly harm them personally (outside of the scope of the academic discussion, but more in a lovingkindness consideration).
“you have so twisted my words.” “require you to misrepresent my words.” These are the second responses I had a problems with. Intentions aside, it seems to imply an attempt by the reader/commenter to malign one’s words or intentions. This can be taken personally very easy for the reader/commenter will possibly feel as though they have done something wrong or personally offensive to the responder. As a passive sentence (though passive sentences are commonly considered bad) might give slightly less suggested offense to the reader/commenter, who, most likely made no such attempts to “twist” words and felt no obligations to “misrepresent” them.
“It is somewhat insulting that you are cheering on Liz, when I have already responded to her comments, and yet you made no effort to interact with them.” A third example of something I had a problem with. The responder seems to imply that the reader/commenter personally insulted the responder with his or her actions. The word insult seems not to apply in this sort realm, unless of course one chooses rude personally applicable words. by cheering, the commenter outright made support for the 2nd commenter, but made no direct or indirect insult to the responder. Furthermore, in saying that the 2nd commenter’s comments have already been responded to, the responder does not therefore close all discussion on those comments. Additionally, that the responder would fault the reader/commenter as being insulting for an inability to maintain proper order in chonology by responding to comments that are not the most recent. I believe you recognise the time differences involved with the commenters and would graciously accept comments on previous comments as a result of this necessary, that everyone cannot read the blog simultaneously and comment in a preferable, orderly and chonological fashion.
“Ben, your assertions are simply without any foundation.” This one i had a problem with, but I admit, maybe I’m taking it a bit too personally. The responder could easily have reduced the flagrant nature of this comment (intentions aside) by inserting “I belive” or “i think” at the beginning of the sentence. Again, this would have just made it a less likely to received as an insult, which, it was (intentions aside).
That is the end of my problems with the things that Bryce has said on this blog, I hope that i have not made more blanket assertions but have attempted to back those problems up with the necessary manner of support. I will admit, that I am unclear as to what you value as support or evidence Bryce.
I will readily admit that on many occasions I agree with and acknowledge your words, “I have been calm and respectful of everyone who has disagreed with me,” but, as evidenced above, I do not agree on all ocassions. I quote some examples in support of this claim, so as to give evidence to both sides of the argument.
“Ken, I appreciate your discussion on this. I’ve enjoyed thinking about these things, and having you press my logic. Thanks.”
“Again, if this is the case, please allow me to apologise. I have been very careful in all I have said not to direct any negative remarks at anyone personally.” I support this, and, suggest that none of the evidence I give above for my argument is directly negative.
” please understand that it was never my intention to insult you ”
I will not respond to what I said about logic, I did not choose my words carefully and did not mean to suggest a debate of the topic of logic itself, but, of the logic involved in the conversation at hand.
On the use of the word objective, again, I probably did not write as carefully as I should have. What I believe I meant to suggest was that this discussion should always attempt to be free from personal offenses or insults that would change the nature of the discussion from debate to
argument. I am attempting to contrast these words. So, what I was attempting to say, was that I felt you were making claims from an “academic” perspective that were really personally driven, and therefore dismissing peoples honest efforts at debate by technicalities of logic or language as if it were worthless passionate (and therefore flawed) argument because you preferred not to agree with them. I felt as though you treated my mother poorly when you dismissed her first response as a language flawm and did not address any other the other issues she raised in response to your and ken’s comments. There are other examples but i’m running out of time.
Finally, and, unrelated. I apologize for submitting this as a comment, Bryce. It is my desire for the information to be put directly to you but I do not have your email address and this is my limited opportunity to respond (having no internet at home and other obligations). I hope you will have time to carefully consider what I have said and respond as you feel necessary. I am under the impression that I have said nothing rude so I would hope you would choose to allow me my express and not delete it, but, it is your choice, especially as all of what i have had to say has nothing to do with the original topic.
September 21st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Ben, thanks for you response…
Let me say one thing up front: I don’t think it is possible to separate things into different sphere, emotional and academic, as you have done. An “academic” discussion is emotional, and emotions invlove matters that could also be labelled academic.
I completely understand how my words could be taken as offensive. I’m not going to defend each item you brought up, let me just make 2 general responses before addressing a couple of specifics. First, as I have continually said, my intention from the start has been to get people to think about the authority of the Word of God as it relates to life. My intention has never been to offend anyone. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that a few people have commented to me that your family appears to have taken offence quite easily in this conversation. Secondly, in a discussion such as this, there are really two place that anger can come from. The first possibility is that one side is being a complete jerk and making everyone upset. The second possiblity is that the views of one side have been shown to be wrong, and that is upsetting. In the later case, it is very easy to associate that anger with the one who has shown their views to be incorrect. I don’t say this with any air of superiority, I’m simply setting it out there as something to think about. It’s difficult to say much more, since neither you nor your mother have interacted with the main issue in my post.
Let me respond to a couple of the specific instances you mentioned. Your mother (and, by the way, I find it very awkward that I am discussing this with you rather than your mother) did misrepresent my words by positing false antitheses. She did this in both of her posts, which was why I felt the need to use stronger language in my second response to her.
I, of course, understand that we are not all in the same time zone. But it is one thing to comment on a previous response, it is another thing to cheer for a response to which I have already responded, without taking my response into consideration at all. I have never said that my comments settle the matter, but it is frustrating when your mother’s response simply ignores what I have said. If there is a legitimate point to be raised, that is obviously welcomed. But you mother never made an attempt to interact with the main theme of my post.
If there are any specific points at which I dismissed someone’s statement by playing word games please point it out. I have not done so knowingly. Words are important, and all I have to go one is what someone has written. If they say something that does not make sense it is not wrong of me to point out the inconsistency. There has never been a point at which I have disagreed with anyone simply because that was my preference. Indeed, my argument has been the same from the very beginning.
With regard to my first response to your mother, I’m not really sure how I could have responded any differently, given the circumstances. She had not recognised a nuance in my words and her words gave the impression that she was trying to make things black and white when there was a fair amount of grey. I didn’t really think there was anything else in her comment that needed a response, since I had already responded to much of what she said in my comments to Ken.
I hope what I have said here makes sense, and that you will accept it with the sincerity with which it was written. As I said before, I understand that your mother’s background in law gives her a different point of view on this. It seems that it has caused her to take my words as a personal attack on her, which they clearly never were (I had no knowledge of here at all before her comment here!). I obviously didn’t anticipate that a judge would be taking part in this discussion (to be honest, I never really know if there will be a discussion at all!). It has been dissappointing to me that your mother has chosen to focus on a relatively minor aspect of my original post, and I’m sorry we have no strayed so far from where we began. I must admit that I’m growing tired of this back and forth about who is to blame for what, so I’m going to ask that if you want to respond to me, please use the contact form here to email me privately.