Histrionics?

Jeff Goldstein is a national treasure who's blogsite is Protein Wisdom. He writes about the screwed up judicial nomination process, the filibuster and attempts to change the Senate rules. He is generally in favor, but would like to see a “real” filibuster before the rules change is voted on. OK.

But he refers to the question of whether “people of faith” can be approved as “histrionics” and bad strategy that will backfire. Here I emphatically disagree. Not because of a difference of opinion, but as a matter of fact.

There is no question that the Left does not want people who are committed Christians - and by that I mean people who believe in God, that Jesus was his son and that the Bible is divinely inspired – to be judges. They do not want people who are pro-life for religious reasons on the bench. Liberals do not believe that these people, once they get on the bench, will be able to put their personal belief systems aside and make judgments based on the law. And they believe that because that is what they would do under similar circumstances.

I refer you to the hearings for William Pryor in 2003. Kay Daly in the WSJ’s Opinion Journal summarized the thrust of the questioning this way:

Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, the most recent Daniel to face the hungry lions, has made the "mistake" of not distancing himself from his faith. In a recent confirmation hearing for Mr. Pryor, a nominee to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said plainly that Mr. Pryor's deeply held personal convictions as a pro-life Catholic simply would not be left at the courthouse door. In other words, being a Catholic is just fine if you are Sen. Leahy or Sen. Kennedy and selectively follow the doctrines of the faith. But if you actually practice Catholic teaching, you need not apply for a federal judgeship.

[snip]

It cannot be mere coincidence that Mr. Holmes--as well as fellow disputed nominees like Mr. Pryor, Carolyn Kuhl (in the Ninth Circuit), Bob Conrad (eastern district of North Carolina) and three of the four stalled nominees from Michigan (Sixth Circuit)--is a practicing Catholic. For Catholics, Purgatory may very well be the judicial nominations process. Then again, Charles Pickering, a nominee for the Fifth Circuit who once served as president of the Mississippi Southern Baptist Convention, and Priscilla Owen, a filibustered Fifth Circuit nominee and Episcopalian Sunday school teacher, are also under attack.

For the non-Christians among us, the question I asked of Jeff was: why should Christians just shut up and take it, let’s hear the reasons.

UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein has responded to my comments HERE . His reply is fairly good ...until he accuses me thus: And I must say (and this is more of a general comment than it is specifically aimed at Moneyrunner), I’m beginning to tire of suggestions that anyone who doesn’t agree with every plank in the strategy platform of Christian conservatives is somehow either directly or indirectly seeking to oppress people of faith.

Frankly, I resent that. Nowhere in my comments did I suggest that failure to agree with Christian conservatives was equal to oppressing them. That is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

I conclude from this over-the-top reaction that Jeff had a bad day, or he has some personal issues with Christians that are manifesting themselves by imagining that he is being attacked. If we can't disagree without being disagreeable it's not possible to have a dialog.