You didn't really think the political threads were going to go away did you? Ashcroft Invites God on Decisions By LARRY MARGASAK Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft says he tries to ``invite God's presence'' while making crucial decisions and compares his political victories and defeats to resurrections and crucifixions. The former Missouri governor also wrote that he was anointed before each of his gubernatorial terms and on the evening before he was sworn into the U.S. Senate a friend brought out Crisco cooking oil for anointing when no holy oil could be found. In his 1998 book, ``Lessons From A Father To His Son,'' the son of a pastor makes clear his deep devotion to Christianity and details how it has shaped his lengthy public career - from his view on race to his staunch opposition to abortion and support for the death penalty. Since President-elect Bush selected the defeated Missouri senator to be America's next chief law enforcement officer, civil rights groups and abortion rights supporters have mobilized to oppose his nominations based on some of his views. Ashcroft's book offers a plainspoken reply to such criticism. ``It is against my religion to impose religion on people. ... But I also believe that I need to invite God's presence into whatever I'm doing, including the world of politics,'' wrote Ashcroft, who is Pentecostal. The mixing of politics and faith is embraced by many public officials, according to the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., an Orthodox Jew, often spoke of his faith during his campaign for vice president and strictly observed the Jewish Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. ``There are more today in high places who unashamedly express their faith in God than I have known in my 50 years in the ministry,'' Falwell said. ``John Ashcroft is one of the most genuine and committed Christians I have ever met.'' Ashcroft's book is a tribute to his late father, J. Robert Ashcroft, who was a pastor and college president. The former senator credits his father with teaching him the moral values that shaped his life as a state and federal officeholder. ``My theory about elections is mirrored in what I hold about all of life: for every crucifixion a resurrection is waiting to follow - perhaps not immediately, but the possibility is there,'' Ashcroft wrote. He used the same analogy to describe his first defeat for Congress in 1972. ``My congressional election loss did not end at a crucifixion; it became a resurrection, and an open door to my lifelong vocation of public service. But other crucifixions lay ahead.'' Ashcroft, a former Missouri attorney general, addresses in the book some of the issues he would face in the Justice Department and at his confirmation hearing next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ashcroft is criticized by black leaders for his role in halting the nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White, the first black on the state's high court, to a federal judgeship. White has agreed to testify. Of race, Ashcroft wrote that he learned discrimination was wrong when he asked his father, ``What would you say if I told you I wanted to marry a black woman?'' His father replied: ``John, what would be trouble was if you married someone who didn't share your faith.'' Ashcroft recalled, ``This was my father's way of telling me that what really mattered was not skin color but the condition of a person's heart.'' The Cabinet designee has said he considered White to be soft on criminals, and noted he had supported 23 of the 26 nominations of black judges during his Senate tenure. The man who would have a major say in selecting judicial nominees was harshly critical of judicial activists. He wrote that such jurists ``refuse to accept the inactivity of the legislature or the silence of the framers of the Constitution as evidence that the ignored issues should not be addressed or were purposely not covered by the law or the Constitution.'' ``What these activist judges fail to see is that where the Constitution is silent, that silence expresses the will of the people.'' As governor, Ashcroft said, his religious beliefs did not prevent him from allowing executions - even when a condemned prisoner went through a religious conversion. ``Just because a murderer has learned to love the Lord does not mean the state should pardon him,'' Ashcroft wrote. ``As a Christian, I am willing to forgive him; but as governor, it would have been inappropriate for me to pardon him unless a mistake had been made in the judicial proceedings.'' Ashcroft likened his two gubernatorial inaugurations to Jewish kings David and Saul, who ``were anointed as they undertook their administrative duties.'' On the eve of his becoming a senator, Ashcroft remarked to a group of family and friends, ``It's too bad we don't have any oil.'' ``Let's see if there's something in the kitchen,'' his father suggested. Someone brought out a tiny bowl of Crisco oil. ``We chuckled about that, but my father assured us, 'The oil itself isn't important, except as a symbol of the spirit of God,'' Ashcroft wrote. ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
I'm really torn on this. I mean, on one hand, I don't think there's one single issue that Ashcroft and myself would agree on, yet, I'm not sure if we need to get into ideological differences when confirming Cabinet appointees. Just like I wouldn't agree with conservatives who may disagree with a AG nominee who was pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-gun control, and pro-homosexual rights. If it can be shown that Ashcroft couldn't be trusted to enforce the laws of this country despite his disagreements with some of them, then I say he shouldn't be AG. But I'm not really sure that it's been shown he wouldn't enforce the laws despite his beliefs.
As far as i've heard he has always enforced the laws of the nation in the past, and that is the most important issue, not his political stances. ------------------
MC, I read the article through hoping to see what in particular you may have found distasteful about Ashcroft. The big things like abortions and capital punishment you may disagree with him on, but that wouldn't be what prompted you to post this particular article. So why this article? Do you just object to having a devout Christian in this office? Or do you think that anointing with oil is a little weird? What is your objection? ------------------ RealGM Rockets Draft Obligations Summary Gafford Art Artisan
I have to agree with RM95 on this one. I don't like the guy, but it is more about keeping laws than making them as AG. I am more concerned about the choices for the agricultural committees that are being formed. So far, every one of the appointees is either a agri-business leader or a former politician strong in agri-business. Not one appointee represents small farmers, the environment or consumers. No voice for the environment is no shock and farmers haven't had a voice in years, but having no voice for those of us who have to buy the products that end up on the shelves really makes me nervous. That, IMO, is far more of a concern than AG. ------------------ The way to use life is to do nothing through acting, The way to use life is to do everything through being. - Lao-Tzu
Ones position can affect how one enforces the laws. Perspective is ALWAYS a part of the laws This is why we have things such as DWB - Driving while Black Racial Profiling etc. The laws don't say that everyone dressed like this is likely a drug dealer. . but the 'enforcers' ' own biases do . . .etc. When one has a pre existing slant toward something they tend to seek things that justify that position and dismiss anything that does not. Rocket River I ain't happy . . . ------------------
You know, I have no problem with a devout Christian in office but that does bring up an interesting point. Ashcroft has already created a stir because of his ultra-conservative views, but what if he was a devout Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist? We are not more than 35 years from Catholics being looked at as a bad choice for politics and Lieberman broke the Jewish barrier with his run at VP. I'm just wondering if a qualified fundamentalist Muslim was appointed to a position as powerful as AG how many of the Chistians touting Ashcroft would respond. Like I said, I'm not really all that concerned with Ashcroft, but how far off are we exactly from minority religions receiving the same respect in public as religions with the obvious majority in America? ------------------ The way to use life is to do nothing through acting, The way to use life is to do everything through being. - Lao-Tzu
Quite far, I would guess. It's not too far removed from the prayer at football games controversy. While a good many people seem to be all-out in favor of having a prayer over the loudspeaker at high school football games, I wonder how supportive of said prayers the requirement was that they were Muslim prayers or even Jewish prayers (or even Catholic prayers in some parts of the state). I suspect that we'd see qite a bit of protest from some who support these prayers now if those prayers didn't support their viewpoint. That's a different issue, of course, but Jeff's question made me think of it. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Jeff, it's a valid point. The first obvious answer is if Ashcroft were a devout Muslim, he would never have gotten that appointment in the first place. But I don't want to gloss over the question I posed. Do those that object to Ashcroft object because he's a devout Christian? You seem to assume that that is not the case because he's a member of the dominant American religion. I wouldn't say that he was, though. There are millions of Christians in this country, but there is a difference between devout or born-again Christians and Jesus-in-your-pocket or nominal Christians. I would say most of the country would fall in the latter category while Ashcroft falls in the former. And I think that the nominally Christian get a little antsy around the born-again Christians. They like Christianity all fine and good, as long as it doesn't have any affect on one's life. I'm not saying he's in a heavily-persecuted minority, like Muslims, but he is not in the majority position. And I would say that people are objecting to him based on his religious views. You can see it in Rocket River's comment: "When one has a pre existing slant toward something they tend to seek things that justify that position and dismiss anything that does not." The pre-existing slant he's referring to is Ashcroft's theology. Obviously, the same thing will be true of everyone's theology, whether he's Christian, Muslim, Atheist or what have you. Imo, it makes him nervous, though, because it does not coincide well with RR's own view and he fears that Ashcroft will take what part of the country he can down the wrong road (wrong in RR's estimation). This phenomenon will be more pointedly true with a Muslim, but it still applies to Christians too. This is why I asked mc mark for what precisely prompted him to post this particular article. Unfortunately, he's disappeared. But, I wanted to examine what is it precisely that is objectionable about Ashcroft. Is it particular policy differences like abortion or is it a more fundamental distaste for how Ashcroft relies on the Bible for determining his model of behavior and policy? ------------------ RealGM Rockets Draft Obligations Summary Gafford Art Artisan
Juan I haven't disappeared. I have been reading peoples' responses. I just didn't want to start a fight with anyone. But you asked a question and deserve an answer. So here you go... The position of Attorney General demands that the person who fills it be beyond reproach: a person of integrity and good judgment. John Ashcroft is a right-wing conservative with an exceptionally poor civil rights record and an astonishingly bad history concerning reproductive rights. He has voted against affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, against a crucial AIDS provision, against environmental protections, and has received extraordinarily high ratings and accolades from prominent ultra-conservative groups and institutions like the Christian Coalition and Bob Jones University. Moreover, Mr. Ashcroft's actions regarding the Ronnie White nomination demonstrate a clear lack of integrity. ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.' [This message has been edited by mc mark (edited January 12, 2001).]
Juan: I understand the point you are making but I think that there is a valid concern by those of us who do not share Ashcroft's views that he could use his position to influence laws in a way that crosses the boundry between law and religion. If he were a fundamentalist Muslim, there would be similar concerns with regard to policy but I would have to contend that the dissent would be far more severe. You make a good point that run-of-the-mill Christians tend to be put off by born-again Christians. I've been on both sides of that fence and I know the feelings there intimately. The problem is not the born-again Christians but the perception there is of them and the things born-again Christians have done in the name of their religion that put off those of us who don't share those beliefs. It is logical that those who don't share the most conservative Christian beliefs would be concerned by those who do. Christians are active in their politics and communities. There is an inclusiveness about their beliefs - in Hindu or Buddhist communities, for example, the practices and beliefs of Christians are welcome and honored. However, the beliefs of Hindus and Buddhists are far from welcome and honored Christian churches and communities. In fact, in some Christian circles they are relegated to a place of fear, lothing or that of a joke. Because of the stridence taken in those Christian beliefs, people who don't share those beliefs worry that their rights will be infringed upon or taken away by someone who would seek to impose rules based on religion that go further than the laws we have in place today. I think that it is perfectly understandable to be concerned by someone who practices fundamentalism of any religion because it implies that person might place those beliefs over what the rest of us would consider the "common good" or "fair and equal protection under the law." It isn't just a concern over born-again Christians. It is a concern over anyone who might be in a position to exert the force of their beliefs onto the rest of us. ------------------ I am very very sleepy.
