The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Not Quite Wright

5.19.08 @ 12:01AM

DEFENDING DONNIE McClurkin
Re: RiShawn Biddle's Do the Wright Thing:

While I agree with much of what is said in the Biddle article, especially that black politicians must broaden their bases to win state and national elections, there are some things that bother me in the article.

First, there seems to be an undercurrent of disdain for the black church which is expressed by linking "many" black churches and "old school" pastors to the lunacy that is Black Liberation theology. While I am sure that there are some churches and pastors who embrace it, I don't think that it is a prevalent as the article makes it seem. And I know of many "old school" pastors who came of age in the 1960's who have never embraced separatism in any way, nor have they condemned whites, nor have they damned their nation. Just because some "old school" ministers have does not mean that "many" have.

Also, I do not consider Donnie McClurkin to be a "gay bashing clergyman" simply because he cannot support the homosexual lifestyle. And if you were going to reference him, you could at least be more detailed in relating his struggles against his homosexual urges. He has told the story of his abuse as a child by a male family member, and he has told of his overcoming the homosexual urges and activities that he had engaged in. He has not condemned homosexuals in any way other than to state his belief that homosexual behavior is a sin before God, as he has also spoken out against adultery and fornication. So according to your logic, McClurkin must also be a "straight bashing clergyman" as well!

And while I agree that in order to win national elections a politician must have a broad base, in order to win at the local level a politician has to court those constituents that will likely be voting for him. If that is primarily a black constituency then the black church is going to remain a key component in building support. Blacks are a churchgoing group, for the most part, and it is important for any politician to be able to relate to those people in order to win.
-- Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina

LIFT YOU UP
Re: Lawrence Henry's One Bad Year:

I want to thank you for sharing your story, I have been very moved by your words and your faith. It is rare to hear someone describe their suffering as honestly and without self-pity as you do. I can remember hearing a teaching on suffering at a Bible-study years ago when I was in my early 30s and being repelled by it. I was terrified, truth to be told. Little did I know how much suffering was ahead of me, and is a part of so many lives. Now, I find those passages in the Bible about suffering to be like old friends, my companions on the journey. I lift you up in prayer.
-- Colleen Fetz
Spokane, Washington

SO GOES CALIFORNIA
Re: W. James Antle III's California Dreamin':

So the California Supreme Court has -- for no apparent reason other than that they felt like it -- declared that the institution of marriage as it has been understood by virtually every society in human history is in violation of California's constitution.

Oh, and pigs shall fly.

The court's ruling betrays either a) a woeful lack of any understanding of the role of marriage in society, or b) rank judicial activism. They simply imposed their values on 30 million Californians, the large majority of whom thought we had settled this in 2000.

For me, Antle's money quote was: "(M)arriage exists not to give some kind of Good Housekeeping seal of approval to various romantic couplings but in recognition of the biological fact that sex between men and women often results in children." If it weren't for the presumption that the relationship between a man and woman will produce children, what compelling interest does the government have in insinuating itself in the private relationships of its citizens?

Using the court's logic as a guide, a reasonable person could then ask, "Why does the FAA deny airworthiness certification to pigs?" Answer: because that case isn't due before the California Supreme Court until October.
-- Pete Chase
San Diego, California

Voters in California unambiguously made their choice when they overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22 and supported the domestic partnership guidelines passed by their state legislature. Apparently, following the democratic process upon which our nation was founded is not enough to secure that the will of the majority be followed in this case. Four unaccountable jurists, in a brazen display of arrogance, freely and deliberately set aside the desire of the people because it did not conform to their enlightened rendering of the state's governing document. Is this what now passes for "government of the people, by the people, for the people" in California? Perhaps the language in the state constitution needs to be amended to read "Herewith, all decisions of the citizens of the state are final, except in those instances where the majority of the panel of imperial potentates comprising the Supreme Court does not agree."

Judicial overreach is nothing new, especially when the issue of same-sex marriage is at the fulcrum of the debate. Since no language exists in the federal and in few, if any, state constitution explicitly defining what constitutes a marriage relationship (prior to a few years ago, there was no need for such a clarification), judges feel emboldened to embark on fishing expeditions to find something in the text that they can pervert to justify their non-traditional inclinations. These excursions, which invariably match the goals and agenda of some strident and vocal minority they are sympathetic to, lead to court verdicts bereft of any justification other than the personal preference of a bare majority of the judicial panel. As I have noted in the past, Thomas Jefferson's warning has been validated here: "[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy....The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Trade, Business, Environment, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Russia, NATO, Socialism, Conservatism, Energy, Alaska, Oil, Unions