God And Mammon.

I picked the wrong master when I went after money instead of God because, let's face it, I don't have the killer instinct and the self-adoration necessary to make the big bucks. But since Luke told me that I had to pick, well, I picked. Now look where it's gotten me. I should have been a priest. I would have been a good priest, except for that celibacy thing, although from what I hear, there are loopholes.

And the believing thing would pose a certain constraint, as it were. But in my own defense, I will say that I've been fed a lot of dogma from other sources and I have readily sucked up and regurgitated the party line, whatever party I happened to be attending at the time. Commie. Capitalist. Spiritualist. Skeptic. It's all good.

And here, after all this time, after having placed my bet and stayed, turns out that one really doesn't have to make a choice. Of course I'm not buying a syllable that comes out of Mahmoud Abbas' or Nabil Shaath's baklava holes but it's not that far fetched to believe that the president believes that he has been called by his god at this time. After all, didn't he say as much already? I for one give him props for telling the truth about his personal relationship with God, even if he intends to get a pass on mistakes. How can one honestly criticize a person on a mission from God? Easy, especially when the story comes from a couple of guys who would say anything to further their cause. The likes of Hamas already claim that Allah will guarantee that Israel will be pushed into the sea, so the claim that God is using Dubya to get them a state isn't that far off the map.

Still, the idea that our president talks to God is not nearly as worrisome as hearing that God is talking back. On the bright side, maybe we'll find that we have ourselves an honest-to-goodness George of Arc. I don't mean to mock, and I honestly do respect the president's faith, but I am wondering what it is that suddenly makes it okay for religion to play such a front-and-center role in our secular country?

And now, it also comes to light that all of the huffing about Dick Durbin bringing up religion during the Roberts nomination process means exactly squat to conservatives who are openly talking about Harriet Miers' deep and abiding, and let's not forget un-Catholic faith as a qualification to sit on the nation's highest court. The Rev. Dobson seems to be saying that John Robert's faith meant nothing to the nation because it means nothing to God. Presumably, if Miers had stayed a Catholic she would be disqualified.

In my experience, I find that people tend to talk of God when they have run out of rational arguments. So it is not surprising that in the absence of a long judicial history or law review articles or speeches, Harriet Miers is looking more and more like a troubled nomination and even some evangelicals are starting to smell a stealth rat. And yet, neither Miers' supporters nor her detractors seem to care this time around that she, like Roberts, asserts that in fact she can serve two masters. And, it seems, both of these people have been doing it for some time now and are very successful in their efforts.

I love all the talk about God's role in our daily lives. But I don't seem to get any of His love while everybody else, ya know, they're swimming in it. Narrowly escaped an auto accident? God was looking out for you. Win the football game? God wanted you to win this time. Got a great new job? Found ten dollars on the sidewalk? Didn't get cancer? It's all God's business. Wanna invade Iraq? Hmmm...

There was a discussion this week at the underground lair where agnostics and atheists go to argue about other people's business. A question was posited: Which is more "scary," a person who has become born-again because they have hit bottom and has nowhere else to go (Bush) or the one who transitions from more established, "traditional" religious beliefs Miers)?

This is a question that is interesting only to those who have no religion, because those who do already know the answer: it's the other one.

Another question is: Which one is more sincere? But this isn't really a question so much as a criticism, because we all know that it's neither, right? Any belief in something else, something bigger has to be suspect, because, well, just because. We tend to take that one on faith.

The mistake that evangelicals made in the last two elections was assuming that George Bush got elected because there is some vast groundswell to make right all of the evil that has been imposed on the nation by a godless Supreme Court. Yet even as the other far direction expresses fear and loathing about the sure coming of an American version of Saudi Arabia, a sort of Handmaid's Tale come to life, the faithful have seen the past and the future and are certain that God got George elected.

This is why they are now either so disappointed or so enthralled before Miers has opened her mouth. The disappointed fear "another Souter" which is conservative code for "not in lock step with the right." The problem that the right has with Souter is that he isn't what Bush guarantees Miers to be: an unthinking, unchangeable ideologue beholden to promises and religious strictures.

Those who are automatically in love with Miers because they know, they just know, that Bush would never nominate someone who wasn't going to stand foursquare in front of every single abortion clinic in the land. And therein lies the mistake. The majority of Americans in the middle have an annoying habit of being comfortable with compromise and are deeply skeptical about either party's so-called base. Why the word "base" is used to described something small and one-dimensional, I'll never understand.

The debate over Harriet Miers is heating up nicely, but it's a fool's game to play along. With the debate already being framed around her faith and lack of judicial experience, we can see the whole strategy laid out in front of us. It is God and mammon, as in we want both. I'm not confident that this will win. The more the Bush Administration stresses her born-again bona fides, the less the Democrats and moderate Republicans are likely to be comfortable. And in playing up her refusal to talk about just about anything will only serve to make both evangelicals and liberals suspicious.

At the moment, Miers is polling in Bork territory and doesn't have his credentials to back her up. So what we may be witnessing is some sort of proof that the idea that one cannot serve two masters just might be correct.

Comments

[Maggie]

The question is how many Democrats will vote FOR her (because they assume Republicans will vote her down)-- their thinking being that they will then be free to vote AGAINST the next candidate.

Could she slide in the "back door"?

[Daniel]

Maggie, this is a family blog. You should know that by now.

I'll forgive this little slip just this once, but for a while you will be on probation.

[Maggie]

Thou hast a corrupt mind, Daniel. No pun was intended.

Surely the lions shall come for you now.

[Daniel]

How many times have I told you not to call me Shirley?!

[Mom]

if a "deep and abiding faith" are all the criteria needed to be a Supreme Court justice we are in deep doo-doo. With that qualification even I can aspire to an appointment. The homier version is "No one can sit on two chairs, and not expect to fall between them." The Supreme Court is NOT there to be God's messenger, but to decide on the law. If you want to serve God-go to church, not to court.

[Daniel]

Well, exactly. I have heard so many evangelicals and other conservatives who insisted that Roberts' philosophy was off limits now either touting Miers' philosophy or demanding to know what it is.

On the other hand, I don't mind the fact that Miers doesn't have judicial experience or isn't a theorist in principle. We don't know if she's brilliant or stupid, but we will soon enough. I don't think it's a good idea to have all eggheads on the bench. And in true fashion, those who lauded Reagan's and Bush's "anti-intellectualism" are now insisting that there be only "intellectuals" nominated to the bench.