By Mark Rhoads

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- On March 6, 1854, a gang of men in Washington, D.C., overpowered a watchman and stole a stone that had come from a 2,000-year-old Roman temple. The stone had been sent to the United States as a gift from Pope Pius IX and was supposed to be set along with many other special stones in the wall of the Washington Monument.

The gang, believed to be members of the Know Nothing Party, may have dumped the stone into the Potomac River. A Know Nothing faction then gained control of the committee directing the construction of the monument to make sure it could not be used to promote Romanism. Congress became so annoyed with its tactics that it halted funding for the monument's construction -- freezing it at a height of 153 feet.

The American or "Know Nothing" Party was dedicated to keeping immigrants and Roman Catholics out of public office. In the late 1850s, many Know Nothings joined the new Republican Party only because they viewed the northern urban Democrat machines as pro-immigrant and pro-Catholic.

How strange it seems then that a key plank of the Know Nothing Party is now returning almost 150 years later. The plank has become a rallying cry for a handful of ostensibly Catholic members of the United States Senate.

They have a litmus test that may be accurately summarized as a determination to block any person who believes or adheres to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on abortion from holding any position as a federal judge.

Politics being what it is, the issue has become the motivation behind the blocking of Bush judicial appointments rather than the tactics being used to stop them from moving forward.

The Senate Democrats, almost to a man, reject the charge that a religious qualification is being imposed and that they are opposing Catholic judicial nominees per se. It is only those Catholic nominees who are likely to adhere to church teachings who are unfit because such beliefs incline them to rule against "pro-choice" legislation.

The distinction is important for Democrats who are afraid to be charged with anti-Catholicism but nevertheless are willing to risk the consequences of their position in order to keep blocking Bush nominees.

The Senate Democrats imply that they are perfectly willing to confirm any Catholic for a judgeship as long as that Catholic is willing to break with the teachings of the Catholic Church in favor of existing law as determined by the United States Supreme Court.

In an effort to immunize against the charge of anti-Catholic bias, the Senate Democrats have tasked pro-abortion rights Catholic Democrats to lead the defense of the party.

The question Democrats must answer is whether or not the litmus test is based on religion per se or just on the particular doctrine of a religion? Is a doctrinal test the same thing as a religious test? Is this a distinction without a difference?

The slippery slope starts with the risk of appearing over-reaching. By probing much too far into the specific religious practices of a Catholic nominee, some Senators have engaged in tactics that evoke McCarthy if not the Salem Witch Trials.

In practice, some Catholic nominees try to reassure skeptical Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee with a simple statement to the effect that he or she would carefully weigh the facts of each case.

This has roughly been the same position of Catholic nominees and candidates ever since Sen. John F. Kennedy tried in 1960 to reassure Southern evangelical protestants that his allegiance to his faith would not compromise his allegiance to the United States Constitution. But every time a current judicial nominee tries to give similar reassurance, a loud klaxon buzzer sounds. Such answers are never enough to satisfy the Judiciary Committee ideologues.

In effect, every one of the nominees in question has had to face an inquisition: Just how Catholic are you anyway? Do you take daily communion? Do you pray the Rosary each day? Do you attend mass regularly? More than once per week? Did you favor the switch in the liturgy from Latin to modern vernacular languages?"

If the answer to any of the above is "Yes," the presumption is made that the nominee is too Catholic and not worthy of confirmation. The risk that once on the bench existing decisions on key issues like abortion would not be sustained, is much too high.

Some Senate Democrats are in fact imposing a religious test, even though it is carefully camouflaged as a doctrinal one. It is not a religious test against people who are Catholic in name only; just against those who defend the teachings of the church.

Judicial nominees with other religious affiliations may or may not face the same inquisition. "You say you're an Episcopalian? Well that's fine -- but not one of those doctrinaire Anglicans who oppose gay bishops? If you are, we just can't risk having a bigoted Episcopalian on the bench any more than we can risk having those doctrinaire Catholics."

We have long since passed the day when senators thought of their role to advise and consent as relating to matters of qualification rather than matters of ideology. Former Senator Paul Simon, D-Ill., once told Clarence Thomas directly that, though he thought Thomas was qualified, he would vote "No" on his nomination solely due to ideological differences. So be it. Ideology trumps all other considerations for liberal senators newly custodians of the the keys to the federal courthouse.

Most believe they have little to fear from their blatant doctrinal intolerance. Few think a primary challenger could score many points on this issue. They may be correct. But a slight backlash surfaced in the 2002 election results. More could be on the way. The ghosts of the Know Nothings have returned and are haunting the left side of the chamber in the United States Senate.

------------

-- Mark Q. Rhoads is a former Illinois State Senator.



-- United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues.
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

View printer-friendly version
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International. All rights reserved.

Previous Page :: :: Main Page