I do not intend to occupy much more time with this discussion and probably will not reply further beyond this posting regardless of what is said. I do wish to address and clarify the specific claims made about my candidacy for the Court of Appeals, which I believe to misrepresent my intentions.
I am not "running as a fundamentalist for political purposes." I freely admit that I have reached out to people of faith of all political persuasions. That was natural because I am a person of faith and relate to the frustration that many have felt when meaningful debate over controversial social issues has been foreclosed by judicial rulings that aren't really based on the Constitution. My reference to my missionary service tells you that I am a person of faith, which other people of faith might relate to. It was a bit of personal information to tell people who I am. Do not read more into it than that. My message to the Faith and Freedom Network was not in "code" nor intended to convey a hidden agenda.
My statement about studying the theological influences on the development of rights theory was not intended to invoke the idea of a theocratic Christian nation. But it would be revisionist history to suggest that theology did not play a significant part in the founding and the development of ideas about rights in England in the centuries preceding the founding. I am writing my master's thesis on that subject because it interests me. It was not merely a well-placed reference intended to score a few political points with a constituency. While I cannot claim that all of my thoughts and writing on the subject are original, I have done my own thinking on the subject and do not simply buy in to a series of political platitudes. (While I am on the subject, I think that Justice Scalia's decision in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith misunderstands our traditions regarding religious freedom and is not sufficiently protective of our rights in general.)
Your posting suggests that the order in which I listed the sample cases has some significance. It does not. No "rhetorical signature" was intended by listing the Carvin case first. My earlier posting explains my objection to the Carvin case, and does not differ in substance from my discussion of the case in my letter to the Faith and Freedom Network. The Court frankly admitted that it was legislating from the bench and I deplore that.
The frustration felt by many people who disagree with you on the policy issue was that the opportunity to decide the issue was taken away from the voters and their elected representatives by a panel of judges that was not truly representative of a brod cross-section of our state. Those people didn't get to have their say because the Court effectively told them that their opinion was irrelevant. In Carvin, the Court didn't even try to tie its decision to the Constitution. They just invented legal principles by inexplicably finding principles in the common law that were never there before--and would have been superceded by statute even if they had been there. This time, your viewpoint won the victory in court. But next time you might not win. Eventually, you'll get an activist decision that you absolutely hate (Kelo?) and wonder where it came from. It comes from the fact that people tolerate activist judges who they happen to agree with on policy issues. You can't embrace judicial activism when you like the outcome and then deplore and criticize it when you dislike the outcome.
It is incorrect that you "did not say" that I should be disqualified from office because of my religious convictions. You labled me a "fundamentalist" and used the term perjoratively to convince your audience that I should be dismissed as a creation of the religious right. At face value it indicated an intolerance for people with strong religious convictions.
Re: Jeff Teichert for Court of Appeals
I am not "running as a fundamentalist for political purposes." I freely admit that I have reached out to people of faith of all political persuasions. That was natural because I am a person of faith and relate to the frustration that many have felt when meaningful debate over controversial social issues has been foreclosed by judicial rulings that aren't really based on the Constitution. My reference to my missionary service tells you that I am a person of faith, which other people of faith might relate to. It was a bit of personal information to tell people who I am. Do not read more into it than that. My message to the Faith and Freedom Network was not in "code" nor intended to convey a hidden agenda.
My statement about studying the theological influences on the development of rights theory was not intended to invoke the idea of a theocratic Christian nation. But it would be revisionist history to suggest that theology did not play a significant part in the founding and the development of ideas about rights in England in the centuries preceding the founding. I am writing my master's thesis on that subject because it interests me. It was not merely a well-placed reference intended to score a few political points with a constituency. While I cannot claim that all of my thoughts and writing on the subject are original, I have done my own thinking on the subject and do not simply buy in to a series of political platitudes. (While I am on the subject, I think that Justice Scalia's decision in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith misunderstands our traditions regarding religious freedom and is not sufficiently protective of our rights in general.)
Your posting suggests that the order in which I listed the sample cases has some significance. It does not. No "rhetorical signature" was intended by listing the Carvin case first. My earlier posting explains my objection to the Carvin case, and does not differ in substance from my discussion of the case in my letter to the Faith and Freedom Network. The Court frankly admitted that it was legislating from the bench and I deplore that.
The frustration felt by many people who disagree with you on the policy issue was that the opportunity to decide the issue was taken away from the voters and their elected representatives by a panel of judges that was not truly representative of a brod cross-section of our state. Those people didn't get to have their say because the Court effectively told them that their opinion was irrelevant. In Carvin, the Court didn't even try to tie its decision to the Constitution. They just invented legal principles by inexplicably finding principles in the common law that were never there before--and would have been superceded by statute even if they had been there. This time, your viewpoint won the victory in court. But next time you might not win. Eventually, you'll get an activist decision that you absolutely hate (Kelo?) and wonder where it came from. It comes from the fact that people tolerate activist judges who they happen to agree with on policy issues. You can't embrace judicial activism when you like the outcome and then deplore and criticize it when you dislike the outcome.
It is incorrect that you "did not say" that I should be disqualified from office because of my religious convictions. You labled me a "fundamentalist" and used the term perjoratively to convince your audience that I should be dismissed as a creation of the religious right. At face value it indicated an intolerance for people with strong religious convictions.