POINT/COUNTERPOINT: Some see Elena Kagan as threat to religious speech

Point by Ed Holliday
What we have in the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is a full assault on freedom of religion. The far left wants to “dumb down” the phrase freedom of religion to become freedom to worship. There is a huge difference, because freedom of religion means the freedom to preach, evangelize, and to make oral arguments in debates across the breadth of society. Freedom of worship is the right to worship in your own home or within the walls of a building.
Kagan’s role on the Supreme Court is to be the ideologue pursuing the left’s agenda to make religion impotent in our society. Kagan’s actions have shown that she believes that sexual rights trump those of freedom of religion. Make no doubt about it, if she is confirmed she will have decades to put her beliefs into our laws and to demand sexual freedom as an inalienable right. To some this may sound fair, but does incest, bigamy, and pedophilia become a part of people being free to love in the way they choose?
Even though Kagan is Jewish, Rabbi Levin, representing 850 Orthodox rabbis, says Kagan “will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society’s already steep decline into Sodom and Gomorrah.”
Kagan’s radical views and her lack of court experience are enough to make her unfit to sit on the bench of the Supreme Court. Where are our black leaders and the mainstream media who used to always demand more racial diversity on this court? Can they now be called hypocrites because they have remained silent about racial diversity even as President Obama has failed for a second time to nominate an African American?
Counterpoint by James Hull
I just have two words for what I consider more of a rant than an opinion piece: Red Herring. That’s what I think when I hear the Religious Right not just having the gall to enlist the aid of African Americans in pursuit of its narrow agenda, but actually possessing the audacious unmitigated gall to call out African Americans because we don’t share the same world view. Where does the Religious Right stand on helping African Americans get decent health care? What are the Religious Right’s positions on issues which directly affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of African Americans ranging from early childhood education to school lunch programs to alternative sentencing for first-time youth offenders? Black people aren’t monolith in their thinking – it’s called diversity of thought. And we certainly don’t need to be lectured on how to be good Christians or good Americans.
So why is it that the Religious Right wants to be pals with President Obama on his Supreme Court nominations, but throws bipartisanship out the window on everything else?
Three quick points:
First: the Supreme Court cannot and should not legislate morals. The “Black Church,” if there is such a thing, is unapologetically vigilant and vocal in its crusades against homosexuality, abortion and all manner of sexual sin.
Second: As a Christian and religious leader, myself, I’m offended that I would be accused of abetting incest, pedophilia and bigamy just because I don’t approach a particular Supreme Court nomination as someone else. Red herring.
Third: It seems the Religious Right cares more about making the nine Supreme Court justices bedroom police and religious witch hunters than upholders of the laws of commerce, crime, equal rights and bearing arms; and being non-political, objective watchdogs over issues like campaign finance reform and Florida elections.
Dr. Ed Holliday is a Tupelo dentist who has written two successful books. Contact him at ed@teaparty.ms. James Hull is an award-winning consultant and journalist. Contact him at hullmultimedia@aol.com

Ed Holliday and James Hull