January 18, 2001
Beliefs, Laws and John Ashcroft
T o the Editor:
Re "In Testimony, Ashcroft Vows to Enforce
Laws He Dislikes" (front page, Jan. 17):
It is insufficient for John Ashcroft to use his
agreement to enforce the laws he dislikes as a
principal justification for his confirmation as
attorney general. If he is confirmed and fails to
enforce the laws, he would be guilty of
dereliction of duty.
Among the critical roles of the attorney general is to determine priorities
among myriad possible prosecutorial investigations and actions by the
Justice Department and how aggressive to be in pursuing them. These are
the discretionary crucial areas in which Mr. Ashcroft's personal beliefs
and his positions on important political and social issues would make a
critical difference.
Therefore, it is not only fair but also imperative for senators to inquire
about these beliefs and positions in order to make an informed decision
about whether to confirm him or not.
**********************************************************************
ROBERT A. GOLDSTON
New York, Jan. 17, 2001
To the Editor:
Re "In Testimony, Ashcroft Vows to Enforce Laws He Dislikes" (front
page, Jan. 17): No other choice for attorney general has demonstrated so
well his ability to uphold and enforce the law in an objective manner as
John Ashcroft has done — as Missouri's attorney general, governor and
United States senator.
It's time for those whom we elect to represent us to function as
statesmen, not petty politicians. There is absolutely no evidence that Mr.
Ashcroft has failed to uphold the law or has disgraced the offices he has
held. He is a true patriot and should be confirmed.
**************************************************************************
KEITH A. BROWN
Indianapolis, Jan. 17, 2001
To the Editor:
I oppose the selection of John Ashcroft for attorney general on the same
grounds as those who propose him (front page, Jan. 17). Mr. Ashcroft is
clearly a man of integrity and purpose; he has shown over his years of
public service that he is committed to his beliefs. For that I applaud him.
It is just that this same integrity and commitment might stand in the way of
his enforcing those laws that he finds repugnant to his core beliefs.
I therefore suggest that his name be withdrawn and that another, equally
qualified and less polarizing person be selected to serve as attorney
general.
LYNDL MARSHALL
New York, Jan. 17, 2001
**********************************************************************
• To the Editor:
In the first day of his confirmation hearing, John Ashcroft said, "As a man
of faith I take my word and my integrity seriously" (excerpts from
hearings, Jan. 17). If Mr. Ashcroft believes that integrity is limited to
people of faith, he is wrong. This raises serious questions about his ability
to deal fairly with people of different faiths or with those whose beliefs do
not include any organized religion at all.
**************************************************************
ROBERT W. CARR
Ann Arbor, Mich., Jan. 17, 2001
To the Editor:
The problem with the choice of John Ashcroft for attorney general is not
that his ideology is being judged but that his ideology has a history of
impinging on the rights of those with no voice in government (front page,
Jan. 17).
The process that rejected Robert H. Bork for the Supreme Court
excluded him largely because of provocative stands that he took. Mr.
Ashcroft has taken ultraconservative stands that have affected real lives,
and his confirmation would confirm the perceptions of many who believe
that his political record is just more anti-civil-rights business as usual.
JEFFREY P. MUSCHLER
Austin, Minn., Jan. 17, 2001
******************************************
To the Editor:
Re "A Christian, a Citizen," by Robert A. Sirico (Op-Ed, Jan. 17):
I find it ironic that Father Sirico would suggest that this country should
use the opportunity of John Ashcroft's selection as attorney general to
reaffirm the "old liberal virtue of tolerance." Perhaps if Mr. Ashcroft had
displayed this virtue during his political career, he would not find himself
so strongly opposed.
PETER L. SACKS
New York, Jan. 17, 2001
nytimes.com
January 17, 2001
A Christian, a Citizen
By ROBERT A. SIRICO
RAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Some of the objections to the John
Ashcroft nomination for attorney general hint that the problem with
his conservative politics is that it is rooted in his Christian faith.
It is true that Mr. Ashcroft has made it clear that he is Christian and that
his religious beliefs inform his judgment of the world. But why shouldn't
someone who holds this particular belief be qualified to lead the Justice
Department?
We must remember our country's progressive tradition of religious
tolerance. In our nation's history, certain states subjected public
officeholders to certain religious tests. For instance, in 1961, the
Supreme Court struck down a Maryland law that required public officials
to swear to a belief in the existence of God. Progressives fought valiantly
against these religious tests, and it would be a grave error to promote a
new religious test that would in effect block committed Christians from
public service.
And yet some understandable questions remain. From the time of ancient
Israel and the early church, believers have held that there is a law higher
than those issued and enforced by government. Its source is transcendent
and binds people's souls in a way in which statutory law cannot. Indeed,
the idea of a natural law that transcends the political process is a
powerful argument against tyranny.
Every serious believer and every conscientious person in public office
must balance respect for law with the dictates of conscience. Many have
disagreed profoundly with certain policies and wondered whether their
religious commitments permitted them to cooperate in enforcing those
policies.
Surely, as attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft would also have to struggle
with this conundrum — particularly when it comes to abortion, which he
opposes. But it is perfectly within Christian belief that one can participate
in an essentially just system that sometimes produces unwise laws that
must be enforced, as Mr. Ashcroft would do. That is at least as
principled a position as that of those Catholic politicians who personally
oppose abortion but vigorously support Roe v. Wade.
George W. Bush's response to the attacks on Mr. Ashcroft hints at the
distinction between administering the law and advocating legislation. He
says that as attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft will enforce, not interpret, the
laws, until such time as Congress changes them. Presumably that also
includes the nation's laws on abortion.
The Bible, in Chapter 13 of Romans, tells Christians that "the powers that
be are ordained of God." That passage has never been held to mean that
every regime governs according to God's will. But the phrase does imply
that Christians face no moral obligation to flee from public life merely
because a nation's laws do not always perfectly conform to the highest
moral standards.
We are a nation that holds firm to the conviction that a person's religious
commitments, or lack thereof, need not bar him or her from public life.
The Ashcroft nomination provides an opportunity to reaffirm the best of
this old liberal virtue of tolerance.
Robert A. Sirico, a Catholic priest, is president of the Acton Institute
for Religion and Liberty.
nytimes.com |
