Bill Pryor: Judas to the Right?

President Bush has appointed Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals; this is a recess appointment, made because Democrats in the Senate refused to let him be voted upon because of his past record. One might think that religious conservatives would be happy about this, but many aren't. Pryor was the one who put an end to Judge Roy Moore's antics with his Ten Commandments monuments and members of the Christian Right haven't forgotten - or forgiven - that.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin writes for Covenant News:

Pryor was the political Judas who turned against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore after promising former Alabama Governor Fob James and the people of Alabama that he would back Moore "all the way." In fact, Bill Pryor would never have attained the Alabama Attorney General's office without his enthusiastic support for Judge Moore. Therefore, James and others were shocked at Pryor's sudden decision to prosecute Chief Justice Moore and orchestrate Moore's removal from the Alabama Supreme Court.

When you read Bill Pryor's remarks at Chief Justice Moore's "trial," you will be instantly impressed with the fact that Pryor is a firm believer in transjudicialism. He actually believes that federal judges do not merely interpret the law, they are the law. Pryor suffers from the same disease that many in the judiciary seem to suffer from these days: the belief that a judge's opinion, not the Constitution, is law of the land. ... In Pryor's world, a judge's ruling is superior to moral, natural, or even divine law.

If Pryor is Judas, then Moore is Jesus - interesting analogy, isn't it? Moore is a revered figure among members of the far Christian Right, so such a comparison is not at all surprising.

Baldwin's attitude towards the Constitution is similar to the attitudes of many conservative evangelicals towards the Bible: the text just "is," and doesn't require any real interpretation. What it means is plainly obvious to anyone with a little education, so "interpreting" it is simply a matter of understanding the words and context.

That is simply nonsense - no reputable judge or lawyer actually thinks that that is all there is to interpreting the law or the Constitution. Interpretation takes work and two different people can arrive at three different and plausible interpretations. Because of that, judges' opinions about the law and the Constitution are, in effect, the law. Our laws don't simply exist in some ideal realm; instead, they are mediated through those appointed to interpret and apply them. In a sense, the "law" is not so much the words written on a piece of paper, but how those words are understood and used.

And, yes, in a secular state judicial rulings take precedence over what particular individuals believe the moral, natural, or divine laws to be. Secular governments have no authority to adopt particular, alleged divine laws and impose them on everyone. People who believe otherwise are those who wish to end secular society and create a theocracy - one modeled in their own image, naturally.

Read More:

• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Religious Right
• Christian Extremism
• Christian Nationalism
• Religious Intolerance & Bigotry