UUA Opposes Alito Confirmation as Threat to Civil Liberties

[Green Gaia]

(December 12, 2005 – Washington, DC) The Unitarian Universalist Association today announced its opposition to the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. The UUA's opposition is based on concerns over civil liberties, including religious liberty, the right to privacy, and due process.

The UUA has never before opposed the confirmation of a nominee to the Supreme Court. In a statement issued to over 1000 congregations (in PDF format) that make up the Association, the UUA's Washington Office for Advocacy Director Rob Keithan said:

"The decision to take a position on a judicial nominee is not one the UUA takes up lightly. The nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. is significantly different from that of Chief Justice John Roberts or Harriet Miers, in that he has an extensive judicial record that clearly reveals his judicial philosophy on a wide range of issues. After extensive research, Unitarian Universalist Association staff agreed that Judge Alito's rulings revealed a pattern of views that were outside the mainstream and hostile to established precedent favoring civil liberties."

​

The Unitarian Universalist Association believes that the nation's judiciary should protect the rights of all people, regardless of gender, religion, class, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other factors. The Rev. William G. Sinkford, President of the UUA said, "Unitarian Universalists have always honored our commitment to uphold civil liberties. Protecting the freedoms that are at the heart of our democracy is for us a religious, as well as a civic, duty."

The UUA joins other religious and civil rights groups including the Union for Reform Judaism in opposing the nomination of Judge Alito. In a previous statement, Mr. Keithan said, "The Unitarian Universalist Association and our allies will continue to challenge conservative religious fundamentalists and others who claim to speak for all people of faith. There is no single religious perspective on this or any other issue. We hope that all parties involved in the nominations process, including advocacy groups and elected officials, will refrain from using religion as a political weapon. There should be no religious litmus test for judicial nominees, nor tactics that mislabel appropriate questions and concerns as 'attacking' a nominee's faith."

For further information:

• Press Release on UUA opposition to Alito confirmation
• Take Action! Join the UUA in opposing the Alito confirmation (in PDF format)
• Download a flyer for your congregation's bulletin board or for distribution to members
• Talking points for religious leaders wishing to express opposition to the Alito nomination (in PDF format)
• UUA 2004 Statement of Conscience on Civil Liberties
• UUA Washington Office for Advocacy's Information on Judicial Nominations

You may also wish to visit these sites:

• Save Our Courts
• Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
• The Interfaith Alliance's Information on Religion and the Supreme Court

 

[Davidium]

You know, at first I have to say I was a bit concerned by this. I am always a bit wary when I feel the UUA has stepped outside of Social Action and Social Witness, and into the field of politics.

But when I went through it and read the statement adopted at the 2004 General Assembly, I have decided that this opposition does not offend my separation of church and state sensibilities. I know, I'm often a bit over sensitive on this issue.

I do agree and believe that the Alito nomination is a disaster waiting to happen for Civil Liberties. My question was one of whether or not a religious organization should come out blatently and oppose a judicial nomination.

But a judicial nomination is not a political candidacy, no matter how much it resembles one. It is an appointment, and after much reflection I think that religious organizations should be allowed to state their opinion on nominations... not only to the bench but also to the cabinet.

I still think that I would oppose the UUA deciding to officially endorse or oppose a candidate for political office. It just took me a bit of thinking these past two days to decide that the line was drawn there.

As I said, at first I was unhappy about this decision by the Board of Trustees, but now I'm at peace with it. A Board of Trustee's member lives here in Houston, and I was half on my way to give him a piece of my mind.... but I think I will shake his hand instead.

Yours in Faith,

David

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think the uu's have done the right thing
I think it is right for all religious groups to stand up for their views, on political and secular matters.

Terry____________________
Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land

 

[Green Gaia]

David, I was surprised too to see that the UUA made this public opposition statement. But I do agree with the decision to do it. Sadly, I don't think it will matter much.

 

[Davidium]

Sadly, I don't think it will matter much.

Maize,

You know, the comment above is one of the reasons why I think I am relaxing my usual very strict standards on keeping the UUA out of politics.

I have noticed a very disturbing trend among us religious liberals, and political progressives as a whole. We accept that we are going to strike out before we ever even step up to the plate. I know in our recently failed efforts to stop the amendment to the Texas State Constitution which banned same sex unions and gay marriage, it was difficult to get even the known political and religious liberals to make more than a token effort. After weeks of trying to light a fire under my congregation, one of them pulled me aside and made the following comment....

"David, we agree with you, but we just dont feel we should put the effort forth when we know we are going to lose anyway. We just want to focus on our lives."

This was someone who had fought many political battles before... This was not someone who was usually apathetic. We have come to prophesy our own defeat. Until we believe otherwise, we will make that prophesy a reality. It will happen... eventually enough defeats will make us mad enough to fight again...

But this defeatist attitude is driving me nuts in the mean time.

Sorry to rant maize....

Yours in faith,

David

 

[Green Gaia]

As usual, you make some excellent points, David. I do not think the effort is in vain, nor are any of our efforts on the social action front. Here in VA we are facing the most harsh of (anti) marriage amendments in the nation being voted on again in January at the general assembly. The realist in me says that we will not defeat it. The idealist in me tells me that we have to try as we do with any injustice that we see. I don't think I have a defeatist's attitude, I just know what we are up against.

The same with Alito's nomination. I have not heard anything that would cause those in power to derail his confirmation. In fact, they are downright giddy about him. But I still think it's important to voice an opposition when we have legitimate concerns, as we do in this case.

I say we keep fighting on where ever we see injustice or have concerns, but with a healthy balance of idealism and realism. And even the times we do lose, we still win for having the courage to stand up and fight the battle.