“Slander”

That’s the word the Washington Post uses to describe the Family Research Council’s contention that some of Bush’s appellate-court nominees are being blocked “because they are people of faith and moral conviction.” The Post urges Senator Frist not to participate in FRC’s event.

A number of smart people have criticized the Post’s view, and similar views expressed by others: Ann Althouse, Paul at Powerline, and Hugh Hewitt have all, I think it fair to say, essentially defended FRC’s rhetoric.

I’m with the Post on this one. I think it is true that many Democrats are enforcing a viewpoint test for judicial office that has the effect of screening out Catholics and many evangelical Protestants who are faithful to their churches’ teaching about abortion. And I think Republicans have every right to hold Democrats to account for it. But opposition to Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism is not the same thing as opposition to religion in general, and opposition to pro-life views is not the same thing as opposition to moral conviction, either. The FRC’s line that Democrats are filibustering “people of faith” is an overreach. The claim it is making is untrue, and it is untrue in a way that makes the Democrats look worse–which makes it a slander in my book.

The fact that the Post editorial bundles together all kinds of different things–FRC’s rhetoric, Senator Cornyn’s foolish remark about violence against judges, loose talk of impeachment, and bills to restrict the courts’ jurisdiction–and huffily concludes that they are all irresponsible and “beyond the pale” does not make their opening points untrue. Indeed, one reason to avoid overheated and false rhetoric is that it makes it possible for your opponents to ignore your valid points.

The FRC ought to modify its comments, and Senator Frist ought to make clear his disagreement if it does not.