The Canonization of Saint Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Anyone who watched the lines of people who paid their respects to Ruth Bader Ginsburg as she lay in state at the Supreme Court would have noticed a peculiar atmosphere.  The reactions of those filing past her coffin went far beyond ordinary, quiet, and respectful homage to the dead.  Women and little girls were kneeling down before her, offering prayerful salutes and shedding tears of grief and rage.  Some were almost hysterical.

Once again, it's clear that the left is deeply religious.  Be it the elevation of Greta Thunberg to the status of St. Joan of Arc; the high reverence accorded Al Gore, the prophet of doom whose declamations have rivaled those of St. John's pronouncements in the book of Revelation; or now the late Justice Ginsburg, it is apparent that the left has a religious need for saints as surely as any Christian church.

Now already elevated above her mortal status as a judge on the bench of the Supreme Court, Ginsburg is seated in the pantheon of the left.  Even her final words, in which she apparently expressed a wish that her replacement not be nominated until after the election, are as authoritative as scripture to devotees such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who believes that the oracular pronouncements of an "icon" of the left are to supersede the directives of America's constitution.  

After the memorials in her honor are complete, Ginsburg doubtless will be accorded hagiographies.  What is perhaps more troubling than the accordance of sainthood on the former justice by the left are the obsequies of Christians and others who have almost fought one another in conferring honors on a person who was unalterably and ferociously opposed to everything Christianity once stood for without apology: the sacredness of every human life, the sanctity of marriage, the biological distinctions of the sexes, and the integrity of the Church.

Typical of the accolades heaped on her by even the religious are the praises offered by Erika Bachiochi in her article "What I Will Teach My Children about Ruth Bader Ginsburg."  Bachiochi separated Ginsburg's personal life from her judicial decisions, praising her for "her noble vision for caregiving" as exemplified by her tender regard for her husband of 56 years.

But as the redoubtable and indefatigable Phyllis Schlafly pointed out in her article appearing in Human Events in 2005, no matter how tender the late justice's caregiving, what Ginsburg stood for as a legal scholar and justice of the Supreme Court was a radical leftist's wish list for America.    

Schlafly noted that the late justice called for the "sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal."  She added that perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.

Continuing in a similar vein, Ginsburg called for the "sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts" because they "perpetuate stereotyped sex roles."  College fraternities and sororities were to be replaced with "college social societies."  In the interest of equality, Mother's Day and Father's Day were not to be celebrated separately

Worse, "Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are 'less than 12 years old.'  She wrote that laws against 'bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist' are unconstitutional.  Further, prostitution was a consensual act, and the Mann Act was "offensive," as such acts were to be considered "within the zone of privacy."

Schlafly continued:

Ginsburg listed hundreds of 'sexist' words that must be eliminated from all statutes.  Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and 'to man' a vessel[.] ... She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole.  They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.

Not only did Ginsburg pass former President Bill Clinton's litmus test of being pro-abortion, (she even supported partial birth abortion) but she was also on record as opposing what was then settled law that the Constitution does not compel taxpayers to pay for abortions. In her chapter in a 1980 book, Constitutional Government in America, she condemned the Supreme Court's ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.

Considering just how radical Ginsburg's stances and decisions were, what are we to make of Christians' praise and support for her?  Why are conservatives, religious or not, putting wreaths on Ginsburg's head?

The fact is that in place of Christian virtues, too many conservatives have substituted the progressive virtue of "tolerance."  The hallmark of secular progressive religion has also become the defining virtue of the Christian/conservative community.  The drive to appear "nice" and inoffensive, to "understand' the other viewpoint, no matter how offensive or prurient, has vitiated the Judeo/Christian virtues of justice and righteousness; of steadfast opposition to evil.  The progressive idea of virtue has won over the truth, including the truth of what Ginsburg and her feminist acolytes devotedly believe in — most avidly and ferociously, the progressive sacrament of abortion.  Ginsburg never, ever wavered from her advocacy of abortion.  Never.

We cannot praise her tenacity as a good thing.  Her tenacity and those likeminded have contributed to the deaths of some 60,000,000 innocents.

Would a similar tenacity be exhibited by Christian conservatives, many of whom have waffled continually, debating for over fifty years what is anathema to the God they profess to worship — namely, the shedding of innocent human blood?

In conclusion, while God the Creator pronounces himself as not taking pleasure in the death of any human being and admonishes those who believe in Him not to rejoice when any human dies, neither are we to praise and give accolades to those who are by their ideology sworn to do evil.

On the contrary, those who are opposed to the "fundamental transformation" of American society by the advocacy of evils that have become systemic, evils Ginsburg promoted in the name of equality should stand up and fight: Fight for the good, the true and the beautiful — for human life in all its fullness.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her the prize for excellence in systematic theology.  Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including American Thinker.  She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com   

Anyone who watched the lines of people who paid their respects to Ruth Bader Ginsburg as she lay in state at the Supreme Court would have noticed a peculiar atmosphere.  The reactions of those filing past her coffin went far beyond ordinary, quiet, and respectful homage to the dead.  Women and little girls were kneeling down before her, offering prayerful salutes and shedding tears of grief and rage.  Some were almost hysterical.

Once again, it's clear that the left is deeply religious.  Be it the elevation of Greta Thunberg to the status of St. Joan of Arc; the high reverence accorded Al Gore, the prophet of doom whose declamations have rivaled those of St. John's pronouncements in the book of Revelation; or now the late Justice Ginsburg, it is apparent that the left has a religious need for saints as surely as any Christian church.

Now already elevated above her mortal status as a judge on the bench of the Supreme Court, Ginsburg is seated in the pantheon of the left.  Even her final words, in which she apparently expressed a wish that her replacement not be nominated until after the election, are as authoritative as scripture to devotees such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who believes that the oracular pronouncements of an "icon" of the left are to supersede the directives of America's constitution.  

After the memorials in her honor are complete, Ginsburg doubtless will be accorded hagiographies.  What is perhaps more troubling than the accordance of sainthood on the former justice by the left are the obsequies of Christians and others who have almost fought one another in conferring honors on a person who was unalterably and ferociously opposed to everything Christianity once stood for without apology: the sacredness of every human life, the sanctity of marriage, the biological distinctions of the sexes, and the integrity of the Church.

Typical of the accolades heaped on her by even the religious are the praises offered by Erika Bachiochi in her article "What I Will Teach My Children about Ruth Bader Ginsburg."  Bachiochi separated Ginsburg's personal life from her judicial decisions, praising her for "her noble vision for caregiving" as exemplified by her tender regard for her husband of 56 years.

But as the redoubtable and indefatigable Phyllis Schlafly pointed out in her article appearing in Human Events in 2005, no matter how tender the late justice's caregiving, what Ginsburg stood for as a legal scholar and justice of the Supreme Court was a radical leftist's wish list for America.    

Schlafly noted that the late justice called for the "sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal."  She added that perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.

Continuing in a similar vein, Ginsburg called for the "sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts" because they "perpetuate stereotyped sex roles."  College fraternities and sororities were to be replaced with "college social societies."  In the interest of equality, Mother's Day and Father's Day were not to be celebrated separately

Worse, "Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are 'less than 12 years old.'  She wrote that laws against 'bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist' are unconstitutional.  Further, prostitution was a consensual act, and the Mann Act was "offensive," as such acts were to be considered "within the zone of privacy."

Schlafly continued:

Ginsburg listed hundreds of 'sexist' words that must be eliminated from all statutes.  Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and 'to man' a vessel[.] ... She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole.  They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.

Not only did Ginsburg pass former President Bill Clinton's litmus test of being pro-abortion, (she even supported partial birth abortion) but she was also on record as opposing what was then settled law that the Constitution does not compel taxpayers to pay for abortions. In her chapter in a 1980 book, Constitutional Government in America, she condemned the Supreme Court's ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.

Considering just how radical Ginsburg's stances and decisions were, what are we to make of Christians' praise and support for her?  Why are conservatives, religious or not, putting wreaths on Ginsburg's head?

The fact is that in place of Christian virtues, too many conservatives have substituted the progressive virtue of "tolerance."  The hallmark of secular progressive religion has also become the defining virtue of the Christian/conservative community.  The drive to appear "nice" and inoffensive, to "understand' the other viewpoint, no matter how offensive or prurient, has vitiated the Judeo/Christian virtues of justice and righteousness; of steadfast opposition to evil.  The progressive idea of virtue has won over the truth, including the truth of what Ginsburg and her feminist acolytes devotedly believe in — most avidly and ferociously, the progressive sacrament of abortion.  Ginsburg never, ever wavered from her advocacy of abortion.  Never.

We cannot praise her tenacity as a good thing.  Her tenacity and those likeminded have contributed to the deaths of some 60,000,000 innocents.

Would a similar tenacity be exhibited by Christian conservatives, many of whom have waffled continually, debating for over fifty years what is anathema to the God they profess to worship — namely, the shedding of innocent human blood?

In conclusion, while God the Creator pronounces himself as not taking pleasure in the death of any human being and admonishes those who believe in Him not to rejoice when any human dies, neither are we to praise and give accolades to those who are by their ideology sworn to do evil.

On the contrary, those who are opposed to the "fundamental transformation" of American society by the advocacy of evils that have become systemic, evils Ginsburg promoted in the name of equality should stand up and fight: Fight for the good, the true and the beautiful — for human life in all its fullness.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her the prize for excellence in systematic theology.  Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including American Thinker.  She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com