Some of the leading conservative minds in the country gathered this weekend to discuss such issues as the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, bans on Ten Commandments monuments and a proposed constitutional amendment that would outlaw adultery. Sandy Slokum, the executive director of Defend Our Marriages, participated in the gathering, called "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith." In this exclusive Q and A, Slokum describes how she and her fellow anti-judicial activism activists plan to take America back—to a Judeo-Christian future.
What to do about conservative judicial appointees gone wild
By Deanna Swift
WASHINGTON, DC—Some of the leading conservative minds in the country gathered this weekend to discuss such issues as the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, bans on Ten Commandments monuments and a proposed constitutional amendment that would outlaw adultery. The occasion: a must-attend confab called "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," hosted and organized by the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration.
To tell us about the non-stop weekend of lectures, networking and dancing, the Swift Report asked Sandy Slokum, the executive director of Defend Our Marriages, to join us for a Q and A.
Swift: Talk about an all-star line-up! Who was the conservative Christian that you most enjoyed spending time with this weekend?
Slokum: Well obviously we were all really disappointed that Tom [DeLay] was called to Rome for the Pope's funeral. He's an inspiration to us all. Of course I work closely with most of these folks on our anti-adultery campaign, but it's always rewarding to see them in the flesh. As for my favorite: I'd have to say I was happiest to see Alan Keyes. He's such a leader for our movement, and you can always count on him to get a conga line going on the dance floor.
Swift: A conga line?!? Sounds wild! But tell us about some of the things you're against.
Slokum: Other than my own session on the constitutional ban on adultery—forgive me for plugging my cause—the single best part of the conference was the meeting where we talked about the judicial assault on our Judeo-Christian heritage: marriage, gay rights, the Ten Commandments, pornography. So much to talk about and we had to pack it all into an hour so that we could move on to abortion and other life issues.
Swift: Other than banning adultery, vacating controversial judicial rulings and eliminating the separation between church and state, are there other issues that are key here?
Slokum: We felt really strongly that this needed to be a gathering about action, not just ideas. I think I can speak for everyone in saying that we came away from the weekend newly committed to fighting for legislation that we call 'Terri's Law,' that would guarantee all Americans food, water and shelter. And people finally seem ready to make the campaign against adultery the centerpiece of our legislative agenda. As you know, there's a lot of anger and resentment right now towards politicians who were elected by the faithful and seem to have turned their backs on us. We're going to start by singling out a group of adulterous legislators and making examples of them—we call them FINO's—faithful in name only.
Swift: Care to name any names?
Slokum: Let's just say that it won't be long before your readers know who they are.
Swift: These cultural issues are all very important, but what about the economy? Was there any talk of economics at the conference?
Slokum: Interesting that you should ask that, Deanna. In the past, our main focus has been on explosive cultural matters as we really think that these are more important to voters than how much they earn and whether they have health insurance or not. But there was a very interesting session this weekend on the Rapture as a jobs creation act. Basically, when the faithful are saved, and I assume that you and I will be among them, there are going to be a lot of job vacancies, including some fairly high-ranking positions. And while I don't want to underplay the seriousness of the Tribulation here, you could see some great opportunities for career advancement.
Swift: I understand that one of the Swift Report's favorites was in attendance: Chief Justice Roy Moore. Is there any truth to the rumors that his supporters want President Bush to appoint him to a national office?
Slokum: Well, you didn't hear it from me, but there's definitely a groundswell of support to get this talented, courageous man appointed to a position of national leadership—somewhere from which he can really advocate on behalf of the Word. Of course it's a competitive field and we're going to really have to mobilize the grass roots if we're going to make this happen.
Swift: Thanks for being with us Sandy, and best of luck with your efforts. One last question before we go: with the media dominated by a cabal of liberal elite nonbelievers, where can we find information that corresponds to our Judeo-Christian values?
Slokum: Great question! The obvious answer is the Bible, of course, but for breaking news I'm a fan of the Fox News Channel. And don't forget the Swift Report. You and Todd are doing a great service. We're very appreciative of all that you do on behalf of constitutional restoration.
This is an edited transcript.
"Swift: 'Other than banning adultery, vacating controversial judicial rulings and eliminating the separation between church and state, are there other issues that are key here?'"
I think this is interesting that banning adultery is supposed to be the government's business now rather than excommunication. Going to church is supposed to be the same as voting is it? What happens if judicial rulings are coming straight from the pulpit? Well, we know what happens, because separation of church and state has only been relevant to society for a couple of centuries. I think maybe that is putting a little too much faith in a wordly solution coming from worldly motives.
How isn't this kind of thinking like playing God to decide when and how to intervene and judge? How can it possibly be anything but pure evil to want to empower a judge to convict someone of a crime for adultery or corrupt a church with government or a government with a church? You know, it is impolite to even try to involve yourself with whatever is going on in someone else's marriage falling apart, but this kind of thinking goes beyond rude to outright disrespect. Sounds to me like repaying evil with evil.
Posted by: Luke Rook | May 19, 2005 at 12:37 AM