Jim Wallis, Sojourners editor and evangelical progressive, has rightly characterized Republican plans to dismantle the filibuster as “a declaration of religious war.” But the central issue in this war between the Christian right and the rest of America is not the ultimate confirmation of a handful of reactionary judges. What’s at stake is ownership of the U.S. Constitution: Who controls this… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (221)Doctrine on Peace:
http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=1000
http://www.comunione-liberazione.org/articoli/eng/1/nowar.html
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007891.html
——————————— ;———————————&# #8212;—
Who is Bush?
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen04222003.html
——————————— ;———————————&# #8212;—
People of all persuasions are welcomed and encouraged to sign:
http://www.petitiononline.com/B6U6S6H/petition.html
To: His Holiness, Benedict XVI, Pope and Bishop of Rome
Your Holiness:
Please be assured of our prayers on your behalf as you take on the responsibilities of the Petrine Office.
Jesus of Nazareth calls all men and women, in all times, and especially in these challenging days, to take up their Cross and follow Him. [Matt. X: 38; XVI: 24; Mark VIII: 34; Luke XIX: 23; XIV: 27].
We witness today prominent men who flippantly call on the Holy Name [Ex. XX: 7] to bless and sanction their criminal acts and take unto themselves the title “Christian”. Yet, the Lord Himself warns that “not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” [Matt. VII: 21.]
“Blessed are the peacemakers”, He assures us, “for they shall be called the children of God. [Matt. V: 9.]
Liars, on the other hand, are the children of Satan, because the devil is the father of lies. [John VIII: 44].
St. Paul admonishes us: “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” [Eph. V: 11].
We respectfully urge you to consider the state of the world today, in the light of Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition, in particular the prophesies of Daniel, Paul and John and to expose and repudiate George W. Bush as the “Man of Sin” [II Thess. II: 3], the “Beast” [Apocalypse XI: 7] and the very Antichrist [I John II: 18].
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
——————————-
“My father was one who, with unfailing clairvoyance, saw that a victory of Hitler’s would not be a victory for Germany but rather a victory of the Antichrist that would surely usher in apocalyptic times for all believers, and not only for them.” ~ Benedict XVI
Posted by Sensum Fidelium on May 2, 2005 at 5:08 PM “Christian” legal scholar Edwin Vieira needs to remember that the Bible is also entirely Foreign Law. Not one word or even punctuation mark was written in the United States. And all those who talk about “Activist Judges” being the problem, isn’t it the job of the judges to make impartial decisions, especially when those decisions are in favor of a minority. When was the last time that the majority said that they were wrong not to grant equality to a minority, without the courts leading the way? The independent judiciary is all that separates us from a totalitarian state. Without its constitutional power to stop abuses from the executive or the legislative branches, the U.S. would plummet into Fascism. I think that this is the true agenda of the “Christian Right”.
Posted by A. Miller on May 2, 2005 at 6:07 PM We are already in free-fall, A. Miller. Fascism is already here in its infant form. Go to <sojo.net> and read the article by Jim Wallis re: Social Security. This is what REAL Christians believe. Those that drape themselves in a self-righteous mantle and disregard the teachings of the Bible for the $ from the Corporation are bastardizing our faith. Groups like Sojourners are endeavoring to take it back.
But let it be clearly understood, if we do not succeed, Libertarian judges like Janice Rogers Brown will begin to dismantle the Constitution, all under the guise of being a “person of faith”. It is all a disception that is being perpetrated on the American people, and they are gobbling it up. We must stop this trend, or the United States as we know it will be gone within the next 5-10 years, at most.
Posted by Margaret on May 2, 2005 at 6:19 PM At least the US does not have a church tax, as does much of Europe!
Funny, when you consider that the average person in the US is much more religious than the average European.
I see nothing wrong in acknowledging God. We in the US do it with our money (in God we trust). We are a country founded by believers. Part of the whole inalienable rights thing.
Why should/would we let a small minority throw out religion?
Posted by Paul on May 2, 2005 at 9:52 PM Scary stuff guys. Some of you guys seem determined to fetishize a man made document-the US Constitution-the way ancient Incas did with their founding myths.
Oh and by the way, do any of you so called christians know understand or care that many of your reverred founding fathers were either atheists, agnostics, or had a form of christianity that the Christian right in the uS today would not recognise. I just cannot understand how the wealthiest country in the world could have fallen to such a pitiable state, where people can argue straight faced that a story (the bible) open to imterpretation since the year dot, should or ever could be, the basic foundation of a democratic polity based on the reason of human beings. Truly, it is a recipe for the dead to rule the living. It is truly scary. Is it something in the water over there?
Posted by Jane Doe on May 2, 2005 at 10:08 PM I am certainly not going to attempt to defend the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, which at best is an unnecessary piece of intrusive tinkering, but I will point out that Joel Bleifuss, the author of the article, engaged in the sort of sloppy wordmithing that reinforces the notion of bias (in this case, to the verge of dishonesty) in the media. Mr. Bleifuss says the bill “prohibits the Supreme Court from ruling against any government official or government body whose actions acknowledge ‘God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.’ ” This suggests that Tom DeLay ( or Jesse Jackson, Jr.) needs merely to have himself Baptized to be forever immune from any judicial injunction or decision about any matter whatsoever; he states that it is the agent that is protected from judicial review.
What the bill says is that “the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review…any matter to the extent that relief is sought…against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government… concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” This wording clearly limits the constraint on the Court to a specific kind of action, and not to any action by a particular person.
I suppose the bill’s authors are attempting to make it OK for government officials to pray at public meetings, etc. Whether this is a good idea and whether this law accomplishes that goal are certainly debatable, and the danger of abuse of the above-quoted phrase is certainly real. But Mr. Bleiffuss’s wording strikes me as demagoguery, whether intentional or not, whose effect will be to evoke outrage where more measure reactions would be more constructive. It is at the least a carelessness of wording that, if Mr. Bleifuss were writing laws, might create the kind of confusion that the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (pompous title, that) seems likely to beget.
Posted by Mitch on May 2, 2005 at 10:46 PM The US was not founded by religion. rather it was founded by pragmatic men of the enlightenment period. Men like Franklin and Jefferson and Madison, who were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination, rather they were deists who knew the benefit of being seen by the public in church. and every President after has taken that lesson.
some, like Bush, take it too literaly and do crazy things like beleive voices in their head are god’s and wage a war of the righteous…
or is it a war of the luxary. because we are, after all, americans and we’ll never have to change our fatty habits.we’ve got to get rid of this two party status quo government. there will be no progress as they immitate each other and rid so close to the center in aims to steal away votes from the other side that no real progress can be made.
maybe one day it will be the Green’s vs the secularists?
a great day that would be.
Posted by kooi on May 3, 2005 at 3:08 AM I would be much in favor of a “church tax” on any and all religious organizations that lecture from the pulpit as to which candidate God wants to win, or otherwise use their resources to influence how people vote. If these modern day Elmer Gantrys want to tell their flock how to vote, they can damn well register as a political lobby and give up their tax exempt status. The constitution was designed to protect the minority in this country from the majority. And note to Paul, no judge or politician in this country has suggested that we “throw out religion”. But there are dozens of christian religions, many opposed to the policies of the current president, there are several strains of judaism, bhuddism, islam,
and many many others. There are three versions of the ten commandments. Are we going to “throw out” the religions of everyone who isn’t an evangelical fundamentalist and create a country like Franco’s Spain, or Khomeini’s Iran. Does God approve of tax cuts for the rich, privatizing social security, poisoning the planet, outsourcing jobs, creating debt for the next generation, cutting benefits for veterans, or any of the other things this president has done? Has the republican party gone completely insane, drunk with power, or both? The God that Jesus tells us about is not the same God that Bush, Cheney, Frist, Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and DeLay pray to. Their God is Power.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on May 3, 2005 at 4:07 AM ““Christian” legal scholar Edwin Vieira needs to remember that the Bible is also entirely Foreign Law. Not one word or even punctuation mark was written in the United States.”
Blahahahahahahaha!! Miller, that’s perfect.
Posted by Lefty on May 3, 2005 at 2:46 PM Jane Doe,
Is it something in the water over in Britain that so few of you have ever experienced a positive relationship with God?
People who come on this thread and badmouth Jim Wallis truly don’t have a clue what real Christianity is. What these numbskulls in power call Christianity doesn’t even come close to the mark.
I agree that any church that preaches politics from the pulpit should be taxed. If you know anything about Jesus Christ, he absolutely disavowed all political groups of his day—the Pharisees, Sadducees, Romans, Pagans… Whether you understand his message or not, he was the most prolific revolutionary in history. He was a rebel who fought against those that vaunted “religion” and power rather than the attributes God desires. Like humility, kindness, love and a desire to place service to others above self.
But, honestly, I am so sick of Libertarian Brits coming online like they have a clue. Stick with their line of thought and we will (with the Republicans’ current efforts) soon have no Constitition, no wage or hour laws, no Food and Drug Admin., no EPA, no Social Security—or didn’t they tell you that their plan of “peaceful anarchistic chaos” is their ultimate goal? Yeah, that will work because, as we know, people really are unselfish, deeply altruistic and honest, right?
Posted by Margaret on May 3, 2005 at 3:21 PM “To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…”—Thomas Jefferson
“I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented…” —Thomas Jefferson
“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.” —James Madison
“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? —Benjamin Franklin
“Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and guide this day and forever for His sake, who lay down in the grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”—George Washington
Just because people are fallable and don’t live like a saint their entire lives does not mean that they don’t have a binding, guiding and immortal faith. Get my drift, Jane?
Posted by Margaret on May 3, 2005 at 4:01 PM The church tax is NOT a tax on churches. Rather it is taxes paid by the people and then given to the churches. . .
Posted by Paul on May 3, 2005 at 6:54 PM It is surprising to me how Americans are studiously ignoring the danger that the religious right poses to democracy in this country. They are an amazing phenomenah to me, not in what they believe but the power they have managed to wield in this day and age. With the Terri Shiavo case and the open assault on the supreme court (with significant republican leadership in the lead of this vicious pack) maybe they may have over-played their hand. Yesterday the Seattle Post Intelligencer featured a front page story headlined “Pastor holds the line on gay unions”. This afro-american pastor claimed credit for forcing Microsoft to drop their support for legislation that would have prohibited descrimination on the basis of sexual preference by threatening to lead a national boycott agianst them. During the interview the good Reverand (Reverand Ben Hutcherson to be exact) really laid it out for all to hear and exposed the fanaticism that underlies the right wing fundamentalist and the viscousness of their agenda. Too often the mainstream press does not quote these guys in their interviews when they really start to rant or let them slide away when a few more questions would give folks a real good idea who they really are and what they had in store for us if they ever came to power. This time the reporter laid it all out as the reverend ranted on.
Joseph
Posted by Joseph on May 3, 2005 at 7:15 PM Joseph,
I don’t know what article you were reading, but Jim Wallis was tearing the preachers you’re talking about a “new one”. He is AGAINST what the Christian right is doing. Hundreds of thousands of Christians are openly starting to join groups such as Wallis’ to fight against the intrusion of religion into politics. Wallis and the people who are against the current administration’s view of religion WANT separation of church and state. Re-read the article and take off your glasses of pre-conceived bias.
Posted by Margaret on May 3, 2005 at 8:54 PM I dont know where you got that pre-concieved bias from. I agree with Wallis very strongly. What I thought I was doing is sharing some information that is specific and recent on the front pages of a mainstream newspaper. Perhaps you were confused by my opening sentence and took it to mean that Wallis was one of those who are “studiously ingnoring”. Had I thought that I would certainly have said it directily.
Posted by Joseph on May 3, 2005 at 9:33 PM Joseph,
I did misunderstand you and I apologize. I agree with what you said in the body of your statement, but the opener did throw me off.
The thing that Democrats (I’ve been a lifelong Democrat) have to understand is that we have to stop alienating the people of faith like Wallis, who want to stop this rightwing, neocon theocratic fascism. I cringe everytime I read or hear (Air America, for example) going off on an aethiestic tangent, or ramrodding gay issues. Instead of dwelling on issues that divide, better to pick strong arguments for moral values like not screwing the poor, not lying about the need for war, etc. While those divisive issues must be dealt with, liberal Dems need to be inclusive. Lots of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists don’t agree with incorporating church and state, demolishing our Constitution, etc. But they will stay away from the table if the left side of liberal insists that everyone agree with their agenda. We need to get every Dem to the polls, not chase them away. I don’t mean this toward you, Joseph, it’s just that I am frustrated with Dems defeating themselves by choosing the most far-left position of so many issues.
Posted by Margaret on May 3, 2005 at 10:41 PM Some of the disputes in this log remind me of the famous story of the rabbi who was called to resolve an argument between Samuel and Solomon. After listening to Samuel, the rabbi agreed, “You’re right.” After Solomon said his piece, the rabbi agreed, “You’re right.” Then Samuel objected, “We can’t both be right.” The rabbi said, “You’re right.”
We’re all on the same side here, whether we are believers who emphasize God’s commandments to obey a humanistic ethic, or nonbelievers who feel that a humanistic ethic is self-evident. The adversary is the belief that God wants us, on some occasions, to obey an ANTI-humanistic ethic, such as “kill a <blank> for Allah,” Or “let a <blank> starve for Jesus,” etc.
God will deal with the well-meaning nonbelievers mercifully, since they only became nonbelievers because of revulsion at what they were taught as being the Word of God. The believers in a God who is not merciful to others will probably find that their God is not quite as merciful to them as they had hoped.
Posted by James Allan Richardson on May 4, 2005 at 12:51 AM I agree with you, JAR. The following is a general statement and not intended toward you.
Jesus was brought a woman caught in the very act of adultery. Of course her accusers were Pharisees out to entrap Jesus by his reaction. When they presented her (Notice they didn’t present the man involved), Jesus told them to let the one among them that was without sin cast the first stone. No one moved, and then Jesus looked them in the face. He bent down and wrote at their feet. When each religious leader saw what he had written (most scholars believe he wrote THEIR sins in the dust), they freaked out and ran away. At last left alone, he turned to the woman. He said, woman, where are your accusers? She said, I know not, Lord. He then told her that they couldn’t condemn her and he wasn’t about to do it either. Just go, and change your ways.
It is never up to a Christian to judge another, something this rightwing Christian movement does constantly. God will decide who has rejected his gift and who has accepted. That being said, we MUST include everyone, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, etc. into Democratic party if we are ever to get rid of the vermin that inhabit the government now. So quit worrying about religion and putting down those who have faith. You’re insecurity in the matter only lenghtens the time of oppressive Republican rule.
Posted by Margaret on May 4, 2005 at 1:17 AM Speaking as one who has expressed severe criticism for codifying religious teachings into law (including my pet hates, the sectarian bullying of “defense of marriage” laws and all efforts to get such oppression constitutionalized), I wonder if I speak for anyone else when I say that it’s not religion per se that so provokes me, it’s the pushiness and intractability of so many of the faithful. Not to overgeneralize, in fact Jim Wallis is one I would obviously exclude from that criticism, but DAMN there are so many rank-and-file faithful for whom there simply is no question; the admirable certainty with which they cling to their faith in God somehow makes them believe that their social and legal programs are equally beyond question. Their religious leader says it, they believe it, and that’s the end of it. If that was as far as it went, I wouldn’t care. I’d take up arms to make sure you could live by the Bible’s teachings if you so chose. But once they get enough numbers to make their religious views into the law they have and will, as has happened so many times in history, immediately become yet another oppressive force.
If there’s still such a thing as religious freedom in America, it has to mean that you’re free to worship, or free not to, and there’s no legal repercussion. And that can’t be had if cops, courts, and office-holders are guided in their policies by reference to an unquestionable religious doctrine (in fact, for the doctrine to even be questionable at all, it must not become law).
Few liberals really want to try the Soviet trick of making religion a museum relic, certainly I do not; it’s role in helping us out of savagery (to the extent that we’re really beyond it) is a matter of record as much as are religious crimes and abuses. More so, actually.
But when religious status is being pushed to equate with political credibility, or gives one special breaks before the law, or is the sword-point of the attack upon an independent judiciary, I begin to wonder what happened to the country I grew up in. Hell, even then, America had an array of racial, economic, and gender-linked injustices, but now there’s this dancing around with quasi-theocratic nonsense.
Do we believe so much in the City On The Hill allegory for America? Are we so convinced of our immunity from the forces of majoritarian oppression, such that no matter how much we mix the bludgeon of law with sectarian provisions, we still believe we’ll remain a free and open society? How long must this endless harping upon one’s religious beliefs take center stage, such that we risk actually dismantling all of the legal safeguards against the forming of a National Religion, with all the misery and immorality that will follow, if history is any guide?
Posted by Kuya on May 4, 2005 at 6:53 AM And by the way, any American Christian who claims to be oppressed has got to be delusional. We might make fun of them a little and live in ways they disagree with, but no one’s truly oppressing them, not with law, custom, or violence. Far from it. May God grant that THEY do not become oppressors in their own right.
Yeah, that is a real prayer.
Posted by Kuya on May 4, 2005 at 7:01 AM “The independent judiciary is all that separates us from a totalitarian state.”—Absolutely incorrect. If we enter into a totalitarian state, it is the judiciary that will take us there; it is, after all, the least democratic and least accountable branch of government. It is the beliefs and values of the citizens that keep us from totalitarianism, not the judiciary. If the judiciary loses its credibility, the trust of the community, its independence will be irrelevant.
” Without its constitutional power to stop abuses from the executive or the legislative branches, the U.S. would plummet into Fascism. I think that this is the true agenda of the ‘Christian Right’.”—And I think self-aggrandizement and imposing their secularist beliefs and values on everyone is the true agenda of the “Secular Left.” We can bandy about all kinds of interpretation of “the true agenda” of those we disagree with, but doing so only serves to reinforce our prejudices. Guessing about and reacting to “the true agenda” does not advance the discussion; it preaches to the choir.
“But let it be clearly understood, if we do not succeed, Libertarian judges like Janice Rogers Brown will begin to dismantle the Constitution, all under the guise of being a ‘person of faith’....We must stop this trend, or the United States as we know it will be gone within the next 5-10 years, at most.”—I would be willing to bet I could find the exact belief expressed about the Moral Majority circa 1975. Didn’t happen then; won’t happen now. This is not a country that is going to support the “Fascism” that Progressives are finding under every bed. Do we have prejudice, yes (what country doesn’t); will we see needless restrictions, yes; will there be some draconian laws, yes. But not Fascism. We are going through a period of adjustment, of a pendulum swinging back from the extreme believe that saying “under God” is a threat to religious freedom and the increasing disrespect and alienation experienced by people of faith over the past 30-40 years.
” I wonder if I speak for anyone else when I say that it’s not religion per se that so provokes me, it’s the pushiness and intractability of so many of the faithful. Not to overgeneralize, ...but DAMN there are so many rank-and-file faithful for whom there simply is no question; the admirable certainty with which they cling to their faith in God somehow makes them believe that their social and legal programs are equally beyond question. “—And I bet you they would say the same, word-for-word, about the unfaithful: pushy, intractible, certain in their faith (in the rightness of humanism and the non-existence of God), convinced that their social and legal programs are beyond question. Read the tone in so many of the blogs above. Think about Howard Dean’s identification of the Democrats as “good” and the Republicans as “evil.” Re-read the speeches of Barbara Boxer, much of the writing in “The Nation,” anything by MoveOn.org. Both sides are digging in their heels these days and it started long before “the religious right” was an identifiable sub-group. Certainty, pushiness, intractibilty: these were hallmarks of the New Left of the 60s. Intolerance for disagreement has been a presence on both the left and the right for decades.
Posted by Mitch on May 4, 2005 at 11:40 AM Mitch,
Interesting points, but I respectfully disagree on the it won’t happen in the future because it hasn’t already happened. When I was studying for my BA in German, living in Heidelberg, I was amazed at the firm belief during the Weimar Republic that no such thing as Nazi’s taking hold would EVER happen in Germany. And, no, I am not equating Bush with Hitler.
Believing that nothing like that could ever happen here is an open door for it to happen. That brings my back to my talking point, the left is going to have to accept people of faith whether they chose to believe in a “god” or not. People of faith are going to have to bend on some issues, whether they like it or not. Republicans need to work with Democrats to fix our broken election process. While most don’t want that change at the moment, when Dems are back in office, they will and we need to jump on that horse together. That is my point.
Posted by Margaret on May 4, 2005 at 2:53 PM Margaret states that as a Christian she never judges another, then in the next line she refers
to Bush & Co. as “vermin.” This bizarre behavior
seems thoroughly typical of so-called Christ Culters, whether in the rightwing of the GOP or the extreme rightwing of the Democratic Party
where religious fanatics like Margaret inhabit the
dark, intellectually unlit corners.
All the intelligent people in the world are atheists, there has never been intelligent reasons
arguing for the existence of a supernatural power.
In the end we all go back into the dirt of the earth, death is communism, none of the so-called
good deeds get you out of this life alive.
Democrats should repudiate religion and not ape
GOP as Kerry so pitifully did.
Why take your ethics, metaphysics and epistemology from a barebutted group of very
backward peoples who very briefly had two kingdoms
not totalling 200 years ?
This god business is absurd, you need to tax very
heavily your churches.
We had to deal with 5,000 years of reactionary
backwardness in China before Reds liberated us.
Thank you, Truman and Marshall.
Trouble with Mao is he not kill nearly enough
reactionary dogs.
Thank god which is dog spelled backwards that we
are now atheists in China.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 4, 2005 at 8:17 PM Hey, it’s Libertarian boy masquerading as a Chinese national. He was so frustrated on the “Fear, Loathing and the GOP” article that he had to pursue me. How flattering or maybe, how scary that an individual would be so desparate to pellet me with ad hominem attacks and communist (sort of) philosophy, that he would search me out.
But make no mistake, Libertarianism is the drooling bastard love child of Hitler and Stalin, Fascism dressed as the Leaderless People, backwoods militants, stockpiling canned food and mercenary magazines while they crumple the constitution and the Bible together, not understanding either and worshipping both as a self-designed paper deity with whatever personality they decide to project upon it.So, dear reader, be aware that you are dealing with a total fraud when blogging with “Lin Bao”.
Posted by Margaret on May 4, 2005 at 8:59 PM Margaret most confused. First I’m Communist and
then Libertarian, Chinese and then somebody else
presumably not Chinese.
Then references to Hitler and Stalin !
Yesterday Margaret was talking about nuking all
Chinese while calling me a racist for taking issue
with her anti-Arab racism which is anti-semitism
since Arabs are semites.
I have no idea she on any given board, did not realize that she trolls so many boards.
She can’t deal with my arguments so now she claims
that I don’t exist ! But I live better on 36th
floor of apartment in Shanghai than Margaret live
in her Chicago slum neighborhood.
I never compare bible with constitution, have
great respect for your constitution.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 4, 2005 at 9:08 PM I am inclined to believe that this is not really Lin Piao but a cia analyst trying to keep busy now that they have been crushed by the neocons.
Joseph
Posted by Joseph on May 4, 2005 at 9:10 PM Yeah! And what’s really funny is that he takes his debating style right off the following link:
http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.htmlHe is a “Conversational Terrorist”. So amusing!
Posted by Margaret on May 4, 2005 at 9:22 PM English not my first language though know much
better than Americans do mandarin.
But somebody please translate wordsalads by Joseph
and Margaret. Make no sense.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 4, 2005 at 9:32 PM Margaret,
“I respectfully disagree on the it won’t happen in the future because it hasn’t already happened.”—I’m not really saying it could never happen, just that it is not going to. The American character and history is really not at all like the German during the Weimar period.
“the left is going to have to accept people of faith whether they chose to believe in a “god” or not. People of faith are going to have to bend on some issues, whether they like it or not. Republicans need to work with Democrats to fix our broken election process. While most don’t want that change at the moment, when Dems are back in office, they will and we need to jump on that horse together. That is my point.” - I agree with all that.
And I laughed at the first Lin Biao post: it seemed like it must be a joke, someone’s stereotyped idea of what a Chinese Communist would say. Seems too angry to m; most likely American, as you seem to surmise.
Posted by Mitch on May 4, 2005 at 10:39 PM How long must this endless harping upon one’s religious beliefs take center stage, such that we risk actually dismantling all of the legal safeguards against the forming of a National Religion, with all the misery and immorality that will follow, if history is any guide?
Posted by Kuya on May 4, 2005 at 1:53 AM
Having read multitudinous posts on the immiment danger of theocracy and/or a “National Church”, I have to say that I think this assertion shows a fundamental misunderstanding (hows that for a bad pun) of evangelical Christian groups in this country.
The basic fact is that these are about the most decentralized, non-heirarchical religious organizations there are. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention is just that, an association of financially independent congregations. They elect leaders and contribute money for common purposes like endowing missions and seminaries. They have general agreement on religious doctrine, but there is no heirarchy - no pope, no bishops. If the President of the SBC doesn’t like what a particular church is doing there is precious little he can do about it except express his opinion. It is not like the Roman Catholic church where an individual priest can be removed from his position or an indivdual church closed because the higher ups have decided so. Each individual congregation owns its own facilities and hires and fires the pastor as they see fit. And the Southern Baptists are probably the MOST structured of the groups that you would term the Christian Right.
Anyway, where I am going with this is I don’t believe that there is any way that these groups, as non-structured as they are now, would ever come together to accept the sort of heirarchy that a national religion or a theocracy would require. Roman Catholics maybe, but not these guys. It is just not part of the culture of these groups. The individual leaders would not accept being ordered and they would all soon fall apart over the modern theological equivalent discussions of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
I would recommend reading “Born Fighting” by James Webb, which is a recent popular history of Scots Irish culture in the US. Scots Irish attitudes towards religion underlie most of the evangelical movement in the US today and are based on the individual’s direct relationship with God as facilitated but not directed by a pastor or church. Emphasis is on independent self-directed congregations as a I mentioned above. It is also a useful book for Democrats to understand cultural attitudes of the working class and the South and why they have been doing so poorly there lately.
Posted by Campesino on May 4, 2005 at 11:10 PM Mitch,
Another liberal racist.
Fascism not limited to Germans, ideological
phenomenom, national socialism as much left
as right and deeply entrenched in US society.
Scapegoats differ but Hobbesian philosophy
the same.
Have to say that if China become capitalist war
more likely with USA, not less.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 4, 2005 at 11:28 PM Very interesting discussion. I’m afraid I have to agree with the person who said the biggest mistake we can make is to assume that fascism could never here. I want to urge everyone to get a copy of the May issue of Harper’s magazine, now on newstands and to read Chris Hedges article: “Feeling the Hate with the National Religious Broadcasters”. In it he talks about a philosophy which some prominent evangelicals subscribe to called “dominionism” or “Christian Reconstructionism” which takes in a literal and mission-oriented way certain passages in the Bible, in particular the phrase in Genesis:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” to mean that Christian true believers thru the agency of the United States are destined to have this dominion over the entire world, democracy be damned, and that all others will suffer their tortured fate in the rapture, according to the book of Revelations, when Jesus returns to the Earth, but in the run up to that the dominionists will begin to create the Kingodom of God on Earth. During the run up there will be a series of powerful leaders, or regents, who will lead us to this Kingdom. The “Left Behind” series of books, by Tom Lehay, in which the blood of the agents of satan in Boston, Manhattan, and Hollywood, runs thick and fast thru a living tribulation is telling this story; titles in the series have sold 60 million copies. And in case you were wondering, many of these people believe that the first regent is a guy who happens to be known by the 23rd letter of the alphabet. No, I’m not suggesting that fascism is imminent; the Kingdom of God, its adherents realize, could require decades to create. But what I am saying is that this thing could creep up on us. These people have steadily been gaining power for 25 years. There was a time when we could all have assumed without thinking twice that such deluded and ludicrous fantasies were safely consigned to the looney bin or a shunned and isolated lunatic fringe. Today people who probably hold these views such as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Tim Lehay have regular and continuing access to the highest levels of government in this country. Some of them have called for or implied that execution of homosexuals, adulterers, and heretics ought to be state policy. No, today we still have a Supreme Court and such pronouncements seem to be beyond the pale of public discourse. But what if these people continue to increase their power, to push the institutions of government in this direction. They are very politically savvy and are willing to do whatever or say whatever it would take to obtain the power needed to bring about their Kingdom of God. The greatest danger is that liberals, moderates, and true conservatives, in failing to understand what they are about, will assume that democracy - meaning protection of minority rights - could never fail. I am disgusted and sick to my stomach with this.
Posted by brubin on May 5, 2005 at 1:01 AM Lenny Bruce did a bit, the premise of which was that although the American Nazi Party had maybe 4 members, George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the party, was empowered by the paranoia of the liberal left, who simply had to have a boogie man to believe in. If I were to do a Marxist analysis of the phenomenon of all the attention and hand-wringing over the religious right put out by the political left, I would say that what keeps the religious right a political and cultural force is the need of organizations like MoveOn.org, and the Democratic Party, and the ACLU, and NOW to build up a paranoid fantasy about this boogie movement, in order to scare people and raise more money. The left has an economic interest in a powerful reigious right: it is good for business.
There are probably 4 Dominionists, the offspring of former American Nazis, no doubt. The Harper article says that millions on the religious right are Dominionists without even knowing it, because they hold similar beliefs. So I guess it would be fair to say that millions on the progressive left are communists and Arab terrorists, and don’t even know it, because THEY hold similar beliefs (about American foreign policy, about the Israelis and the Palestinians, about George Bush, etc.). The article is fear-mongering to make money.
Posted by Mitch on May 5, 2005 at 3:47 AM Margaret,
I am neither libertarian nor am I English/British. I think libertarianism is a grossly distorted version of traditional 19th century liberalism, combined with a toxic version of right wing anarchism. Economic libertarianism gave us Milton Friedman, bringing the ‘free market’ to Chile, to the accompaniament of tortue and assassination ‘pour encourager les autres’. The result world wide, has been the greatest transfer upwards of wealth since the 1920’s. Social libertarianism is slightly different, but nevertheless suffers from the fact that the impact of social disorder of whatever kind always falls disporportionatly more on those who have the least in any society. As a result, the powerless and afraid are always prey to those who seek to restore/maintain social order by agitiating about matters which are peripheral to the real reasons social disorder arises. Such people, the powerless, are easy prey, for those who stalk the political landscape, searching for scapegoats onto whom the angry and disenfranchised, whether socially or economically, can be sooled, as we say where I come from.
The obsession with cultural issues that is so evident here is symptomatic of the thing that drives me and so many other people across the world, mad about the US. It is draining your polity of reason, it is doing nothing to repair the evident social crisis in your country, it is pandering to your supposed enemies on the right, and it is mistaking the shadow created by your enemies, for the real substance of what is amiss. I know it is probably annoying to have ‘foreigners’ talk this way, but anyway that is what I think, and again, I am neither libertarian, nor English. I am though a proud left liberal, who works hard where I work, and who wishes fervently that the US political class, or that bit of it that claims to be ‘liberal’ would just wake up, and leave the cultural postering to the ratbags of the US right.
Posted by Jane Doe on May 5, 2005 at 5:46 AM Hello Mitch and Campesino,
Are there pushy, intractable lefties? There are. Are evangelicals organized into a monolithic political force? They are not.However, those aren’t really the most important points regarding the religious neutrality of the law in general and the Constitution in particular.
What would happen if the evangelical agenda became enforceable by law? For me, this is the salient question. To rephrase, what would occur if the law was recast into the shape that politically active right-wing evangelicals seem to be working toward. I offer some accessory questions and answers of my own:
Would my daughter or wife be able to terminate a pregnancy derived from rape? They would not. If I fell in love with a man and he agreed to start a family with me, could we marry? We could not. Could I rest assured that evidence-based, scientifically sound approaches to the study of the biological origin of humans would be taught in my kids’ school? I could not. Could I know that, if my brain was massively damaged but my heart and lungs kept operating because of automatic brain stem functions, I’d be let to die rather than have my family’s assets and emotional stability drained on behalf of a living corpse? I could not. Could I be certain that the addition of a discriminatory amendment to the Constitution is impossible. I could not.
To me, the evangelical agenda focuses upon restriction. It wants to make some things forbidden and punishable. And except for legal abortion, which doesn’t depend on a religious reference to be opposed, the other questions above get the answers they do because the crusader faction seems to believe that they have the right to restrict, forbid, and make decisions for unbelievers in the area of fundamental values and the decisions that follow from them. It means that one belief-group wants the ability to foist their views upon everyone, because they want to control the law, which would require conformity whether the rest of us accept those views or not.
To my right-wing evangelical countrymen (and I have no idea, Mitch or Campesino, whether you’re included in that category or not), I say to you, No. You should not have that power, no matter how great your numbers or how passionate your determination. Anything that can be done to block your attempts to enshrine your cultural ways into Constitutional law, should be done.
By contrast, if I had my way, no evangelical would have his ability to worship or live according to his own creed impaired one bit. I would take up arms to make sure you could worship and live by the values you hold dear, that’s what religious freedom means, it’s what is meant by the word “rights”. As long as you didn’t make the mistake of trying to force me to conform to those values, I’d let you be to work out your own life’s decisions according to whatever philosophy or creed is meaningful to you.
Clearly, there are large numbers of politically active evangelicals who do not share that generosity of spirit, otherwise there’d be no attempt to “restore” the Constitution. Actually, if it’s Constitutional restoration that’s wanted, repeal the USA Patriot Act, but that’s another tale still in the midst of being told. (What a horror-show, I can’t believe more aren’t infuriated by it…)
If there’s anything left of religious freedom in America, it’s only true to the degree that the law does not play favorites on a sectarian basis. No hostility toward religion, and no conformity to it either, it’s the only way to make sure that a pluralistic, free, and open society can still exist in the United States. If you think that’s important, that is. I do.
If the Constitution becomes the basis for the enforceable spread of one sect’s values, then evangelism really will have become a political monolith. A tyrannical one.
Posted by Kuya on May 5, 2005 at 6:23 AM Jane Doe - Now we are bla ming MIlton Friedman for torture and assassination in Chile? Should we blame Marx for the intentional starvation of the Ukraine in 1933 by Stalin (which I would argue is the biggest upward transfer of wealth [since he confiscated their farm produce] since the 1920s and a more devastating one than free trade has wrought)? The analysis that blames philosophies rather than people for their actions is the problem. And it strikes me as odd that free trade is bringing about what the Left has long clamored for, without any recognition thereof: the transfer of wealth from the US to poorer countries (India, Malaysia, China, Taiwan, South Korea). Maybe this wealth is not falling entirely into the hands of the proletariat, but more of it is than with any other historically existent sytem.
Kuya-The salience of your question seems to me at least matched by the question of how likely it is that the religious “agenda” will become enforceable by law. If we make decisions based on our worst fears, rather than a realistic assessment of their likely reification, we are acting out of panic. I am not defending the establishment of religion: I am trying to suggest that the Left-wing’s anxiety about “theocracy” is exaggerated and a reflection of the Left’s general contempt for the religious right and anyone who disagrees with the premises of the Left-wing world view.
If I were of the religious right, here are some accessory questions I would suggest to you: Can your daughter walk down the street of most major American cities at night comfortably assured that she won’t be raped? No, she cannot. Can my son express his faith in a higher power, his humility before his God, out loud in school? No, he cannot. Can your school fire an incompetent teacher without fear of a lawsuit that will deprive dozens of students of much needed resources? No, it cannot. Those are restrictions just as significant as the ones you fear, and they exist now, not in some imagined future.
“Clearly, there are large numbers of politically active evangelicals who do not share that generosity of spirit…” - Now, be fair: there are large numbers of the politically active of all stripes that do not share that generosity of spirit. Generosity of spirit is not a function of political philosophy, and the tendency of the self-righteous Left to think it is that underlies the Left’s current powerlessness. Progressives, Liberals, and Democrats have been treating the right, the religious, and those who do not agree with them 100% on abortion with contempt, derision, and moralizing high-handedness for so long that what we might call the “cultural proletariat” has finally revolted. If we would all stop insisting that we have a lock and monopoly on the truth, that there is only one right way to look at any political or cultural issue, that those who disagree with us are not just misinformed or wrong, but out to oppress the country, maybe we could calm down enough to recognize the limitations and weaknesses or our own world views and what we might learn from others.
Posted by Mitch on May 5, 2005 at 11:50 AM Hi Ho,
Brubin,have you read “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis?I believe that’s the reference you were mentioning.Of course,if one looks around,it’s apparent that it is happening here.I might also recommend that my fellow bloggers read Umberto Eco’s article on the fourteen points of fascism.The article was written in 1995,but it might be on the net.I’ll look for it and let you know where it is.Very enlightening.
The funny thing about this whole christian movement is how insincere it is.I mean,what more is it than a method of letting business dominate the lives of the populace under a false idea that their philosophy is the best.Ironically,the uber-richtig ridicule the left as offering"feel-good” solutions to everyday problems.What does the christian right offer?The very same thing.Be saved,trust us and all of your problems will disappear.if you become saved you’re one of god’s favorites,you’re better than the others who aren’t,and whats more you’ll automatically get into Heaven.If christianity is after-life insurance,then the christian right offers it with a warranty,however,no money-back guarantee.That money is now theirs.
The reactionary party,of course,loves this.Followers who will be compliant,deeming their policies to be God’s will and having backers that are not only rich,but can also play some heavily emotionally laden cards if anyone interferes or objects to their machinations.“Christ-Hater!“is particularly effective as an insult.
When one compares the behavior of the christian right to the teachings of Jesus,one hopes that there is a God.Preferably the vengeful"go forth and smite"variety of The Old Testament.Hopefully,He’s just cleaning his cleats before He starts swinging.
Posted by wwoods on May 5, 2005 at 1:29 PM re:Umberto Eco’s fourteen ways of looking at a blackshirt-www.modernworld.com
Posted by wwoods on May 5, 2005 at 1:32 PM Crap!Typo!It’s www.modernword.com. The other site sells eyewear.
Posted by wwoods on May 5, 2005 at 1:35 PM Well said Kuya!
Mitch,
I enjoy reading your posts. Your logic is usually well-reasoned and sound, but sometimes your suppositions, as in the above post, are misleading. The accessory questions you pose are not at all analogous to Kuya’s, which I think was your point. Specifically, the fear of your wife/daughter being raped in a major city at night is, of course, a fear shared by all political parties. The proposed remedies may differ, but the very question, as posed, implies that those on the left don’t consider this a substantive fear. That’s simply untrue, not to mention more than a bit unfair. Your second question is also misleading. No reasonable person on the left is saying that your son can not or should not be able to express his belief in a higher power. All we are saying is that it not be done in a place where it might offend or restrict someone else, such as a public school. Or to put it another way, would you want my Islamic son preaching his faith at your son’s school? Even if he started to be successful in converting others to Islam? As to your last question, I agree, trying to fire an incompetent public school teacher is too difficult. Unions are hardly flawless, but then so is the NRA and a host of other groups that typically side with the Right. Is it better to eliminate the union and remove needed protections for competent teachers who run up against an unworthy administration, or does it make more sense to reform it to address your very real concerns? I’d argue the latter.The questions Kuya raised deal with directly restricting peoples choices, period. As he well said, “As long as you didn’t make the mistake of trying to force me to conform to those values, I’d let you be to work out your own life’s decisions according to whatever philosophy or creed is meaningful to you.” They speak to a belief that being able to choose is a fundamental right. But choices themselves are not fundamental rights, they’re simply choices. They don’t have value to the exclusion of mine. You don’t have to marry another man if I choose to, you don’t have to believe in evolution if I do, you don’t have to have the plug pulled after your brain stops functioning but your heart and lungs do not, even if I, in the next bed, do just that.
How is that fair that your choices are so much more valid then mine that mine should be eliminated? Why should your be codified into law?
Posted by cal on May 5, 2005 at 2:04 PM It’s a question of choice, not Truth. In a pluralistic society, that is the truth. It has to be or it isn’t a pluralistic society anymore.
Posted by tomkin on May 5, 2005 at 2:18 PM Above comments sound like the philosophy of pragmatism or maybe the anti-philosophy of
pragmatism. The idea that there is no truth,
besides being epistemologically and metaphysically
absurd, is not a rational basis to live in a
society. Obviously not all views are cognitively
equal and it does not require that erroneous views
be repressed by law.
We over here think there is a large religious right in US, even if hyped by liberals to raise
money for bankrupt Democratic Party.
One third of US adults according to recent story
over here in the People’s Daily (Beijing)are
fundamentalist born again Christians.
This is dangerous and it will bring our nations
closer to war if it continues.
You are not going to be the sole superpower by
the end of this decade and it would be nice if
you Americans learned to curb your racist ignorance.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 5, 2005 at 3:05 PM cal,
Yes, I knew my questions weren’t analagous in the sense you mean. They are perhaps parallel in that both sets of questions attempt to define concerns one side has with the consequences for society and the choices individuals have within it when the other side’s values, beliefs, and suppositions predominate that society, both legally and culturally. I didn’t mean to imply that I don’t think the Left considers the concerns reflected in my questions to be valid or that they aren’t concerns of the Left as well; I was just trying to suggest that concerns about the present may sometimes outweigh concerns about the future and that concrete concerns about security (personal or natural) might legitimately outweigh somewhat more abstract concerns for liberty and choice. Eliminating restrictions is probably not the primary function of the social order: anarchy reduces restrictions even more than a proper democracy, but that doesn’t make it more desirable. We all want some restrictions; the argument is over where to draw the line.
I think the drawing of lines is the pertinent issue on the question of expressing belief in one’s God in a public forum. Proselytizing is not what I had in mind; praying and giving thanks is. And I am not sure that “giving offense to others” is a sufficient measure of where to draw that line. A society that uses “giving offense” as an excuse to restrict behavior and choices (as this one is increasingly becoming) suggests to me the book-burning society of “Farenheit 451” and the totalitarianism of Soviet Russia, where expressing opinions that were not “for the social good” were illegal.
In your response to my teacher question, you seem to make some assumptions that are interesting. I wasn’t suggesting banning unions, nor was I suggesting that the inability to fire incompetent teachers was a Left/Right issue. (These days, in fact, it is hard to fire anyone, with or without a union; the paperwork needed in anticipation of a wrongful termination lawsuit is simply burdensome.) We all have this tendency these days to see particular questions within the context of “Does this issue make my side seem better or worse?”, (that is, in the context of the overall political contest) rather than as a particular issue in and of itself. I suspect one of the reasons people are so shrill these days is that they see every statement as a possible criticism of and weakness in their political philosophy (and all philiosophies have weaknesses) that they must defend against at all costs lest the philosophy fall apart, rather than as a specific problem to be solved. I am constantly amazed at the level of anger evident in so many of these postings and in the political pronouncements of pundits and politicians, of any stripe. That anger, that emotionalism, is to me the biggest danger we face.
Posted by Mitch on May 5, 2005 at 3:05 PM Did someone mention Jim Wallis?
I haven’t read Jim Wallis’s book “God’s Politics”, but I have read several articles by and about him and listened to him being interviewed on NPR and elsewhere about his new book. (who hasn’t?) I read the first chapter via the New York Times website.
I appreciate that he has scolded the secular left for trying to banish religion from the public square, an attempt I find neither constitutional or wise. Anyone who doesn’t respect and admire the positive, primary and essential role religion played in the founding of America, and in the plight of people struggling to realize the equal rights “self-evident” therein (Or “sacred”, as originally proposed by Jefferson)*, is simply blind. If left up to these “separationists”, this key foundational element would be removed from our public places and further white-washed from our public school books. Its value would be totally lost on future generations. (Not that the process hasn’t already begun.)
* http://tinyurl.com/5rb9j
However, I think he’s a bit of a hypocrite. He’s eager to condemn any mixing of politics and religion by the right and even proclaim their religion to be “bad”, but he’s been every bit as politically active in trying to steer government foreign and domestic policy toward his left leaning world view using religion for justification as anyone on the religious right, and along with others of like mind has been quite successful at times. His current tour reeks of politics, meeting with top Democrats and teaching them how to “talk about faith”. Indeed, many have incorporated his speech within their own. This is fine, they could sure use some help in this regard, but it’s the disingenuous “unbiased referee from the center” front that Wallis hides behind that is bothersome, not to mention the further disingenuousness he spawns among the Democrats, as they endeavor to fool voters into forgetting their previous disrespect toward those with strong religious faith.
From reading about Wallis, it seems he was out of step with most of the country and turned out to be wrong in opposing welfare reform. Perhaps he had the best of intentions, but in my opinion, its a no-brainer that big government social programs are addictive and corrosive to self esteem, as well as being inefficient and unsustainable. While many people certainly are in need of short and long term help, should and do get it, the primary focus needs to be on empowering people to take care of themselves. This is best achieved through free governments and free markets, two concepts Wallis would do well to embrace more passionately if he really wants to help make a substantial enduring difference in the lives of people currently and hopefully temporarily living in poverty.
His history also suggests a distaste for seriously challenging or confronting oppressive ideologies whose least concerns are human rights, individual freedom, and high standards of living for their populations. He actively opposed the effort to stop the spread of these ideologies in Central America, and—unbelievably—even in Afghanistan. His reflexive opposition to any war is in my opinion a prescription for a much less hopeful and much less free world.
As a Republican, I’m hoping that Wallis and the rest of the religious left continues this less than tolerant campaign against fellow Christians. It’s a recipe for their further losses at the polls, IMHO. But as someone who’s immediate family has also bought into this fantasy about a conspiratorial theocracy taking over the country, I feel compelled to burst this unhealthy, hateful and destructive bubble.
http://tinyurl.com/ckpl2
http://tinyurl.com/c6zdv
Posted by Natalie on May 5, 2005 at 3:07 PM Natalie,
Wow! We agree! I am reading Jim Wallis’ “God’s Politics”, and it is fantastic. Just got it day before yesterday, but have already decided I am going to give it to my Baptist minister to read once I’m done. Obviously, he voted for Bush and he knows we don’t agree on that, but he also doesn’t approve of the cuts in funding and other actions currently afoot that are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ in regard to the poor, widows, orphans, etc.
It is a very spiritually unhealthy bubble that the Theocratic Right are perpertrating on the American public right now. I, too, hope people of faith will be contacted by their peers who are aware of this sham and be “enlightened”. My husband and I are upfront with our Christian peers about our revulsion with the Bush Administration’s blind embrace of the “Rush/Falwell” mentality.
His magazine, “Sojourner”, is just starting to leak into the mainstream Christian consciousness, but he is out there pushing it and revolting against the current theocratic trends underway. Go to <sojo.net> for more articles written on Sojourners and Jim Wallis’ continued “crusade” against the 21st Century Crusaders.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 4:03 PM p.s.
On the one point of dissent, I think it unfair to criticize his encouraging the spread of the Gospel in S. America. If you truly believe in freedom, then it should be up to those people to hear the Word, and then to decide for themselves whether it rocks their world or not. Though you’ve previously stated you’re not much on democracy, both our country and God are supposed to be matters of free choice, both sides having been presented. Best to let people decide for themselves, which they can’t do if they’ve never heard it.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 4:58 PM “On the one point of dissent, I think it unfair to criticize his encouraging the spread of the Gospel in S. America.”
I think you misunderstood Natalie. I believe her criticism of Wallis was that he was against opposing the spread of Marxist governments in Central America
Posted by Campesino on May 5, 2005 at 5:42 PM Perhaps I did misunderstand. Natalie, could you give me some background data on the S. America thing? I am award of the left-leaning tendencies of the past decade, in particular in S. America, but not of the incidents you are referencing. Thanks.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 5:57 PM “To my right-wing evangelical countrymen (and I have no idea, Mitch or Campesino, whether you’re included in that category or not), I say to you, No. You should not have that power, no matter how great your numbers or how passionate your determination. Anything that can be done to block your attempts to enshrine your cultural ways into Constitutional law, should be done.”
I’m not a right-wing evangelical.
You really are saying here, boiling it right down, that conservative Christians should not have any political rights.
They have organized, raised money, and voted into office people who represent their point of view. Isn’t that what we do in this country? Isn’t that what you do every time you vote and participate in the political process? How dare you believe that your cultural ways should be enshrined into law
Posted by Campesino on May 5, 2005 at 6:11 PM Margaret is an absolute fascist who would stop at
nothing to keep people of an opposing viewpoint
out of power. She same mindset as Red Guards here
in China in 60s. No brains, no logic, no knowledge
of history, no principles, no philiosophy, racist
to the core as most Germans are, religious rightist Armaggedon fanatic, racist, superstitious, and has nothing intellectually
to contribute.
Campesino, she and her pathetic fellow liberals
are losers and their silly Democratic Party is
going right down the crapper. They are scared
to oppose American imperialism and the US aggression in Iraq but can follow the DNC rote
line on DeLay and other trivia.
Check out leftist Counterpunch website story:
Al Franken is a Big Fat Phony, 5/4.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 5, 2005 at 6:24 PM Just for your information, both Campesino and Natalie are conservatives. We may argue a bit, but generally have become smoother at sharing opposing viewpoints. So, get your facts straight, faker.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 6:28 PM I assumed they had a differing view from yours
after reading their posts but they do not sound
like fans of yours either.
Pathetic that you forced to call inaccurate name
instead of dealing with arguments.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 5, 2005 at 7:07 PM You misspelled my name again !
Thanks for proving my point about you.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 5, 2005 at 7:28 PM Oooooh! A typo! Wow, what conclusive proof, what obfuscation spewing forth from the mouth of a total fraud! You are a laughingstock on this site. Not one person has agreed with you, I just looked back over all your posts. Not ONE! Ha, ha, ha.
Well, enough for today. Have to go close a million dollar deal for MY BUSINESS. Nice to be a wealthy, Christian Democrat American!
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 8:41 PM Truth has nothing to do with numbers.
If you read carefully you will see that I
have engaged in interchanges with a few people,
none of which I’d expect to agree with me since
I was shredding their faulty premises.
If you had ever read a book on logic, you would
see the fallacy of your appeal to authority (the
number of people who agree with you), your ad
hominem attacks on me (another logical fallacy
of attacking the messenger because you are unable
to argue with the message), argument from intimidation (claiming an argument has been refuted without actually refuting it)and the
fallacy of circular reasoning (reiteration of
your unproven assertions as a substitute for
dealing with objections to your claims).
Frankly, if Merlin or Matt or Gordon or you had
agreed with me I’d wonder what I was doing wrong.
Most of the other posters are focussed on other
concerns, which is not my problem.
Who cares about your business ? Except you.
Who cares about your vulgar flouting of your
wealth (even if true) ?
You are the Party of the People ????
You are another reactionary loudmouth whose
butt got successfully whipped in public.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 5, 2005 at 9:16 PM Funny thing is, I don’t remember you ever making a cohesive point. Funny thing is, you were the insulting one talking about me dwelling in a slum in Chicago. Funny, your “Chinese” accent seems to have drifted off. Funny, you big laughingstock.
Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 10:19 PM Made nothing but cohesive points, reread my posts
and also reread yours and see who put forth arguments and who put forth ad hominems.
Chicago big tongue in cheek, over your head.
Sadly you reduced to more ad hominems.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 5, 2005 at 10:29 PM Here’s a link to a provocative & challenging article from a Christian from Africa about “Justice Sunday”:
http://www.yesumulungi.com/Commentary/Comment3.htm
‘Justice Sunday’, An Abomination
By Kato Mivule
April 26 2005—-EXCERPT QUOTE—-
These so-called Christians would never ever voice the needs of hundreds of street kids in the poor neighborhoods. These Christians don’t see justice for poor families in need of Medicare benefits, these rich filthy Christians of America pray in different churches, one of Whites and the other is for Blacks and other Minorities.
These ‘Justice Sunday’ Christians support GW Bush and his efforts to bombard Iraq and loot its oil so they can drive to their Multi-Million Dollar Churches in splash SUVs close to their Million Dollar homes. These are the Christians who are seeking ‘Justice Sunday’.
It is ironic that almost all those who spoke at this so-called Justice Sunday gathering, enjoy a 501 C 3 Tax-exempt status from Uncle Sum. The tax deduction totals in billions of dollars that 501 C 3 corporations get. However, even that is not satisfying to these dominionist Christians. They collect millions of dollars and don’t pay Uncle Sam any tax. Some of them still enjoy thousands of dollars in the infamous Bush Tax cuts and still siphon from the controversial Faith Based Initiative monies from their Chief, GW Bush.
The hypocrisy is just phenomenon. The meeting was a slap in the face of all Christians through out history who have laid down their lives and suffered unspeakable injustices, torture and death for Christ Jesus.
There is no excuse but a need to truly Repent as Christians in America. We have misrepresented Christ Jesus. This is not The Passion of The Christ. It is truly a time of repentance; those who engage in such dilemma as so-called ‘Justice Sunday’ are calling on Judgment to fall on American Christianity and all its dominionist evangelical movement.
The problem of morality in America has nothing to do with blood and flesh but has everything to do with Christians today. The changes we seek have to do with us. We have to change and bare the true fruits of repentance and not have Judges do that for us. We have left the true message of Repentance and Love that Jesus Christ Preached and we are running wild seeking help from supposedly “Christian” Supreme Court judges to help us legislate morality. This is nothing short of mere foolishness and stupidity.
The issues of the heart can never be solved in the courtroom. Jesus dealt with the Hearts of men and not their justices. As a matter of fact He did not get any Justice from any Judge in His time on earth…He was sentenced to be crucified on the cross…now that is Christianity that endures and perseveres in sufferings together with Jesus Christ; and not some gathering in some pompous ultra rich glittering high-tech multi million dollar, multipurpose buildings we love to call churches but are another Hollywood recording studio.
What is coming on such hypocritical American Christianity is nothing But JUDGMENT.
Christians in China, Sudan, Eritrea, Indonesia and other parts of the world have never requested Christian ‘Supreme Court Judges’ to rule in their favor. They have chosen to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ rather than get the eulogies and acclaims of men. Their Justice is ready to be executed on their behalf in Heaven.
American Christians have forgotten that suffering is part of Christianity. Throughout History, those who loved Jesus Christ and holiness suffered for it. It is a shame that instead of preaching the Gospel of Repentance, we have so-called Christian leaders organize abomination meetings and call them ‘Justice Sunday’.
—-End of quote—-
Posted by Chris on May 5, 2005 at 11:34 PM The American Nazi party was always a pariah. They never had access to the halls of the power. Roy Moore (the ten commandents judge from Alabama) who (or whose lawyer) has helped draw up the Constitution Restoration Act has advocated the death penalty for homosexuals. There could be ways of using this Act to bring that about. I’m afraid that too many people are living in the dark. As an earlier poster pointed out many free thinking people in the Weimar Republic simply didn’t believe that fascism was possible. There were many people in this country and across Europe who thought that Hitler was some sort of benovelent nationalist who should be allowed to express the resentments of the German working and middle class so that they could be dissipated in a peacable way. I’m appaled by the suggestion that we should gut the First Ammendemnt so that evangelicals can express their resentment of liberal culture. This Constitution Restoration Act is a large step in the direction of enshrining Christian Theocracy into law and voiding the First Amendment and its protections. Fascism, however, will probably not arrive until there is a single (or perhaps a series) of catalytic events which cement the deal between the demagogues and the legions of Christian soldiers who know only their faith and do not understand the Bill of Rights. I’m speaking here of spectacular crises like 9/11 - a similar terrorist attack, perhaps even involving nuclear weapons, wars in Korea or the Middle East, a serious or prolonged economic crisis perhaps involving shortages of oil, etc. In such circumstances, these people will prefer the protection of a strong leader to any concern whatsoever for Democratic principles. The scapegoating of those in this country who are or believe differently will arouse their passions and be convenient for thier leaders. Witness what happaned just after 9/11 when Falwell and Robertson blamed gays and the counterculture. Yes they apologized later, but imagine what could happen when we no longer have an independent judiciary and there is a crisis which seems to be ten times worse. Lets not forgot all the antiMuslim violence which also happened then. Yes, these were mostly the acts of isolated nuts. But the potential is there for more systemic repression, and what is going on now is a very bad sign. If God is so powerful and so good then why does he need so much help from politicians?
Posted by brubin on May 6, 2005 at 3:17 AM “Witness what happened just after 9/11 when Falwell and Robertson blamed gays and the counterculture. ” - What exactly did happen? Was there a huge upsurge in gay-bashing and attacks on hippies? Did the FBI swoop in and arrest anyone in bell-bottom pants? Your example strikes me as reinforcing how UNLIKELY it is that anything nearly as apocalyptic as the fearmongers keep projecting is going to happen and how ultimately powerless the religious right really is.
And who exactly is suggesting that “we should gut the First Amendment so that evangelicals can express their resentment of liberal culture”? That is the sort of hyperbolic and tendentious interpretation that makes it hard to escape the impression that all this fear for the future is just the Left projecting its own totalitarian tendencies on the Religious Right. After all, in the twentieth century, most of the oppression and tyranny experienced around the world came not from the fascist right, but from the communist left. And there are no inheritors of the legacies of Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco currently in power, but millions still suffer under Castro, Putin, and the heirs of Mao.
Posted by Mitch on May 6, 2005 at 3:57 AM Hello again Campesino,
Yes of course ANY American should have political rights, Christians or whomever. In fact, they should all have the same rights, if they’re adult citizens (again, my pet hate regarding selective marriage rights is provoked, not especially by you but overall; disgusting laws!). They can support and vote for whom they choose, and live as they wish, as long as…As long as they don’t restrict or harm others in the process, and in my view, that’s what is likely if a particular worship group’s values get the backing of law, especially as part of the Constitution.
I suppose it’s a matter of perception, but from here, I know that I have no designs to take anything away from right-wing Christians or anybody, except for the ability to use the law to enforce a particular cultural agenda. You see, I’m not the one organizing campaigns or boycotts, initiating legislation, etc. From where I sit, it’s they who want to supply the directive force behind how American legal and social culture will be shaped, to exclude or punish those aspects that they find theologically objectionable.
And more to the point, I most specifically object to fiddling with Constitution law and trying to alter it using sectarian priorities. This isn’t a hypothetical future event, it’s in hand right now.
In fairness, I would also object if sharia law or the five precepts for Buddhist lay followers were to become part of the Constitution. Same for secular humanism, or atheism. None of those can be made part of the fundamental legal foundation of the country, such that every regional and local law must be in harmony with it, without it making freedom of conscience and the pursuit of a life guided by one’s own moral principles impossible. They will automatically become discriminatory.
You see, I don’t want right-wing Christians to get hassled or legally marginalized either. There are loved ones of mine who are right-wing Christians! I’d never want them to be drowned out by laws that would make their religious lives difficult or impossible in their homes or among people who share their ways of worship.
But neither do I permit them, as much as I may love them, to dictate my own personal values, nor do I think they have the right to take over public institutions and recast them into their own image. I sure as hell wouldn’t tolerate them trying to compel me to obey them in matters of conscience, not the dearest one of them. Not for a second!
How much less, then, do I accept politically active strangers trying to do so?
If right-wing Christians want legal permission to carry on their faith-lives as they see fit, governing their behavior according to the teachings they hold dear, I’m there. Definitely. And the examples they provide for others may well be admirable ones, if what they’re doing is living lives of moral discipline and compassion for others.
But if what they want is to restrict me or others, using majoritarian bullying to gain control of the law for (it seems) the express purpose of forbidding me and others like me from living in ways that don’t harm them but that they find objectionable or distasteful for whatever reason, I’m out. Then it becomes a fight, and not one initiated by me or people who think like me.
If there’s a war over culture, it’s because some people don’t like what others do that violate the norms they wish were universal. But they aren’t universal, and the only way they can approach universality is if they became not a choice, but a compulsion. Like if the law upheld them but stomped upon me. It’s unjustifiable.
Posted by Kuya on May 6, 2005 at 5:51 AM Hi Margaret,
I’m debating on whether to get “God’s Politics”, or not. A relative of mine refuses to talk any further to me until I read it, so I may just do it.
I guess I feel like I “get” Wallis after hearing him on so many interviews and reading so much about him.
Yes, he’s always been pretty much anti anything that involves America using force against communism, marxism, anything really. He’s been arrested for protesting this and protesting that. I think he has always been somewhat leery of capatalism, equating it with poverty. I think capitalism is the greatest CURE for poverty the world has ever known. I guess this is mainly why I have such fundamental reservations about his theses.
He’s a very confusing man to me. I don’t like his shades of gray and endless talk of peace in the name of God while people who care not a wit for God (in any rational sense) or ANYTHING but their own power, wealth and self-preservation are plotting and executing against us. A lot of hesitancy to act against those whose values are based on either a perverse or no belief in a higher power, and have demonstrated the results of that arrogance. (mass graves and toppled towers come to mind)
Yes to Soviet appeasement, yes to unilateral nuclear freeze, no to MX missiles, no to Pershing 2’s in Europe, no to SDI, yes to the communist Sandinistas, no invasion of Grenada, no desert storm (I assume), no welfare reform, no force against Afghanistan, no holding Iraq accountable for 12 years of violating the terms of a cease-fire, among many other things.
It seems like he’s been so incredibly wrong (IMHO) on so many of the pivotal issues in relatively recent history, that I have little trust in his current proclamations. One reason I would like to read his book is to see whether he reveals his radical leftist past, and if he does, how he accounts for it.
I’ve heard that he becomes very uncomfortable when asked about his resistance to invading Afghanistan. I would also be interested in his feelings on this subject, if he reveals them.
I don’t mean to bash him—I’m sure he believes his way is best for mankind—I just think history has demonstrated that he’s been wrong on some very key issues.
How long till paperback? :-)
Posted by Natalie on May 6, 2005 at 6:13 AM Natalie,
Thanks for getting back to me. Don ‘t think the paperback will be out for a while.
I would like you to provide me some links. I understand what you’re saying, but I have not encountered the statements you’re making in reading the “Sojourner” on a monthly basis.
So, no rush, just please post some verifiable sources on your statements so I can read it myself.
Thanks.
Posted by Margaret on May 6, 2005 at 3:38 PM So solly to interrupt boring conversation on Jim
Wallis and Christian Left-Right losers but on MSNBC site a reprint from May 9 Newsweek titled
Does The Future Belong to China ? (Yes).
Done by neocon Israel Firster nut but still much
valuable information.
Communist Party rule not disappearing anytime soon
and since most wars are between capitalist powers
this may be good news for Boobus Americanus.
Some warmongering nuts in the UnDemocratic Party
such as Pelosi and Lantos and sad sack Lieberman
been pushing for confrontation with China many years now. Too bad you missed earlier opportunities to nuke us but now too late, we nuke back.
American Imperium soon coming to welcome end.
With your movies like Sin City your civilization
(?)seeming toilet down.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 6, 2005 at 4:44 PM People who must use ad hominem attacks and gross generalizations always have weak arguments that they augment with these insults. Pitiable.
Posted by Margaret on May 6, 2005 at 5:13 PM Absolutely agree, Margaret. Accept your admission.
See Numbers Before Politics for some honorable
servant’s latest postings.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 6, 2005 at 5:18 PM Christian Right? No such thing. Insane, gluttonous seekers of power and wealth don’t ring any Christian bells I know about.
A godless tyrant is a godless tyrant regardless of how many times he says Christian. That only makes them liars and tyrants.
Now comes the proposal of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against perceived enemies!!!How do we spell Hitler armed with Nukes. How will other nuclear powers react to this??
If Bush and his corrupt corporate regime aren’t stopped by some sanity in congress - or by a public uprising that can avoid being jailed by their police state.Well, goodbye,
It is sad that we who are trying to warn our fellow citizens of the danger he represents have to suffer and die along with those who hysterically support the Bush regime.
Oh yeah- tell that phony chinaman to learn a little bit about those he would impersonate.
Rich
Posted by Rich Warren on May 6, 2005 at 5:36 PM Hey, thanks, Lin Baio! I really agree with Rick’s statement. Everyone does see through your hoax.
Also, THANK YOU SO MUCH for persuing me all over the ITT pages! Now I know I’m on the right track and you are peeing your pants with fear. It’s so nice of you to praise my work for democracy with such vigor!
God bless you.
Posted by Margaret on May 6, 2005 at 5:57 PM Racist Rich—-thank you for proving my thesis.
Margaret——you scare dog off garbage pail.
Not you personally but ideas I interested in.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 6, 2005 at 6:26 PM Mitch,
Thanks for your response. And thanks for putting in writing that many of the values you on the right have are, in fact, shared by those of us on the left. No small point that. You wrote, “We all want some restrictions; the argument is over where to draw the line.” The problem, as I see it, is that the darn line keeps moving!
As for “giving offense” being the measure for line drawing, that was not what I meant. The right to offend is the mark of the 1st Amendment – and a price any American should be willing to accept – defend even. There are some exceptions though. You can’t yell “Fire” in a movie theater, for example. You can’t libel someone in a newspaper either. Free speech has limits. Likewise, as you imply, the separation of Church and State surely also has limits. But that doesn’t mean that the majority gets to decide what that is. They only do within the framework of the law. Might does not make right – pithy, but true. A majority may want to allow prayer in schools but that does not make it right, especially for the lone Jew or Muslim or Atheist in the class.
<g> Yep, my response to the teacher question did assume a fair bit. Couldn’t resist, hope you will forgive.
Excellent point that people judge each post (and news as a whole) not just in itself, but also through the lens of their personal political philosophy. To be fair, isn’t that how we assign value to everything? Still, the point you make is valid. We all wear different shades of glasses, but that does not mean that my blue ones are by default better than your red ones. The level of anger does seem to be rising. Unfortunately, the talking heads, on both sides, don’t make any coin by preaching balance and reflection. And that is truly a shame.
Posted by cal on May 6, 2005 at 6:33 PM cal,
I appreciate your response. I should make clearer something that, when I wrote it, I could tell wan’t quite conveying what I meant. The problem that I see is not just that we all view things through the lens of our personal political philosophy; it is that we seem not to be able to talk to each other on the level of the particular, that every individual item the opposition brings into the conversation becomes an occassion to invoke the Apocalypse or the demise of western civilization. It reminds me of Orwell’s observation that political discourse was, in his time, more about scoring political debating points than seeking after the truth or solving mutual problems. We seem unwilling to concede, by and large, that those on the other side of the aisle may have a good point once in a while (present company excepted) and that “our side” is wrong sometimes. To admit such is to risk losing the ultimate game.
And to refine another point: Although free speech certainly has limits, I am not sure offending someone else is one of them. Yelling fire in a theater or libeling someone else are not offensive, per se: one is dangerous and the other is false. The identification of what constitutes being offensive is so subjective and personal (and there many degrees of each) that it strikes me as dangerous to introduce being offensive as some sort of legal or regulatory boundary. If I am given to offensive speech, let me pay the consequence in public shame or ostracism or in a bloody nose. But keep the dean of student affairs out of my life and the police off my back.
Posted by Mitch on May 6, 2005 at 7:01 PM Mitch,
You wrote, “I should make clearer something that, when I wrote it, I could tell wan’t quite conveying what I meant.” And yet you sent it out anyway?? Mon Dieu! I could never do such a thing, and I’m sure I speak for all of us on the Left too. (To better illustrate my point I ask that you kindly disregard when I did the same thing two posts earlier. Much appreciated. ;)
As for legislating against the offensive, it is a very gray area, but we do it nonetheless. And we do it throughout all levels of government, federal, state and local, and beyond. Pornography for example. But I agree with you. I worry that many on the Right want to legislate how I can act based on their moral beliefs. As you say, what is offensive is personal and subjective. Personal being the operative word. Adultery is wrong, but should the State be involved if I’m guilty of the act? (Beyond what they are in divorce proceedings where it can, rightly imho, play a role in the estate settlement.) How far can it go? Taking the Lord’s name in vain? Putting on a play? Reading Steinbeck? or Shakespeare? It is a slippery slope to be sure. Seems like you are on my side on this (or I am on yours). In either case, it reads like you should be as worried about potential Christian Right inspired legislation as I am.
Posted by cal on May 6, 2005 at 7:52 PM On legislated morality. To take a single instance, “adultry is wrong”.
Says who, and what exactly is adultry. Is it physical or mental or emotional or political?
In many cultures men have as many wives as they need or can afford. There is even one that, after the wedding, sends the bride off with all the men for 2 weeks to insure pregnancy.
To the average American that’s not good but to them it’s the way they do things.
To the Southern Baptist everything that normal people do is a sin. However, if they do it - well, we just don’t notice. I call them the American Taliban.
Churches and governments are people control money collectors and the chiefs on eiher side do the collecting. If they help someone, the people chip in and do the work, the chief doesn’t chip in or help but he uses weapons like guilt, morality and other cute sounds to control his financial supporters.No one knows who different people do what. The act is neither moral or evil unless the motive is.
Mutual personal pleasure cannot be evil unless it is done for evil purposes. Only the motive can be judged.
That is how I see it.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 6, 2005 at 9:14 PM Margaret,
You do good work, thank you for being around.
Have you noticed how the low brows resort to vulgarity and personal nastiness when they don’t have anything intelligent to say, which is most of the time.
I suggest everyone ignore the garbage pail chinaman and let the dog go ahead and eat the guys lunch.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 6, 2005 at 9:35 PM Rich,
Your post above excellent example of what you refer to. Racist, vulgar, noncognitive and low
brow.
Maybe you should make date with Margaret as a
fellow (no) brain brother.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 6, 2005 at 10:16 PM Here’s an article by a guy who knows how to say what needss to be said.
I hope the right people pay attention to what he said.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0506-34.htm
Posted by Rich Warren on May 6, 2005 at 10:44 PM Rich,
Maybe you “needss” to become literate…....
“Right people” Democratic Party braindead hacks
like you ?
Posted by Lin Biao on May 6, 2005 at 10:51 PM Rich,
I think you have hit the crux of the conundrum: “To take a single instance, ‘adultry is wrong.’ Says who, and what exactly is adultry.” That reasoning applies to everything:
-Rape is wrong: Says who, and what exactly is rape? In some cultures men have the absolute right to any sexual predation they care to visit upon their women.
-Torture is wrong: Says who, and what exactly is torture? In some cultures, the top authority figure has the absolute right to pursue any course, especially against enemies, if he is seeking to protect the community.It seems to me that once you accept the “everything is relative, but especially morality” axiom, you can’t declare anything wrong, and you don’t believe in morality. Which may be the position the society is drifting toward, but I am not sure how viable it is in the long run. The “you can’t/shouldn’t legislate morality” shibboleth sort of misses the point: yes, you can only legislate about behavior, but the decision about which behavior to legislate against is going to be based in many cases and to a sizable degree on the social consensus about what behavior is moral and what behavior isn’t. Laws against murder and rape are laws based on morality, and although such laws haven’t elminated the prohibited behavior, they define the social sanctions against them and give notice that they will not be tolerated. The problem we are having these days, I think, is that none of us agree anymore on what is moral or even what morality is.
Posted by Mitch on May 6, 2005 at 11:52 PM Mitch,
We can open a big can of worms digging around in these subjects but the fact are, we had enough laws on the books 50 years ago to cover most things. Only a very few of the newer ones have any reason to exist. It’s time for the “Big Brother” to back off. In fact they could well afford to take a few sessions of congress and dedicate them to eliminating some excess, obsolete and useless or harmful laws.
When they get down to writing laws for individuals as is now done, the gov’t is out of control.
Sadly we have a large chunk of society today that likes to be controlled and they are doing us in.
An irresponsible congress plays their game and our nation and people like us pay the price.
Maybe blogs like this and a few thousand others will change the rules in time. We’re new at it so results have yet to be seen.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 7, 2005 at 2:05 AM Rich,
“In fact they could well afford to take a few sessions of congress and dedicate them to eliminating some excess, obsolete and useless or harmful laws.”—Amen. Maybe we could start the Eliminationist party with the slogan “Less is more.”
Posted by Mitch on May 7, 2005 at 3:07 AM Rich,
“Maybe blogs like this and a few thousand others will change the rules in time. We’re new at it so results have yet to be seen.” I hope you’re right. But I don’t think it is an issue of new laws we need to worry about. It’s the universal, one-size-fits-all interpretation of each that worries me. The particulars matter. Should the small-time pot smoker be held to the same standard as the crack or heroin dealer? All drugs are not equal. Yet our drug laws and sentencing rules do not take this into account. Laws are designed for the whole of society, but their implementation is for the individual. This needs to be recognized more, not less.
Posted by cal on May 9, 2005 at 12:25 PM “dismantle the filibuster as “a declaration of religious war.”
The Filibuster is used to balance the imbalance in the Senate. It increases the votes required to pass a law from a simple majority of 1 to 60%. My personal opinion is that a 2/3 majority should required to pass any law. If the proposed legislation is borderline is needs to not pass.
Bush has gone more insane on his 1st Baptist government and the Republicans who support that are as much in violation of our constitution as he is and all of them should face charges for that.
Apathy and ignorance in the publec are the biggest problems we have. The second biggest problem is a gutless Democratic party. The Democratic chiefs are the leaders of the party and a mouse cannot lead an army of lions. We need some warriors up there with a choreographed plan of action and the candidates with enough personal fortitude to attack and not back down even an inch.
I’d love to author their platform for the 2006 elections. There would be legal mayhem for the Republicans to survive. They haave helped Bush walk all over our constitution and a lot of Democrates are guilty too. That is why the are so mousy.
Too bad - draw the line and let the the transgressors fight for their own survival.
The future of America is at stake and it’s no time to pamper the babies.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 9, 2005 at 3:08 PM Forgive the typo’s - I forgot to edit and there’s too many cups of coffee sloshed over my keyboard so it’s a little sticky now and then.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 9, 2005 at 3:12 PM Rich Warren,
What “imbalance in the Senate” is the filibuster used to balance? If by imbalance you mean there is a majority party and a minority party, well, yes, that is the nature of a two-party syste (without getting into the question of how effectively they are two parties). And whether or not Rich Warren believes that all laws should require a two-thirds majority, that is not what the Consitution says, so Democratic sniping about limiting the filibuster with regard to approval of judges being unconstitutional is just so much crap.
I don’t believe there is any democracy that requires a two-thirds majority to pass any piece of legislation, and it would strike me as undemocratic if such a rule were established. It might be useful for limiting the growth and reach of government, but undemocratic nonetheless.
Both sides are playing political word games around the filibuster issue, but the Republicans stray less far from the truth in claiming it has never been used with regard to judicial nominees than the Democrates do when the claim to change the rule is unconstitutional. There are already votes for which filibustering is not allowed, the budget being the biggest, and there are laws on the books forbidding the filibuster in other specific circumstances. The passion this issue raises now has to do, I think, with the tendency over the past coupld of decades of the left side of the American political spectrum getting many of its desired policies established by the courts, through lawsuits and other judicial decisions. That strategy is fundmentallly threatened if Bush gets conservative judges installed. At the same time, the right side of the spectrum (and especially the religious right) has been organizing over those decades to get itself into the position where it can influence the choice of judges, and now the Democrats, having lost the ball, want to change the rules of the game. So the Dems are threatened, the Reps are ticked, and no one is talking much.
Posted by Mitch on May 9, 2005 at 4:36 PM Blinders everywhere. But Mitch, there is puuuulllenty of talking. Problem is we’re talking past each other, not to each other.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0509-30.htm
Posted by cal on May 9, 2005 at 6:10 PM Mitch,
You missed the whole idea.
An imbalance is when one side is bigger than the other.
You commented on my 2/3 majority opinion but apparently didn’t read what it says. It’s my opinion and having an opinion is within the constitution.
Another opinion I have is that being hard core Republican or Democrat is small minded.
I’m a Republicanw but I’m an American first and when they made violating my country a habit, with the help of a bunch of Democrats, I didn’t go with them. A two part system is inherently bad and as time goes by it’s getting really stinky.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 9, 2005 at 6:34 PM Rich,
“Not talking to each other” is what I should have said.
I didn’t miss the idea; I just didn’t think, frankly, that it was particularly well thought out. It was clear that the 2/3 majority idea was just your opinion; my opinion is that it is an unworkable and undemocratic idea, and I intended to support that opinion by citing the fact that no democracy (as far as I know) has such a rule. A discussion that consists of the mere recitation of individual opinion, without some research, without some thought, without some facts, is a barren discussion, wheel spinning in the political dimension.
I am not sure what you meant by “blinders everywhere,”, but your inclination to impatience with those that disagree with you, to whatever small degree (I suspect you and I agree about more than we disagree about) is exactly the problem we are having on the national level, exacerbated by what I agree is the smalll-mindedness of the hard core.
Posted by Mitch on May 9, 2005 at 6:53 PM “blinders everywhere,” came from Cal, not from me, but .....
I’m not impatient at all Mitch. I do an incredible amount of research and a good conversation is always welcome but if both, or more, parties are ‘hearing’ what the other is saying it’s a lot easier to do.How is it that a 2/3 vote is unworkable or undemocratic? It simply assures that more than one vote beyond a deadlock is required to win the game. To remove it from being a one party route a real majority vote needs to be required on all issues.
Majority is another way to spell Democratic.
Yes - it appears that we agree on much - but not on this.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 9, 2005 at 7:14 PM Rich,
Sorry for the misattribution, both of the quote and the impatience. When I say a two-thirds majority is unworkable, I think much less would get done that was positive if such a majority was necessary. And granted that goverment that governs best governs least, I am just hard pressed to imagine, certainly in the current political climate, any progress of any kind at all, for example, to sunsetting useless laws. And the situation would be worse in a multiparty system, I suspect, which you seem to favor, as the likelihood of one party obtaining such a majority, even with partners, is diminished.
But this is, of course, speculative opinion, based on nothing more than gut instinct and my limited understanding of governmental history here and elsewhere.I suppose I should have been more circumspect in claiming that a 2/3 requirement is undemocratic. I guess what I really meant was less responsive, flexible, and effective, which is really just the same thing I was postulating when I said “unworkable.’ So I take that one back. I suppose that propostion could be as high as 100% and still be part of a democratic system, if a ponderously slow one—maybe not a bad thing.
If “Majority is another way to spell Democratic” and the point of a filibuster is to thwart the will of the majority, I guess I can claim that the filibuster is undemocratic, even if sometimes useful.
Posted by Mitch on May 9, 2005 at 7:29 PM True, One more than half is a technical majority but it real life it pretty much means equal.
When a basketball player makes a half court basket at the buzzer and wins the game by (1) point I don’t think his team is the best, I think they are equal.If you’re going to win I want to see a win, not what shows equlity.
Solid partisan rulings should be outlawed, that’s my honest feelilng. Mindless puppets don’t provide responsible representation of the people.
Because of this puppet syndrome our government has violated our constitution repeatedly, violated international treaties and engaged in horrible international crimes.Solid one party rule has to be broken up and our entire congress slapped around a bunch if we are to survive. Since we are the strongest nation all the rest depend on our actions so it’s a responsible job being a federal legislaltor and they need to grow some brains that allow them to imagine the results of their actions.
But for today, the filibuster rule is good to have just for taking away one party rule.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 9, 2005 at 8:29 PM You are right on the money, Rich Warren.
Senate - Filibuster = One-Party Dictatorship
Posted by Margaret on May 10, 2005 at 4:53 PM You finally make true statement, Margaret !
But in the past the Democrats tried to get rid
of the filibuster when it served their ends
as in so-called “civil rights” bills, it all
depends whose ox is gored, right ?
Posted by Lin Biao on May 10, 2005 at 6:59 PM “Senate - Filibuster = One-Party Dictatorship”
Do you think we became more dictatorial when the Democrat controlled Senate changed the cloture rule from 2/3 (67 votes) to 3/5 (60 votes) in 1975?
To tell you the truth, I think both parties are total hypocrites on this subject.
Posted by Campesino on May 10, 2005 at 9:19 PM Campesino, you are right.
And just a little while an item on CBS News
website appeared in the People’s Daily (CCP
site in Beijing) that said a Hillary Clinton
fundraiser was on trial in LA for exactly the same
type of shenanigans that DeLay is being investigated for. Not one of these stinking
Democratic Party apologists-hypocrites on this
board will deal with that.
Posted by Lin Biao on May 10, 2005 at 9:25 PM “How is it that a 2/3 vote is unworkable or undemocratic? It simply assures that more than one vote beyond a deadlock is required to win the game. To remove it from being a one party route a real majority vote needs to be required on all issues.”
Then get the Constitution amended. It is very specific on where supermajorities are required
Posted by Campesino on May 11, 2005 at 12:43 AM What has to be considered,when dealing with the Christian Right,is this,they do not want opposition.They wish to push their belief structure on others,willing or not.The central theme of their beliefs isthey are right and there will be no debate.This is the antithesis of democracy.as a result,we are going to continue to have that faction of the right-wing attempting to advance an agenda which is eerily close to fascism.
To complicate our political dealings with them
further still is their elaborate propaganda machine which,at its heart,motivate its followers
with the idea of eternal damnation.This,combined with their very active participation in politics,is certainly going to continue the quagmire that our congressional and senatorial processes have become.One thing to remember about the Christian Right:they will NEVER quit until they get their way,and will use any method to win.For them the end justifies every means,even eliminating the democratic process if necessary.In their eyes,God gave us democracy,but He can revoke if it does not suit His will.In terrestrial matters,that iw utterly frightening.
Posted by wwoods on May 11, 2005 at 1:41 PM What has to be considered, when dealing with the Democratic Party and the fringe left, is this: they do not want opposition.They wish to push their belief structure (the primacy of equality over liberty, the importance of activist government, the danger of religion in the public sphere) on others, willing or not. The central theme of their beliefs is they are right, because they have sciednce on their side, and there will be no debate.This is the antithesis of democracy. As a result, we are going to continue to have that faction of the left-wing attempting to advance an agenda which is eerily close to totalitarianism and Soviet Communism.
To complicate our political dealings with them further still is their elaborate propaganda machine (sometimes callled the Main Stream Medi which, at its heart, motivates its followers with the idea moral superiority and greater inteligence on the left.This, combined with their very active participation in politics, is certainly going to continue the quagmire that our congressional and senatorial processes have become as a result of their frustration at being out of power, as they consider their being in power to be an entitlement.
One thing to remember about the Democratic Party: they will NEVER quit until they get their way, and will use any method to win, including lawsuits, obstruction, rule changing, etc. For them the end justifies every means, even subverting and end-running the democratic process through the courts, if necessary. In their eyes, the personal is political, meaning that all things are about power. In social, cultural, and personal matters, that is utterly frightening.
Posted by Mitch on May 11, 2005 at 2:21 PM Mitch,
The exact words you used are true of the Republican Party. The Democrats are not the ones trying to gut the Constitution, change Senate rules to suit their needs, lying to Congress about false intelligence in order to start an illegal war and plunge our country into bankruptcy by borrowing over half our national debt from China. From stinkin’ China! So if China wants to pull the rug out and call in our debt, we go into major Great Depression II.
Since we now have a “Conservative Media”, the fallacy of a liberal media lives only in the minds of the Republican faithful who bury their heads in the sand.
Your statements are ludicrous at best.
Posted by Margaret on May 12, 2005 at 3:14 PM Mitch
Don’t know what to tell you Mitch. Just keeping up with current events should be enough to tell you that the Bush regime is determined to destroy the constitution in favor of presidential decisions.
One man rule supported by a small army of people he has placed in strategic political positions is the objective.
The suppport to keep them there comes from corporate dollars, religious fanatics out to destroy Islamic nations while taking over their oil, a very talented spin doctor,(Rove) and votes from corporate control of a bunch of congress people,(both parties) and an ignorant or apathetic congress and public.
The amount of ignorance displayed by our senators in both parties is unbelievable.
You need to take a deeper look Mitch, you’re supporting those who are destroying the USA.
Don’t go by what they say, look at what they do.
I repeat, Look At What They Do.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 12, 2005 at 5:02 PM “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”
The Bible is right-on on this point, especially when it comes to the rotten fruit fermenting under the banner of “Freedom” and “Democracy” by the Republican Party.
Posted by Margaret on May 12, 2005 at 5:15 PM Rich and Margaret,
You seem to be under the impression that because the Republicans are bad, the Democrats must be good. My post was just pointing out that everything wwoods said about the Republicans can, in fact, be said about the Democrats, with slight changes. For one thing, Margaret, it is the Democrats who in the Florida election of 2000 tried to change the rules so that hanging chads would suddenly have to be counted; it is the Democrats who in 1975 or so changed the rules about how much of a vote was needed to stop a filibuster when they found the filibuster inconvenient. Don’t get all high and mighty on me about the purity of the Democrats; they are thieves and politicians and they are not more moral, just slicker.
And the notion that the media are conservative is simply laughable. Talk radio is conservative; Fox News is conservative; there are magazines that are conservative. But no objective analysis of the news choices and placements made, experts quoted, words chosen, or facts selected by the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, Time, Newsweek, the LA Times, etc., (collectively known as the Main Stream Media) could claim they were conservative, in the political sense. They are establishment organs, no doubt, and parts of large corporations. But the information they put forth generally comes down on the side of activist government, higher taxes rather than less spending, equality rather than liberty, Democrats rather than Republicans - they are left of center rather than right of center in their outlook and their output. (For that matter, neither George Bush is a Conservative: they are both establishment Republicans, which is not the same thing, with W. being slightly to the right of 41.) And your unwillingness to accept any criticism of the Democrats and apparent belief that Repubicans and the religious right represent evil incarnate makes my point about the Left brooking no opposition. A Democrat has more understanding for and tolerance of a rapist from a poor neighborhood than an Evangelical from the suburbs; it is a prejudice and a bigotry as baseless as the more traditional racially based variety.
Posted by Mitch on May 12, 2005 at 5:27 PM I need to add something here. This isn’t about Republicans and Democrats. I pretty much equally despise all of those in office. It seems that the moment they get elected they forget us and go into business for themselves using their position as leverage. Instead of voting with right or wrong for America as the guide, they buy and sell votes among themselves so the results are usually warped to make one of them richer.
It just happens to be that we have pretty much experience a “bloodless coup” of our government and though the powers who did this are regisered Republicans that isn’t where their loyalty lies.
They are loyal to themselves only, to personal power, wealth and Bush’s fanatic religious beliefs.
Al Capone and the God Father were both Catholics but do you think they practiced the faith?
Bush is not a Christian in anything but words and not a Rebublican in anything but more words.
He is a blood thirsty tyrannt dedicated, in ignorance, to destruction of Islam and America and the use of nukes because his fanatic religion guids him that direction.Read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north188.html
Again - look at what they do.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 12, 2005 at 5:36 PM “What we have seen in recent years is a breach of these values in order to reward the powerful at the expense of average Americans.
Those in power passed massive tax breaks for the wealthy and short-changed everyone else.
They granted sweetheart deals to Halliburton Corporation in Iraq while our troops went without armor.
They let the polluters write the pollution rules for our water and our air.
They let the oil industry write the energy policy in secret meetings in the White House.
Two weeks ago, over the opposition of every Democrat in the House and Senate, they forced through a federal budget that preserves corporate tax loopholes at the expense of college aid, and slashes Medicaid for poor mothers to pay for tax breaks for millionaires.
They twisted arms for three and a half hours in the dead of night on the floor of the House to pass a so-called Medicare reform that rewards HMOs and drug companies at the expense of senior citizens and the disabled.
They broke the ethics rules of the House of Representatives, then changed the rules to avoid investigation.
They want to break the promise of Social Security to our citizens by privatizing it, handing it over to Wall Street, and cutting benefits for middle-income Americans.
Now, Republican leaders want to break the Senate to get their way – this time with the nation’s courts.
We have blocked only the very few who are so far out of the mainstream that they have no place in our federal judiciary. And yes, we have filibustered those nominees to protect America from their extremism.
Yet, Republicans propose to scuttle the Senate rules that have protected our constitution and our citizens for more than two centuries – in a crusade to give right-wing activist judges lifetime appointments.
They want to break the rules to put judges on our courts who are friendly to polluters and hostile to clean water and clean air.
They want to break the rules to confirm judges hostile to civil rights, to disability rights, to women’s rights, and to workers’ rights.
They even want to break the rules to confirm judges who condone torture.
The nation’s founders understood that those in power might believe rules don’t apply to them. That’s why they put in place a democracy that preserves our rights and freedoms through checks and balances. These checks and balances protect mainstream values by preventing one party from arrogantly imposing its extreme views on the nation.”
“Ye shall know them by their fruits.” These are putrid, but I guess some people have a poor sense of smell.
Posted by Margaret on May 12, 2005 at 7:29 PM Margaret,
Get off it ! The Dems gave the environmental store
away to the big business interests under Sick
Willie’s conservative DLC regime, see Alex Cockburn’s 2000 book on Al Gore. Clinton pushed
for serious limitations of defendants rights in his monstrous crime bills in 94 and 96 that well
preceded 9-11. Clinton add FIFTY new categories
of capital crimes in the 94 bill alone !
The Dems weakened the filibuster by changing the
67 rule to 60 when it suited them in 1975.
Janice Rodgers Brown is an excellent qualified
black libertarian-conservative who is being held
up by racist liberals solely on ideological grounds, she has been an excellent civil libertarian Justice out in the California Supreme
Court.
The country is changing on abortion and Democratic extremists are still trying to defend
third trimester abortion, something specifically
forbidden in Roe v. Wade.
Bush’s medicare benefit will break the bank but it’s the first seniors drug benefit ever enacted
into law.
Laws against pollution are in place, nothing has
changed there nor has money been cut to the
disabled. And it was Clinton who abolished welfare, leaving people to starve.
Your UnDemocratic Party smells like a trillion
unwiped behinds, spare us your BS and your anti-Asian & anti-Arab racism too !!!!!!!
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 13, 2005 at 3:59 PM Raymond Hernandez in today’s New York Times has
a long story on the ever closer collaboration
between sweethearts Hillary Clinton and Newton
Gingrich. It almost sounds like they are having
an affair. No surprise there.
They are apparently in sync on many issues ranging
from health care to military matters.
So when the Demon Party hacks on this board start
to spout the Our Democratic Excrement Smells Like
Perfume line, you can tell which oral cavity to
stuff it !
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 13, 2005 at 5:18 PM Why I wonder do so many rabid republicans think that personal insults and gutter vocabularies are a valid substiture for intelligent human interaction.
I suggest that everyone ignore this Jack Barnes guy til he sobers up.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 13, 2005 at 5:32 PM Rich,
Can’t you read ? I’m on the LEFT.
As your own shabby Demon Party crook,
Truman, put it, if you can’t take the
heat…............
Oh, and you don’t speak for ANYBODY, much
less “everybody”.................
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 13, 2005 at 6:08 PM Oh,yeah, I forgot to credit my above post that sent Lin Biao, oops, I mean, Jack Barnes, into a fit. That was the floor speech given by Senator Ted Kennedy. Funny, I didn’t know ol’ “Liberal” Ted had such racist tendencies as described by Lin Biao, Jack Barnes.
Posted by Margaret on May 16, 2005 at 4:22 PM Nice try, Maggie.
Oh, I forgot, only one person disagrees with you,
the others are all the same person (!).
Those of us on the real Left regard the liberals
as the snakes that they are, and yes, plenty of ‘em are racists to the bone.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 16, 2005 at 8:53 PM You are the most racist blogger I have ever come acrossed. You are so full of venom and hatred that I don’t despise you, I only pity you.
Posted by Margaret on May 16, 2005 at 9:01 PM As I said before: “Why I wonder do so many rabid republicans think that personal insults and gutter vocabularies are a valid substiture for intelligent human interaction.
I suggest that everyone ignore this Jack Barnes guy til he sobers up.”
Posted by Rich Warren on May 16, 2005 at 9:06 PM Oh my, talk about the pot calling the kettle
black ! Margaret calling someone else racist !!!!!
Wow.
Then Maggie reposts under her Richie moniker.
Only trouble is “Richie” never had anything to say, much less repeat.
Democrat Party hacks usually do have trouble
defending their positions and resort to ad hominem
attacks. If you read the posts of Margaret-Merlin-Gordon-Rich (all the same person ?)you will see this pattern.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 16, 2005 at 10:10 PM Quite untrue. I have never in my life posted as anyone other than myself.
How odd, JB, that you would know anything about me, considering we only “met” on this page. You couldn’t know anything about some of the proposterous claims you’re making unless you’d blogged with me before. This is the first time I’ve ever seen your name. Not only that, you give yourself away stylistically. Same cadence and word usage (minus the “Chinese accent”). Also, you made a fatal error in once again using Harry Truman as your whipping boy. No one else anywhere on ITT that I can remember for the last year used Truman as a scapegoat as you have.
So, the jig is up. I am Margaret, always. You are limp and frightened enough to try different personas. Ha, ha, ha, ha!
Posted by Margaret on May 16, 2005 at 11:45 PM Not only is there only one person in the world
who posts disagreeing with Margaret but there is
only one person who posts critical of Harry Truman
!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !
I have read your exchanges with others on this board, so your views are not exactly a state
secret. Like many others here I check out different pages.
Get a grip, Maggie, you aren’t that important in
the scheme of things. We are talking about ideas
and issues and philosophies and history.
Not you qua you.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 16, 2005 at 11:56 PM Hey! You used the same WOOO thing you used on another article thread as Lin Biao.
None of us matter that much in the scheme of things, especially people who insult rather than discuss, JB. You are completely welcome to the Hell of your own making. I’m headed for paradise.
Posted by Margaret on May 17, 2005 at 1:11 AM Margaret
“ideas and issues and philosophies and history” says the boy.
I’m waiting to hear something from him on one of them, such as the need for the filibuster rule to remain in force.
Maybe even a comment on why the Republicans have used it 75% of the times it’s been used but now suddenly want to change it.
I’m betting he can’t make an intelligent comment on anything.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 17, 2005 at 2:04 AM I hate to stand in the way of Margaret’s and Jack Barnes’s pissing contest, but if anyone willing to talk intelligently still reads this post, when did the Republican effort to unleash the “nuclear option” to disallow filibusters regarding judges become an effort to get rid of it altogether? I have a vague sense that such was discussed as a possiblility, but I am not sure I have seen it announced as the official goal of the effort. Or we back to mind-reading “intention”?
Posted by Mitch on May 17, 2005 at 2:58 AM Mitch
From all the information I’ve gathered the judges are the primary consideration because they are forever. Cabinet appointments have been mentioned but not included because they only last until the next election They usually make it through the committes regardless of who they are.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 17, 2005 at 4:17 AM I’ve always been for the filibuster rule and was
opposed to the Dems changing it from 67 to 60
thirty years when it suited them. The Senate is
supposed to be a deliberative body, unlike the
House. The debates are not limited to neocons
Israel First fascists and Demo Party hacks.
It is an unprincipled thing for the Repugs to changeit but unsurprising as they are amoral, pragmatist scum like the Dems.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 17, 2005 at 2:56 PM Here’s an interesting little bit about the Republican’s using the filibuster when it suits them, but squealing like stuck pigs when it gets in their way. They have also blocked numerous judicial nominees by other means, as you will read.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110001About your question, Mitch, I don’t think I’ve seen anything written about a plan to eliminate the filibuster altogether. It follows a logical pattern, however, of eliminating the separation of powers, so I think a lot of people “expect” them to go for outlawing altogether as the next step.
As James Madison said “No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value…. than that the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, may be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
This is the obvious endgame goal for GWB/Cheney.
Posted by Margaret on May 17, 2005 at 6:02 PM Margaret,
It seems to me a sign of the overall sloppiness of American political thought and discourse, and perhaps of its fundamental emotionalism and lack of rational rigor, that the point about Republican blocking Clinton judges based on what could be considered ideological grounds has gotten lost in the fog surrounding the “nuclear option”; maybe the word “nuclear” just evokes too much anxiety. There is something of a meaningful difference between filibustering and blocking in committee, in that the former ties up the whole Senate while it is going on and, on the matter of judicial approvals, has not been used or even threatened much before, where I think blocking in committee has a substantial, if dishonorable, history behind it. But certainly both are equally undemocratic.
What is additionally disturbing about the filibuster debate, however, is the implication by pundits and Democratic politicians, in their sloppy discourse, that the Republicans are proposing to eliminate the filibuster all together. It is of a piece with their declaring that such an initiative would be “unconstitutional”; language continues to be bled of precision and meaning in the wake of such pronouncements. What you perceive to be the “obvious endgame goal for GWb/Cheney” is neither obvious nor an achievable goal in this country, by these means, and bespeaks the same sort of paranoid distrust and fantastic fear-mongering retailed by the article that sparked all this lengthy posting and by the Democratic party in general, in the current clime. The Republican fear-mongering is of a different sort.
Posted by Mitch on May 17, 2005 at 6:33 PM Mitch,
While I understand your point in regard to the filibuster, I must respectfully disagree that the elimination of the separation of powers isn’t the endgame goal of the GOP. That being said, only time will tell. As my mom used to say, “the proof is in the pudding”.
So let’s watch what happens. I, for one, think it is very possible in this country. When checks and balances provided by that separation of powers is removed, we simply become a dictatorship. With the general apathy in our populace, it doesn’t seem so impossible to me. But, as I stated, let’s wait and see. Debating this point is useless because no one can prove what has yet to happen.
Posted by Margaret on May 17, 2005 at 7:13 PM Mitch
The Bush regime has accomplished several achievable goals in this country. Dedicated to one man rule they have used twisted terminology and used outright lies to manipulate a large enough number of ignorant and apathetic Republicans and Democrats to support them in declaring war on two unarmed nations. Violating our constitution and international treaties came hand in hand with that while authorizing torture and other illegal treatment of prisoners followed quickly.
So we have a sitting president who seems above impeachment regardless of what oaths and laws he violates.
He is openly pushing his personal religious beliefs into position as the law of the nation and constantly lying to congress and to us.
Frist is making noises about terminating the filibuster and you can believe that the Bush legal team and Rove are paving the road for that to happen.
Installing corporate supporters in powerful positions are the objective and they don’t care if it’s legal or honest or good for the nation. The dictators will must be done and I often wonder if Cheny is the real dictator while Bush is his front man.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 17, 2005 at 7:47 PM I think it is far too easy and a real cop-out to say, “it couldn’t happen here”. Who would have ever thought that a real political battle would become so dangerously powerful in an attempt to unite church and state here? Now some Congresspeople are attempting to provide a platform for preachers to endorse and cajole their parishes to vote for a specific candidate while still retaining their church tax-exempt status. That would have read like something out of a horrible Cold War tale of government takeover of religion 50 years ago. Now it’s just great. Here’s an article on that bill:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/16/MNGASCPR0F1.DTL&am mp;q=q
Posted by Margaret on May 17, 2005 at 8:18 PM Rich Warren,
TWO unarmed nations? You aren’t including Afghanistan in that complaint, are you? We were attacked by a hostile force being given shelter and logistical support in Afghanistan, weren’t we? I am not sure what “twisted terminology and outright lies” needed to be told to “manipulate” Americans into striking back at Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but I doubt a Democratic president would have acted much differently, if he expected to hold on to his job in 2004.
When I asked the question about terminating the filibuster, even you agreed the thrust is to limit its application in the process of judicial approvals, which is not close to eliminating it. And Bush is “constantly lying to congress and to us”: who would ever have thought a President would do that!!
I will repeat what I said once before, that the fear of religion and a religious take over of the reins of government now apparent among the chattering classes and the literary elite is reminiscent in many ways to the same groups decrying of the influence of the Moral Majority in the 1970s. And, Margaret, it is really no harder to predict that it WILL happen here than to say that it won’t. Neither position is based on fact, but only on speculation based on interpretation of the character of the nation and, in your case, the motivation of Bush and his minions (I exempt myself from that dimension because my argument is that even if that is what Bush was after [which I don’t believe], he will not be successful].
Also, Margaret, having just read the article about the House of Worship Freedom of Speech Restoration Act that you referenced (the name has a certain Orwellian bounce to it, don’t you think?), I have to say that the supporters cited in the article sit on both sides of the political aisle and eliminating the aegis under which this and future administrations can use the IRS to harrass churches whose social activism they disagree with (Cecil Williams of the Glide Memorial Church, for example) seems arguably a benefit to the Left as much as the right, as the article acknowledges. Should Martin Luther King have been prevented from lobbying from his pulpit against racist candidates for state and federal offices? As they say, the power to tax is the power to destroy; if you agreed with the positions if the church under attack (which in some cases you do), I dare say you would not be so distraught over this bill.
Posted by Mitch on May 18, 2005 at 1:58 AM Mitch
Yes I’m including Afghanistan as an unaarmed nation and even as a nation unaware of the problem.
Warlords control most of Afghanistan. They and the general population had noting to do with anything and for the most part had no knowlege of the hit on the twin towers.The Taliban controlled only Kabul and the immediate area. They were given ample opportunity to surrender Bin Laden but refused. I too would have taken them out
When Bin Laden hit the twin towers he called them “Americas Vulgar Symbol of Arrogance and Wealth” or something very close to that. He killed a lot of innocent people that day and he did it without any feelings of grief or guilt. For that I would kill him with my own hands but his reason was as retaliation for the hundred million people the USA has killed in pre-emptive strikes, military assistance to overthrow governments, and starved with sanctions around the globe in the last 50 or so years.
Read the last half of this for a bigger picture: http://www.isometry.com/usahate.htmlIt appears that politicians do lie a little bit, all of them and the guilt spreads across the entire history of the country. But we keep putting the same ones back in their slot so the machine keeps on moving. The problem is that our political machine is moving us toward total disaster.
On the filibuster rule: The focus is on the judicial appointments but a vote to remove it probably would be all inclusive. We have to wait to see what happens there and hope that they fail in this attempt. The Bush team is deliberately dismantling every possible obstruction to his dictatorship.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 18, 2005 at 12:59 PM Rich Warren,
I am not sure I see a realistic and effective alternative to going into Afghanistan, and, frankly, both the Taliban and Al Qaeda could have predicted that harboring an aggressive entity within a civilian population was going to result in civilian casualties. Whether most Afghanis knew about the Twin Tower attacks (certainly not beforehand) or celebrated them, the US had little choice, for its own protection, but to swoop, swiftly, in to the country.
I looked at the site you posted. Of the 87 specific reasons listed for why the world hates the US, I would guess maybe half a dozen are actually the reason, and most of those are cultural and not political or economic. Many of the items and their descriptions are fevered interpretations of actual events. But certainly the great preponderance would be CAUSE for hatred; I just don’t think most people around the world carry much of that information and perception around with them. I would guess that those are reasons why Leftist Americans hate America, however.
As for Bin Laden, I don’t think the main reason he attacked the US was because of our actions and/or policies. He has a goal for uniting the Arab world under a jihadist/fundamentalist caliphate, and he saw attacking the US as the best way to rally the population of Arab countries against the secularized and dictatorial ruling elites of the Arab states. He figured we wouldn’t strike back, given our reaction to Mogadishu, and he then would be in a position to extend his influence throughout the Arab world. Does he hate the US? Yes, but that hatred was not, I don’t think, his primary motivation.
You still haven’t identified any twisted terminology or manipulation that seduced us into Afghanistan; I would still claim it was a popular move that did not take much persuading. And I have to say, Rich, that you are odd-sounding for a Republican: Not that what your saying makes any more or any less sense because you are a Republican, but because the fervor of the disdain you evince for the powers that be of both parties, and especially for the Bush Administration, seems more common, in my experience, coming from the self-identified “Progressive” left than from the Republican or even Libertarian right. And your tendency to react strongly to your own catastrophic projections of future outcomes also seems more typical on the Left. But I always find it reassuring to know that passion and vitriol are not a predictable monopoly of one side or the other: it restores my faith that, at bottom, everybody is wrong.
Posted by Mitch on May 18, 2005 at 1:45 PM Mitch
The Taliban controlled only Kabul and the immediate area. They were given ample opportunity to surrender Bin Laden but refused. I too would have taken them out.
“I would guess that those are reasons why Leftist Americans hate America, however.”
Uncalled for, assinine statement, being critical of bad government has not to do with America. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE COUNTRY. It is supposed to operate the country is a politically, environmentally and socially healthy manner. Our current government is dedicated to doing exactly the opposite. The people are responsible for forcing the government to function correctly and due to apathy and ignorance that isn’t happening.I don’t play the “left”-“right” or “conservative”-“liberal"game. It’s like “Pro-Choice” or “Pro-Abortion” These are generalized names that say nothing. Get specific and deal with something tangible.
Those names are meaningless. We are people and those with functioning minds are none of the above and some of the above across the spectrum also.
Your comments in this last post are coming in from left field and tend to be a little caustic like maybe you are taking lessons from Hop Sing Barnes, normally you do much better.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 18, 2005 at 4:27 PM Since Rich has not been able to even attempt a
reasoned counterargument to my rebuttals of M’s
agit-prop for Demo Party, I suggest he keeep his
ungracious remarks to himself.
That being said, Mitch is wrong that Bin Laden
didn’t act in response to US policies of having
troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and 60 year one-sided support of Israel by US.
As Pat Buchanan noted, they are over here because
we are over there.
Bush’s intervention in Afghanistan, while not the
total lying disaster Iraq is, looks worse as time
moves on. Taliban is back bigtime, US killed 3,000
civilians, didn’t catch Bin Laden and it looks
like most of the suspects in Guantanamo are not guilty.
It would also be nice if other people would join
in on these debates, too often it looks like a
private correspondence instead of a public forum.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 18, 2005 at 6:02 PM C’mon, Rich, the site you sent me to is entitled “The United States of America: Why do they hate us so much?” - not “The Government of the United States of America” or “Why do they hate our government so much.” You defined the terminology of the conversation, I thought. And the obloquy coming from the left goes well beyond the criticism of bad government: Leftists criticise the culture, “the society,” the history, and large swaths of the people (white men, people who lead corporations, the religious right, etc.) of this country, constantly and with nary a recognition of the positives. It is the relentlessness and universality of the criticism that suggests a hatred beyond politics.
Having said that, I will admit to succumbing to a slight impulse to be glib. But only in saying that “everybody is wrong”: I stand by my analysis of Bin Laden’s motivation.
And I wasn’t criticising or attacking you for what I see to be the anomalous nature of your Republicanism; I was just communicating my perception that I percieve your various analyses as proceeding from a refreshingly original set of assumptions, beliefs, and values. I agree that the names of parties cannot be taken to be much more than convenient shorthand for one’s political world view; but I thought I remembered your giving yourself that label, and it is unfortunately all too often easy to predict the postions of someone identifying with that (or any) label. What I apparently failed to make clear was that your posts broke out of that box and that I found that refreshing. My apologies if I came across as hostile or smug.
Posted by Mitch on May 18, 2005 at 6:03 PM Mitch,
Your point about the bill being of use to both the Right and Left is most provocative. I thought that, too, when I read the article. At what point is political activism going over the line in the context of it being in a church setting?
You are correct that I would accept political action from the pulpit in cases like MLK, Desmond Tutu. I don’t support it in cases like the KKK, Rev. Chandler. So, then, where is that line?
What Martin Luther King, Jr. did was not an endorsement of a particular candidate, was it? I know he did support Bobby Kennedy, but most blacks did. He didn’t, however, preach “vote Kennedy” from the pulpit. If so, give me some links. He was pushing a social agenda to build a consensus in the community to make their rejection of bigotry heard and felt by the uneffected American population. I don’t know that he ever said, either you vote this way or you’re out.
The other side of the coin definitely demands absolute allegiance to their causes, or you’re out. They demand you vote as told.
So, in a nutshell, the courts would have to have some sort of test by which they decide whether the preacher is simply saying let’s work together to make others aware of our plight and to change the social situation for the betterment of all OR is this a situation where preachers are demanding that all fall in line and vote a certain way.
Posted by Margaret on May 18, 2005 at 6:13 PM On Bin Laden, since he was pro-US before the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and even
offered to fight Saddam Hussein after his 1990
Kuwait invasion, your comments on him don’t make
sense, Mitch.
Now, because of our policies he has a chance of
uniting the region against the US but don’t put
the cart before the horse. He was our strongest
ally against the Soviets in Afghanistan and it
is only US policies in stationing our troops in
what they consider sacred territory, Saudi Arabia
where Mecca is, that has turned them against us,
plus of course the stupid blank check for Israel
that our AIPAC run Congress has given.
Margaret, you can’t have it both ways, King
actively preached against Goldwater in 1964.
He was very much to the Left and involved up to
his eyeballs in politics, even had Communist
advisors and support. The Right has every right
to do the same thing. Your proposed litmus test
is a sham that would be ruled unconstitutional
in five seconds and by the way the courts are
NOT our legislature, they do not have the authority to decde these things, only the
Congress does. Liberals have improperly used the
courts as a unelected legislature for 50 years
on everything from school segregation to abortion,
the Right has every right to attempt to reverse
this. Tough if you do not like it.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 18, 2005 at 8:23 PM “The United States of America: Why do they hate us so much?” Correct.
The government supports corporate desires to control the world. The people usually get included in the blame.
That hatred word is a little strong. The author stated upfront that he was deliberately focusing on the bad things - that the list of good things would be much longer and already known so he wouldn’t cover both. We need for people to remove the blinders and get a grip on what government does with our country.I see MLK’s use of the church as an OK way to promote a principle. As Margaret said, he wasn’t campaigning for some particular party or person.
Unfortunately many of his followers and our government didn’t hear what he said. “man should be judged by his character, not by his color” so in ignorance our government gave us “Equal Opportunity” based 100% on color or sex instead of character or desire to be of value.Just for kicks, where do you think members of the KKK come from if not from the Southern Baptist church?
I strongly believe we need to enforce keeping religion out of government and we need more than a simple majority to pass any bill and we need for all Senators to be required to vote on every bill.
A simple majority of those present isn’t full representation of the people.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 18, 2005 at 8:59 PM If it’s ok for MLK to campaign for LBJ, it’s ok
for Falwell to campaign for Bush.
The Founders never declared this an atheist republic, they only intended to prevent any
one church from becoming the established church.
We have god on the coins and in the pledge and
in the Senate opening prayers and in the Supreme
Court’s God Save This Honorable Court session
opening, I’m an atheist but this is not unconstitutional and is not going to change,Rich.
Majority is fine on legislation. That’s how we elect people, I agree it’s not enough on a
constitutional amendment but that’s why it was
set up differently.
Nor is it necessary for all Senators to vote on
every bill, Richie.
You’re a man of ideas, all of them crackpot.
Oh, your girlfriend Maggie was wrong as usual,
MLK was campaigning for LBJ and the Dems in 1964
and against Goldwater & the Repubs.
See if you can eventually get a fact straight,
okay ?
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 18, 2005 at 9:14 PM As I said, give me some links. And the difference being, he was not preaching from the pulpit to vote for LBJ or else, unlike Rev. Chandler and the Calvary Chapel that I formally attended. There is a big difference.
Not only that, the government has it both ways all the time. That’s why legislation and lawyers have to deal in such detail when deciding how to approach their defense/prosecution. Because little details make actions legal in one case, but not in another. So, in fact, we have it “both ways” all the time.
By the way, waiting for that evidence, JB, Lin Biao, J. Craig, etc.
Posted by Margaret on May 18, 2005 at 9:27 PM To all the aetheist, Libertarian posters on this site:
Thank you so much for clarifying the Libertarian stance for me. Now I understand that you are aetheistic bigots who are experts at what psychologists call a “double-bind” message. All for liberty for the individual but, wait, no corporations take priority. Love the Arabs, but to hell with the Jews. Hate those people of faith!
It is great to be so enlightened by such shining examples of humanity.
Posted by Margaret on May 18, 2005 at 9:32 PM Jack Barnes
Good post and I somewhat agree with most of it.
Bin Laden is upset over more than just our Saudi presence, he wants the US, corporate and military, out of all Islam territory. He wants us to stop manipulating governments around the world.Hussein wouldn’t allow him in Iraq so this is his first opportunity to bring it into mainstream Islam and he will be hard to remove. We opened the door for him and we can’t remove him but with remote support, money and weapons, the Iraqi people can do it. We should never have been there so now we need to give the Shiites money to rebuild the government, infrastructure and military while we leave. There will be some killing but I think there is some of that going on now and we are causing it and doing it.
I think the courts have been used to insure the constitutionality of a few situations in the past but not as a pawn of the executive branch. That is what we are trying to prevent right now.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 18, 2005 at 9:42 PM |He wants us to stop manipulating governments around the world.”
I should have added, “so he can do it” to the above sentence.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 18, 2005 at 9:54 PM Rich,
Thanks for your feedback.Agree with most of it too.
If we hadn’t been in Saudi Arabia it’s more
likely that Bin Laden wouldn’t have gotten so
aroused, he was for US intervention against
Soviets in Afghanistan. He’s obviously become
radicalized.
Best course for us in Iraq is to get out. The longer we stay the more harm we do.
I’m not sure this is the first Adminstration to
attempt to use the courts but it may be the
most blatant one to date. I’m also not so sure
the Supremes have always been concerned with the
constitutionality of different issues ranging
from fair housing laws to public accomodations to
abortion rights, it’s a stretch to say they were
guaranteed in the Constitution, I think Court
also have agendas including the conservative
ones since Nixon. I’m not crazy about Bush’s picks
but would deny original sin here originated with
his administration, though the neocons are the
most blatant ideologues I’ve ever seen.
Our disagreement may be more apparent than real.
Margaret, you have developed the typical web addict’s mindset of expecting everyone to provide
you with links. What about books and old magazines
and doing some library research ? Check out 1964
issues of Time or Newsweek or NY Times and you
will read where King compared Goldwater to Hitler
(!) and campaigned for LBJ. And MLK did preach
from his pulpit in Atlanta many, many times
on all manner of issues both domestic and later
foreign when he turned against LBJ on Vietnam.
As far as Israel’s apartheid policies goes, most
progressives oppose them and the DeLay fundies
back them. Are you sure you’re not a rightwinger ?
60% of Israelis are ATHEISTS and probably a higher
number of American Jews. Most Jews I know including my wife are atheists.
What’s your problem ? Judging from past posts on
the ITT site I’ve seen you seem to share the
fundamentalist Right’s anti-Arab racism.
And you’re a “progressive” ????
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 18, 2005 at 10:05 PM Less than half of the people in Israel are Jews so !!!
The Jews are all divided up into Orthodox, Charismatic, Christian (and Jew?)and you name it - That makes them a lot like the rest of us.
They also illustrate the need for separation of church and state on an international scale.I wonder how a person can be a Jewish athiest or a Baptist athiest or???
Posted by Rich Warren on May 18, 2005 at 11:09 PM Quite to the contrary, JB. My sister-in-law is Bahraini. When 9/11 happened, one of the first people I called were her parents, to warn them to be careful because there was bound to be vicious blowback. I have stated repeatedly on this site that the Jews must change their handling of the Palestian’s problem. Yes, I am progressive.
Also, next time, look before you bark. The statements about MLK were in question form.
Go back and read it.Also, you employ the trick of throwing out accusations and then not backing them up with data. It’s all “I said so” with you. I went and checked it out myself and found, in fact, that LBJ and MLK had a very contentious relationship. Better before ‘66 when the war got to MLK. I’m sure he spoke out against the war. But he was persuing a biblical imperative, “blessed be the peacemakers”, which certainly is the opposite value being hawked right now. He was not saying, vote for Johnson. In all my research, I did not find anything to substantiate your claim. So, you can’t just cop-out and say, you don’t need to provide all this proof (just take your word for it, right?), and then turn the tables on me when you don’t like the facts I present.
Ultimately, I guess I did the right thing in making a personal choice not to be involved in a church that supports Bush and the war. I left after 34 years of being involved in the Calvary Chapel group. Ultimately, I believe in the separation of church and state. No equivocation.
You seem to assume, JB, that I don’t, but you are incorrect. I am now a peace-loving Baptist, which is just a Christian no matter how you look at it. Jim Wallis has it right.
RW- You can’t be an aetheist and a Jew, Baptist, whatever. Not possible.
Posted by Margaret on May 18, 2005 at 11:34 PM “Just for kicks, where do you think members of the KKK come from if not from the Southern Baptist church?”
I’d say you’re right on the money. Earlier it was white robes and hoods to kill blacks, Jews, etc. Today, it’s the politically ignorant and the corporate/government/military state combined to wipe out anything that resembles democracy. Just throw in a little rabid anti-Semitism in the mix, you have JB.
In case you two don’t know, the Jews will win in the end. Sorry.
Posted by Margare on May 18, 2005 at 11:45 PM I’ve noticed that the people of various nations absorb blame for their governments failings.
There needs to be recognition that the people of any nation are normally victims of their own government.
Example: If the government needs a $200K building they spend $2M of our tax money for building it.
If they attack another country, we get hated for it.
I’m gonna file a complaint with the SPCA about all this abuse.
Posted by Rich Warren on May 19, 2005 at 12:08 AM I’m going to pass on the MLK/LBJ debate, but let me throw out a response or two to the possiblility of athiest people of faith.
First response: To be an convinced athiest is as much a question of faith as to be a believer in God: a leap of faith is required to cement a belief (there is no God) that cannot be affirmed by sensory experience.
Second response: To be a Jew (as I am) is more akin to being Irish than being Baptist: that is, Jews are an ethnic group that happens to have a common religion, but it is the ethnicity, the DNA, if you will, that makes you a Jew. You are born Jewish (or Irish, or Arab, or Italian) no matter what your religious belief. Not that you can’t convert to Judaism, the religion, but the Jew is a member of a tribe, not a congregation.
As a religion, Christianity is anomalous in that it is the only one that did not emerge from the bottom up from within an ethnic, geographically homogenous, tribe or nation. Perhaps that is why it is the most proselytizing, because that is how it began.
SPCA - Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Athiests?
Posted by Mitch on May 19, 2005 at 12:46 AM Margaret,
Your arguments consist of nonsequiturs. I wrote
that MLK endorsed and campaigned for LBJ, there’s
even a famous picture of him with Bayard Rustin
and two others campaigning for LBJ in October,
1964 in Baltimore, a few days before the election.
Believe I saw it in a bio of Rustin but it came
from Time. The later split over Vietnam was 2-3
years later, so you bring this up as a way of not dealing with my documented assertion that MLK
campaigned for LBJ and endorsed him from the pulpit, which gave the lie to your silly assertion
that only the Right mixes religion and politics.
If you can’t locate MLK’s emphatic endorsement of
LBJ and his comparing Goldwater to Hitler then your research is as shoddy as your reasoning.
Your statement about “the Jews” will win in the
end is as racist and ignorant a statement as one
can make. What Jews ? What end ?
Certainly not the Zionist cause in Israel, which
is doomed on demographic facts alone.
You have never shown any sympathy for the Palestinian cause at all on this board and
since 99.99% of all the world’s Semites are
ARABS, then you, Margaret, are an anti-semite.
To use your shoddy reasoning. You are a piece
of work and a reminder as to why we’ve seen our
last Democratic President and Congress.
Mitch is absolutely right that Jews are an ethnic
group, not a religion per se. My wife has long
maintained this as have all the many Jews I’ve
known throughout my life. None of them believe
in Judaism or the Biblical justification for
Israel, which every sane person regards as
preposterous crap. They may say the holocaust
justified Israel or the UN resolution or the
Balfour Declaration, etc., all arguable but
with at least a semblance of rationality but
not utter crapola based on fairy tale genocidal
unholy bible stories which themselves are rehashes
of old Arabisn legends. Nor does any sane person
believe that some nut who people later invented
as “Jesus Christ” was the son of “god” whatever
that weird concept means.
As Mitch writes being Jewish is like being Irish
and many Irish are atheists too.
Anyone who would stay in the Baptist church for
34 years has got to be at the bottom of the IQ
pile.
One final point, Maggie, apparently you are not aware of King’s very leftist and very powerful
condemnation of the Vietnam War in NYC on April 4,
1976, a year to the day before he was murdered.
In that speech MLK called the US Govt the greatest
purveyor of violence on the face of the earth, it was his best speech, far better than that dippy
I have a dream crap in 63.
If you can’t do better research and get off your
lazy ass to the library do not bother to post here, Maggie.
I for one am getting sick and of your nonsequiturs
and illiterate BS and I’m going to cut you no further slack.
Posted by Jack Barnes on May 19, 2005 at 3:51 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Joel Bleifuss
- Block ’Em, Sock ’Em
- Buy Back Our Government
- A Specter is Haunting Dems
- Bailout Bandits
- Building Utopia
A new documentary profiles the rise and fall of a Depression-era utopian experiment in the Bronx. - To Boycott Israel…or Not?
Naomi Klein and Rabbi Arthur Waskow debate whether divestment will bring peace to the Middle East.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
