Lawsuit Filed Over Federal Funding for Tiny Christian College in Alaska - from TBO.com: "By Mary Pemberton Associated Press Writer | Published: Apr 26, 2005
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - A group advocating the separation of church and state has sued the federal Education Department over funding for a tiny Christian college with a predominantly Alaska Native or American Indian student body.
Alaska Christian College in Soldotna has just 37 students, but has received more than $1 million in federal money in the past two years, according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The college is affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant Church of Alaska.
"This is just promoting religion," Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Wisconsin-based foundation, said Tuesday. The group's lawsuit was filed Thursday in Wisconsin.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Alabama: public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
CBS News | Alabama Bill Targets Gay Authors | April 27, 2005�16:30:18: MONTGOMERY, Ala., April 27, 2005"
(CBS) A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.
And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.
Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."
Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters.
Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries. ...
(CBS) A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.
And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.
Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."
Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters.
Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries. ...
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Disappearing Wall: Mr. Bush's goal is to finance programs that are explicitly religious.
The New York Times > Opinion > The Disappearing Wall: "Published: April 26, 2005
Ao the dismay of many mainstream religious leaders, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, participated in a weekend telecast organized by conservative Christian groups to smear Democrats as enemies of "people of faith." Besides listening to Senator Frist's videotaped speech, viewers heard a speaker call the Supreme Court a despotic oligarchy. Meanwhile, the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, has threatened the judiciary for not following the regressive social agenda he shares with the far-right fundamentalists controlling his party.
Apart from confirming an unwholesome disrespect for traditional American values like checks and balances, the assault on judges is part of a wide-ranging and successful Republican campaign to breach the wall between church and state to advance a particular brand of religion. No theoretical exercise, the program is having a corrosive effect on policymaking and the lives of Americans.
The centerpiece is President Bush's so-called faith-based initiative, which disregards decades of First Amendment law and civil rights protections. Mr. Bush promised that federal money would not be used to support religious activities directly, but it is. The program has channeled billions of taxpayers' dollars to churches and other religion-based providers of social services under legally questionable rules that allow plenty of room for proselytizing and imposing religious tests on hiring. The initiative even provides taxpayers' money to build and renovate houses of worship that are also used to offer social services.
Offices in the White House and federal departments pump public money to religious groups, but provide scant oversight or accountability to make sure that the money is spent on real services, not preaching. Indeed, Mr. Bush's goal is to finance programs that are explicitly religious.
A recent want ad posted by a taxpayer-financed vocational program of the Firm Foundation for inmates in a Pennsylvania jail stipulated that a job seeker must be "a believer in Christ and Christian Life today" and that the workday "will start with a short prayer." A major portion of inmates' time is spent on religious lectures and prayer, according to a lawsuit filed by two civil liberties groups. ...
...
The result of this open espousal of one religious view is a censorious climate in which a growing number of pharmacists feel free to claim moral grounds for refusing to dispense emergency contraception and even birth control pills prescribed by a doctor. Public schools shy away from teaching about evolution, and science museums reject scientifically sound documentaries that may offend Christian fundamentalists. Public television stations were afraid to run a children's program in which a cartoon bunny met a lesbian couple.
In a recent Op-Ed article in The Times, John Danforth, the former Republican senator and U.N. ambassador who is also a minister, said his party was becoming a political arm of the religious right. He called it a formula for divisiveness that ultimately threatened the party's future. With the nation lurching toward the government sponsorship of religion, and the Senate nearing a showdown over Mr. Bush's egregious judicial nominees, it is a warning well worth heeding.
Ao the dismay of many mainstream religious leaders, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, participated in a weekend telecast organized by conservative Christian groups to smear Democrats as enemies of "people of faith." Besides listening to Senator Frist's videotaped speech, viewers heard a speaker call the Supreme Court a despotic oligarchy. Meanwhile, the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, has threatened the judiciary for not following the regressive social agenda he shares with the far-right fundamentalists controlling his party.
Apart from confirming an unwholesome disrespect for traditional American values like checks and balances, the assault on judges is part of a wide-ranging and successful Republican campaign to breach the wall between church and state to advance a particular brand of religion. No theoretical exercise, the program is having a corrosive effect on policymaking and the lives of Americans.
The centerpiece is President Bush's so-called faith-based initiative, which disregards decades of First Amendment law and civil rights protections. Mr. Bush promised that federal money would not be used to support religious activities directly, but it is. The program has channeled billions of taxpayers' dollars to churches and other religion-based providers of social services under legally questionable rules that allow plenty of room for proselytizing and imposing religious tests on hiring. The initiative even provides taxpayers' money to build and renovate houses of worship that are also used to offer social services.
Offices in the White House and federal departments pump public money to religious groups, but provide scant oversight or accountability to make sure that the money is spent on real services, not preaching. Indeed, Mr. Bush's goal is to finance programs that are explicitly religious.
A recent want ad posted by a taxpayer-financed vocational program of the Firm Foundation for inmates in a Pennsylvania jail stipulated that a job seeker must be "a believer in Christ and Christian Life today" and that the workday "will start with a short prayer." A major portion of inmates' time is spent on religious lectures and prayer, according to a lawsuit filed by two civil liberties groups. ...
...
The result of this open espousal of one religious view is a censorious climate in which a growing number of pharmacists feel free to claim moral grounds for refusing to dispense emergency contraception and even birth control pills prescribed by a doctor. Public schools shy away from teaching about evolution, and science museums reject scientifically sound documentaries that may offend Christian fundamentalists. Public television stations were afraid to run a children's program in which a cartoon bunny met a lesbian couple.
In a recent Op-Ed article in The Times, John Danforth, the former Republican senator and U.N. ambassador who is also a minister, said his party was becoming a political arm of the religious right. He called it a formula for divisiveness that ultimately threatened the party's future. With the nation lurching toward the government sponsorship of religion, and the Senate nearing a showdown over Mr. Bush's egregious judicial nominees, it is a warning well worth heeding.
Why? Are atheists a threat to society?
AxisofLogic/ Religion/World View: "Let’s Let Atheists back into Politics | By Mike Whitney | Apr 26, 2005, 09:23
April 26, 2005 -- There’s simple rule for atheists and agnostics in America; keep your head down and your mouth shut.
I recently wrote an article for Counterpunch website criticizing the new pope and organized religion. Boy, did the brickbats start to fly. Many were put off by my assessment of the pope as right-wing extremist who will undoubtedly lead the papal caravan back to the 13th century. More were offended by my dismissive remarks about religion.
Why? Is it such a stretch to acknowledge that someone may have an opinion that veers from the majority? (according to the latest polls, 90% of Americans believe in God)
Or, is it simply because atheists and their unwelcome world view offer a real challenge to people of faith
Face it, atheism in America is a lonely experience. Atheists are widely distrusted and there is a palpable undercurrent of discrimination directed at them, even though it is less noticeable than the prejudice aimed at other groups. In many ways, atheists are social pariahs; America’s leper colony. Just about everyone is wary of atheists, as the polls repeatedly indicate.
For example, I saw a poll in Free Inquiry magazine a few years ago that showed that in the 1960s only very small minority of the public would vote for blacks, Jews or atheists. (all of them in the 20 to 30% range) In the late 1990s when the same question was asked, blacks and Jews scored in the 70% range; not perfect, but much better. Atheists, however, still dithered in the 20 to 30% range. No change; the distrust and bigotry are still as alive today as they were 40 years ago.
Why? Are atheists a threat to society?
April 26, 2005 -- There’s simple rule for atheists and agnostics in America; keep your head down and your mouth shut.
I recently wrote an article for Counterpunch website criticizing the new pope and organized religion. Boy, did the brickbats start to fly. Many were put off by my assessment of the pope as right-wing extremist who will undoubtedly lead the papal caravan back to the 13th century. More were offended by my dismissive remarks about religion.
Why? Is it such a stretch to acknowledge that someone may have an opinion that veers from the majority? (according to the latest polls, 90% of Americans believe in God)
Or, is it simply because atheists and their unwelcome world view offer a real challenge to people of faith
Face it, atheism in America is a lonely experience. Atheists are widely distrusted and there is a palpable undercurrent of discrimination directed at them, even though it is less noticeable than the prejudice aimed at other groups. In many ways, atheists are social pariahs; America’s leper colony. Just about everyone is wary of atheists, as the polls repeatedly indicate.
For example, I saw a poll in Free Inquiry magazine a few years ago that showed that in the 1960s only very small minority of the public would vote for blacks, Jews or atheists. (all of them in the 20 to 30% range) In the late 1990s when the same question was asked, blacks and Jews scored in the 70% range; not perfect, but much better. Atheists, however, still dithered in the 20 to 30% range. No change; the distrust and bigotry are still as alive today as they were 40 years ago.
Why? Are atheists a threat to society?
Justice Sunday Preachers: Frist was associating himself with someone who has longstanding ties to racist organizations.
The Nation | Article | Justice Sunday Preachers | Max Blumenthal: "April 26, 2005
Senate majority leader Bill Frist appeared through a telecast as a speaker at "Justice Sunday," at the invitation of the event's main sponsor, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. "Justice Sunday" was promoted as a rally to portray Democrats as being "against people of faith." Many of the speakers compared the plight of conservative Christians to the civil rights movement. But in sharing the stage with Perkins, who introduced him to the rally, Frist was associating himself with someone who has longstanding ties to racist organizations.
Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.
...
But for all his concern with anti-Catholicism, [Catholic] Donohue had no qualms about sharing the stage with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Dr. Albert Mohler. "As an evangelical, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church," Mohler remarked during a 2000 TV interview. "It teaches a false gospel. And the Pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office." Donohue, who has protested against Democrats who have made no such comments about Catholics, was silent about Mohler. In fact, the site of Justice Sunday, Highview Baptist Church, in Louisville, Kentucky, is Mohler's home church.
...
Eighteen years later, in 1999, the CNP was addressed by Texas Governor George W. Bush, on the eve of his presidential campaign. At the gathering, which was closed to the press, Bush reportedly sought to put to rest any notion that he was a moderate. Later, when he was asked to release to the public a transcript of his speech to the CNP, Bush stubbornly refused. But the press reported rumors that he had promised the CNP he would appoint only antiabortion judges if elected.
...
In 1996 Perkins cut his teeth as the manager of Jenkins's campaign for US Senate. It was during that campaign that, in an attempt to consolidate the support of Louisiana's conservative base, Perkins paid David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. After Jenkins was defeated by his Democratic opponent, Mary Landrieu, he contested the election. But during the contest period, Perkins's surreptitious payment to Duke was exposed through an investigation conducted by the FEC, which fined the Jenkins campaign.
Senate majority leader Bill Frist appeared through a telecast as a speaker at "Justice Sunday," at the invitation of the event's main sponsor, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. "Justice Sunday" was promoted as a rally to portray Democrats as being "against people of faith." Many of the speakers compared the plight of conservative Christians to the civil rights movement. But in sharing the stage with Perkins, who introduced him to the rally, Frist was associating himself with someone who has longstanding ties to racist organizations.
Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.
...
But for all his concern with anti-Catholicism, [Catholic] Donohue had no qualms about sharing the stage with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Dr. Albert Mohler. "As an evangelical, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church," Mohler remarked during a 2000 TV interview. "It teaches a false gospel. And the Pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office." Donohue, who has protested against Democrats who have made no such comments about Catholics, was silent about Mohler. In fact, the site of Justice Sunday, Highview Baptist Church, in Louisville, Kentucky, is Mohler's home church.
...
Eighteen years later, in 1999, the CNP was addressed by Texas Governor George W. Bush, on the eve of his presidential campaign. At the gathering, which was closed to the press, Bush reportedly sought to put to rest any notion that he was a moderate. Later, when he was asked to release to the public a transcript of his speech to the CNP, Bush stubbornly refused. But the press reported rumors that he had promised the CNP he would appoint only antiabortion judges if elected.
...
In 1996 Perkins cut his teeth as the manager of Jenkins's campaign for US Senate. It was during that campaign that, in an attempt to consolidate the support of Louisiana's conservative base, Perkins paid David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. After Jenkins was defeated by his Democratic opponent, Mary Landrieu, he contested the election. But during the contest period, Perkins's surreptitious payment to Duke was exposed through an investigation conducted by the FEC, which fined the Jenkins campaign.
I see a gospel train full of true believers comin' ... I see a Republican, could be House Majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, just a drivin'
Chicago Tribune | What a friend we have in Jesus: "Charles M. Madigan | When all else fails in politics, here's whatcha do: Get right with God, and fast | Published April 26, 2005
In the distance, I see a gospel train full of true believers comin', and with his firm and certain hand on the throttle, I see a Republican, could be House Majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, just a drivin' that train to glory.
Get on it or get under it. Or at least get ready. If you are a Democratic candidate, get right with God, and fast.
As the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth showed us last year, reality need not get in the way of a political campaign. You can do whatever you want. If you say it enough, some people will believe it.
In the distance, I see a gospel train full of true believers comin', and with his firm and certain hand on the throttle, I see a Republican, could be House Majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, just a drivin' that train to glory.
Get on it or get under it. Or at least get ready. If you are a Democratic candidate, get right with God, and fast.
As the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth showed us last year, reality need not get in the way of a political campaign. You can do whatever you want. If you say it enough, some people will believe it.
Monday, April 25, 2005
'I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute" -- John Kennedy
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "'I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.' - president John F. Kennedy. At the time, the speech was regarded as an attempt to refute anti-Catholic prejudice. Today, wouldn't the theocons regard it as an expression of anti-Catholic prejudice? Wouldn't Bill Frist see president Kennedy as an enemy of 'people of faith'? Just asking."
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Accusing Democrats of running against believers implies they are either terribly ignorant or simply not good Christians, Jews or Muslims
New York Daily News - Ideas & Opinions - John Leo: Rally has me losing faith in pols: April 24, 2005
Today's scheduled Justice Sunday rally and national telecast will turn out to be a political and religious mistake because it is a woeful tactic based on a false premise.
The premise is that Senate Democrats, by threatening to filibuster several of President Bush's judicial choices, have attacked religious believers. Pardon me, but this is clearly untrue. The Democrats would be delighted to approve fervently religious nominees, so long as they endorse Roe vs. Wade and the party's general strategy of using the courts as an end run around the legislative process. The obvious is true: The filibuster threat is about abortion politics and left-right polarization, not religion.
...
Accusing the Democrats of running a jihad against believers clearly implies that people who vote Democratic are either terribly ignorant or simply not good Christians, Jews or Muslims. This is a surefire recipe for increasing polarization within the churches.
Today's scheduled Justice Sunday rally and national telecast will turn out to be a political and religious mistake because it is a woeful tactic based on a false premise.
The premise is that Senate Democrats, by threatening to filibuster several of President Bush's judicial choices, have attacked religious believers. Pardon me, but this is clearly untrue. The Democrats would be delighted to approve fervently religious nominees, so long as they endorse Roe vs. Wade and the party's general strategy of using the courts as an end run around the legislative process. The obvious is true: The filibuster threat is about abortion politics and left-right polarization, not religion.
...
Accusing the Democrats of running a jihad against believers clearly implies that people who vote Democratic are either terribly ignorant or simply not good Christians, Jews or Muslims. This is a surefire recipe for increasing polarization within the churches.
AlterNet: In Contempt of Courts
AlterNet: In Contempt of Courts: "By Max Blumenthal, The Nation. Posted April 12, 2005.
...
For two days, on April 7 and 8, conservative activists and top GOP staffers summoned the raw rage of the Christian right following the Terri Schiavo affair, and likened judges to communists, terrorists and murderers. The remedies they suggested for what they termed "judicial tyranny" ranged from the mass impeachment of judges to their physical elimination.
The speakers included embattled House majority leader Tom DeLay, conservative matriarch Phyllis Schlafly and failed Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes. Like a performance artist, Keyes riled the crowd up, mixing animadversions on constitutional law with sudden, stentorian salvos against judges. "Ronald Reagan said the Soviet Union was the focus of evil during the cold war. I believe that the judiciary is the focus of evil in our society today," Keyes declared, slapping the lectern for emphasis.
...
Cass' "solution" is the "Constitution Restoration Act," a bill relentlessly promoted during the conference that authorizes Congress to impeach judges who fail to abide by "the standard of good behavior" required by the Constitution. If they refuse to acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government," or rely in any way on international law in their rulings, judges also invite impeachment. In essence, the bill would turn judges' gavels into mere instruments of "The Hammer," Tom DeLay, and Christian-right cadres.
...
The recent right-wing fixation on impeaching judges was conceptualized by David Barton, Republican consultant and vice chairman of the Texas GOP. In 1996 Barton published a handbook called "Impeachment: Restraining an Overactive Judiciary," which was timed to coincide with Tom DeLay's bid for legislation authorizing Congress to impeach judges. "The judges need to be intimidated," DeLay told reporters that year.
...
For two days, on April 7 and 8, conservative activists and top GOP staffers summoned the raw rage of the Christian right following the Terri Schiavo affair, and likened judges to communists, terrorists and murderers. The remedies they suggested for what they termed "judicial tyranny" ranged from the mass impeachment of judges to their physical elimination.
The speakers included embattled House majority leader Tom DeLay, conservative matriarch Phyllis Schlafly and failed Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes. Like a performance artist, Keyes riled the crowd up, mixing animadversions on constitutional law with sudden, stentorian salvos against judges. "Ronald Reagan said the Soviet Union was the focus of evil during the cold war. I believe that the judiciary is the focus of evil in our society today," Keyes declared, slapping the lectern for emphasis.
...
Cass' "solution" is the "Constitution Restoration Act," a bill relentlessly promoted during the conference that authorizes Congress to impeach judges who fail to abide by "the standard of good behavior" required by the Constitution. If they refuse to acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government," or rely in any way on international law in their rulings, judges also invite impeachment. In essence, the bill would turn judges' gavels into mere instruments of "The Hammer," Tom DeLay, and Christian-right cadres.
...
The recent right-wing fixation on impeaching judges was conceptualized by David Barton, Republican consultant and vice chairman of the Texas GOP. In 1996 Barton published a handbook called "Impeachment: Restraining an Overactive Judiciary," which was timed to coincide with Tom DeLay's bid for legislation authorizing Congress to impeach judges. "The judges need to be intimidated," DeLay told reporters that year.
Unprecedented? 1968, Senate Republicans led a successful filibuster against Justice of Supreme Court, 200 First voted against closure in filibuster
Lexington Herald-Leader | 04/24/2005 | Injustice Sunday: "Sun, Apr. 24, 2005 | Radical right's anti-filibuster show an assault on truth | By Larry Dale Keeling | HERALD-LEADER EDITORIAL WRITER
Welcome to Injustice Sunday.
Today, if all goes as planned, Kentucky will play host to a well-scripted immorality play in which political and religious extremists pummel truth beyond recognition and twist Christianity into an ugly caricature of itself in their crusade to give Dubya the opportunity to perform an extreme makeover on the federal courts, packing their benches with enough 'faith first, law last' judges to tilt our legal system dangerously toward the model of the Spanish Inquisition.
To achieve their goal, they will pull a couple of pages from the Neo-con Republicans Political Playbook.
So, expect someone, perhaps Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (he of the long-distance medical diagnosis who once again is reaching out from afar to kiss up to the religious extremists) to repeat the hogwash he and others have been spreading lately: that Senate Democrats' threat to filibuster some of Dubya's more controversial appellate nominations is unprecedented.
You don't have to go back to 1968, when Senate Republicans led a successful filibuster against the nomination of then-Justice Abe Fortas for chief justice of the Supreme Court, to expose that falsehood.
You need only go back to 2000, when Frist himself cast one of the votes against cloture in the filibuster of Richard Paez's appeals court nomination. That was one of 14 filibusters of appeals court nominations that resulted in cloture votes between 1980 and 2000.
Unprecedented? Unmitigated bull.
Expect also to hear some tripe about Senate Democrats filibustering against "people of faith and moral conviction." To buy into that malarkey, you must believe that the 204 judicial nominees approved during Dubya's first term (only 10 of the most controversial were blocked by the Democrats) are lacking in "faith or moral conviction." I suspect some of those folks might take exception to such an assertion.
Welcome to Injustice Sunday.
Today, if all goes as planned, Kentucky will play host to a well-scripted immorality play in which political and religious extremists pummel truth beyond recognition and twist Christianity into an ugly caricature of itself in their crusade to give Dubya the opportunity to perform an extreme makeover on the federal courts, packing their benches with enough 'faith first, law last' judges to tilt our legal system dangerously toward the model of the Spanish Inquisition.
To achieve their goal, they will pull a couple of pages from the Neo-con Republicans Political Playbook.
So, expect someone, perhaps Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (he of the long-distance medical diagnosis who once again is reaching out from afar to kiss up to the religious extremists) to repeat the hogwash he and others have been spreading lately: that Senate Democrats' threat to filibuster some of Dubya's more controversial appellate nominations is unprecedented.
You don't have to go back to 1968, when Senate Republicans led a successful filibuster against the nomination of then-Justice Abe Fortas for chief justice of the Supreme Court, to expose that falsehood.
You need only go back to 2000, when Frist himself cast one of the votes against cloture in the filibuster of Richard Paez's appeals court nomination. That was one of 14 filibusters of appeals court nominations that resulted in cloture votes between 1980 and 2000.
Unprecedented? Unmitigated bull.
Expect also to hear some tripe about Senate Democrats filibustering against "people of faith and moral conviction." To buy into that malarkey, you must believe that the 204 judicial nominees approved during Dubya's first term (only 10 of the most controversial were blocked by the Democrats) are lacking in "faith or moral conviction." I suspect some of those folks might take exception to such an assertion.
"Judges need to be intimidated" – Tom DeLay, 1998
p m carpenter's commentary: "Judges need to be intimidated" – Tom DeLay, 1998: "April 06, 2005
... “Mr. DeLay's ominous statements were a calculated part of a growing assault on the judiciary. Through public attacks, proposed legislation and even the threat of impeachment, ideologues are trying to bully judges into following their political line.”
...
Here’s the kicker. In the same article, the Hammer himself felt emboldened enough to go public with the right’s inner intent: "House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, who has called for increased use of impeachment of federal judges, said, 'judges need to be intimidated.'"
That was seven years ago, long before Mrs. Schiavo gave Mr. DeLay an excuse to intimidate judges and long before editorial boards became acutely alarmed.
... “Mr. DeLay's ominous statements were a calculated part of a growing assault on the judiciary. Through public attacks, proposed legislation and even the threat of impeachment, ideologues are trying to bully judges into following their political line.”
...
Here’s the kicker. In the same article, the Hammer himself felt emboldened enough to go public with the right’s inner intent: "House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, who has called for increased use of impeachment of federal judges, said, 'judges need to be intimidated.'"
That was seven years ago, long before Mrs. Schiavo gave Mr. DeLay an excuse to intimidate judges and long before editorial boards became acutely alarmed.
2 Evangelicals Want to Strip Courts' Funds: uring a Washington conference that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senator Frist
Yahoo! News - 2 Evangelicals Want to Strip Courts' Funds: "Fri Apr 22, 7:55 AM ET | Los Angeles Times | By Peter Wallsten Times Staff Writer"
WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
...
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
...
"There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape of a March 17 session. The tape was provided to The Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
DeLay has spoken generally about one of the ideas the leaders discussed in greater detail: using legislative tactics to withhold money from courts.
"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said at an April 13 question-and-answer session with reporters. ...
WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
...
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
...
"There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape of a March 17 session. The tape was provided to The Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
DeLay has spoken generally about one of the ideas the leaders discussed in greater detail: using legislative tactics to withhold money from courts.
"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said at an April 13 question-and-answer session with reporters. ...
2 Evangelicals Want to Strip Courts' Funds: uring a Washington conference that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senator Frist
Yahoo! News - 2 Evangelicals Want to Strip Courts' Funds: "Fri Apr 22, 7:55 AM ET | Los Angeles Times | By Peter Wallsten Times Staff Writer"
WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
...
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
...
"There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape of a March 17 session. The tape was provided to The Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
DeLay has spoken generally about one of the ideas the leaders discussed in greater detail: using legislative tactics to withhold money from courts.
"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said at an April 13 question-and-answer session with reporters. ...
WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
...
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
...
"There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to take a black robe off the bench," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape of a March 17 session. The tape was provided to The Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
DeLay has spoken generally about one of the ideas the leaders discussed in greater detail: using legislative tactics to withhold money from courts.
"We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse," DeLay said at an April 13 question-and-answer session with reporters. ...
Holy war Sunday: "Justice Sunday: Stop the filibuster against people of faith," the revival's being called.
Holy war Sunday: "Holy war Sunday | Sunday, April 24, 2005
At the rate things are going in American politics, next week will bring ads by the Noah's Ark Veterans for Truth claiming that the two Democrats on board were actually stowaways, whom God had intended for drowning but who snuck on cross-dressed as gayals.
That wouldn't be much more bizarre than what's planned for today: Bill Frist, the majority leader of the United States Senate, is going to Sunday meeting to preach that some deeply flawed and highly ideological judicial nominees are actually bloodied victims of religious persecution.
"Justice Sunday: Stop the filibuster against people of faith," the revival's being called.
It should be called, "Injustice Sunday: Demean the holy and foment schism for partisan gain."
Whatever you think of these nominees and the Democrats' filibuster of them, it is not the religious faith they possess, but the judicial qualities they lack -- restraint, balance, experience, respect for law -- that have brought the nation to this sorry point
Otherwise, they would have fared just as well as the more than 200 other conservative nominees that President Bush has successfully appointed to the bench.
As you hear the Christian soldiers' trumpets of holy war and hymns of righteous rage today, keep in mind exactly who some of these nominees are.
There's Priscilla Owen, the token white woman and Texas judge whose eagerness to substitute her own values for the rule of law was too much for even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who rebuked her for it when both served on the same court.
There's Janice Rogers Brown, the token black woman and California judge who believes that our vibrant nation of free-market capitalism -- this economy of Wal-Marts, Pfizers and Enrons and of Googles, Yahoos and Apples; this home of a pitiful $5.15 minimum wage and of a staggering 44 million people without health insurance; this land of soaring CEO pay and declining real wages for workers -- has actually been crushed by the boot of collectivism ever since what she calls the 1937 "triumph of our own socialist revolution."
There's Brett Kavanaugh, who has never tried a case, but rose from Ken Starr's impeachment crusade to become a White House operative. ...
At the rate things are going in American politics, next week will bring ads by the Noah's Ark Veterans for Truth claiming that the two Democrats on board were actually stowaways, whom God had intended for drowning but who snuck on cross-dressed as gayals.
That wouldn't be much more bizarre than what's planned for today: Bill Frist, the majority leader of the United States Senate, is going to Sunday meeting to preach that some deeply flawed and highly ideological judicial nominees are actually bloodied victims of religious persecution.
"Justice Sunday: Stop the filibuster against people of faith," the revival's being called.
It should be called, "Injustice Sunday: Demean the holy and foment schism for partisan gain."
Whatever you think of these nominees and the Democrats' filibuster of them, it is not the religious faith they possess, but the judicial qualities they lack -- restraint, balance, experience, respect for law -- that have brought the nation to this sorry point
Otherwise, they would have fared just as well as the more than 200 other conservative nominees that President Bush has successfully appointed to the bench.
As you hear the Christian soldiers' trumpets of holy war and hymns of righteous rage today, keep in mind exactly who some of these nominees are.
There's Priscilla Owen, the token white woman and Texas judge whose eagerness to substitute her own values for the rule of law was too much for even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who rebuked her for it when both served on the same court.
There's Janice Rogers Brown, the token black woman and California judge who believes that our vibrant nation of free-market capitalism -- this economy of Wal-Marts, Pfizers and Enrons and of Googles, Yahoos and Apples; this home of a pitiful $5.15 minimum wage and of a staggering 44 million people without health insurance; this land of soaring CEO pay and declining real wages for workers -- has actually been crushed by the boot of collectivism ever since what she calls the 1937 "triumph of our own socialist revolution."
There's Brett Kavanaugh, who has never tried a case, but rose from Ken Starr's impeachment crusade to become a White House operative. ...
Anyone who doesn't get with this program, starting with all Democrats, is damned as a bigoted enemy of "people of faith."
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time: "A High-Tech Lynching in Prime Time | By FRANK RICH | Published: April 24, 2005
...
Tonight is the much-awaited "Justice Sunday," the judge-bashing rally being disseminated nationwide by cable, satellite and Internet from a megachurch in Louisville. ...
...
"Justice Sunday" is a humbug, albeit one with real potential consequences. It brings mass-media firepower to a campaign against so-called activist judges whose virulence increasingly echoes the rhetoric of George Wallace and other segregationists in the 1960's. Back then, Wallace called for the impeachment of Frank M. Johnson Jr., the federal judge in Alabama whose activism extended to upholding the Montgomery bus boycott and voting rights march. Despite stepped-up security, a cross was burned on Johnson's lawn and his mother's house was bombed.
The fraudulence of "Justice Sunday" begins but does not end with its sham claims to solidarity with the civil rights movement of that era. "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias," says the flier for tonight's show, "and now it is being used against people of faith." In truth, Bush judicial nominees have been approved in exactly the same numbers as were Clinton second-term nominees. Of the 13 federal appeals courts, 10 already have a majority of Republican appointees. So does the Supreme Court. It's a lie to argue, as Tom DeLay did last week, that such a judiciary is the "left's last legislative body," and that Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, is the poster child for "outrageous" judicial overreach. Our courts are as highly populated by Republicans as the other two branches of government.
...
The "Justice Sunday" mob is also lying when it claims to despise activist judges as a matter of principle. Only weeks ago it was desperately seeking activist judges who might intervene in the Terri Schiavo case as boldly as Scalia & Co. had in Bush v. Gore. ...
...
Anyone who doesn't get with this program, starting with all Democrats, is damned as a bigoted enemy of "people of faith." But "people of faith," as used by the event's organizers, is another duplicitous locution; it's a code word for only one specific and exclusionary brand of Christianity. The trade organization representing tonight's presenters, National Religious Broadcasters, requires its members to "sign a distinctly evangelical statement of faith that would probably exclude most Catholics and certainly all Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist programmers," according to the magazine Broadcasting & Cable. The only major religious leader involved with "Justice Sunday," R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has not only called the papacy a "false and unbiblical office" but also told Terry Gross on NPR two years ago that "any belief system" leading "away from the cross of Christ and toward another way of ultimate meaning, is, indeed, wicked and evil."
...
Tonight is the much-awaited "Justice Sunday," the judge-bashing rally being disseminated nationwide by cable, satellite and Internet from a megachurch in Louisville. ...
...
"Justice Sunday" is a humbug, albeit one with real potential consequences. It brings mass-media firepower to a campaign against so-called activist judges whose virulence increasingly echoes the rhetoric of George Wallace and other segregationists in the 1960's. Back then, Wallace called for the impeachment of Frank M. Johnson Jr., the federal judge in Alabama whose activism extended to upholding the Montgomery bus boycott and voting rights march. Despite stepped-up security, a cross was burned on Johnson's lawn and his mother's house was bombed.
The fraudulence of "Justice Sunday" begins but does not end with its sham claims to solidarity with the civil rights movement of that era. "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias," says the flier for tonight's show, "and now it is being used against people of faith." In truth, Bush judicial nominees have been approved in exactly the same numbers as were Clinton second-term nominees. Of the 13 federal appeals courts, 10 already have a majority of Republican appointees. So does the Supreme Court. It's a lie to argue, as Tom DeLay did last week, that such a judiciary is the "left's last legislative body," and that Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, is the poster child for "outrageous" judicial overreach. Our courts are as highly populated by Republicans as the other two branches of government.
...
The "Justice Sunday" mob is also lying when it claims to despise activist judges as a matter of principle. Only weeks ago it was desperately seeking activist judges who might intervene in the Terri Schiavo case as boldly as Scalia & Co. had in Bush v. Gore. ...
...
Anyone who doesn't get with this program, starting with all Democrats, is damned as a bigoted enemy of "people of faith." But "people of faith," as used by the event's organizers, is another duplicitous locution; it's a code word for only one specific and exclusionary brand of Christianity. The trade organization representing tonight's presenters, National Religious Broadcasters, requires its members to "sign a distinctly evangelical statement of faith that would probably exclude most Catholics and certainly all Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist programmers," according to the magazine Broadcasting & Cable. The only major religious leader involved with "Justice Sunday," R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has not only called the papacy a "false and unbiblical office" but also told Terry Gross on NPR two years ago that "any belief system" leading "away from the cross of Christ and toward another way of ultimate meaning, is, indeed, wicked and evil."
Investigators Probing Abramoff's Finances Have Found That Some Money Meant for His Charity Went to Fight the Palestinian Intifada
Investigators Probing Abramoff's Finances Have Found That Some Money Meant for His Charity Went to Fight the Palestinian Intifada: "Sunday April 24, 11:00 am ET
The group of Indian tribes had hired Abramoff to protect their interests in Washington, after they opened up lucrative gaming casinos. Donating to the fund had a side benefit, Abramoff told his clients: it was a favored cause of Rep. Tom DeLay.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20050424/NYSU006 )
More than $14,000 of foundation funds were actually sent to the Israeli West Bank where they were used by a Jewish settler to mobilize against the Palestinian uprising, reports Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff in the May 2 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 25). Among the expenditures: purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as "security" equipment. The FBI, sources tell newsweek, is now examining these payments as part of a larger investigation to determine if Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribe clients. The tribal donors are outraged. "This is almost like outer-limits bizarre," says Henry Buffalo, a lawyer for the Saginaw Chippewa Indians who contributed $25,000 to the Capital Athletic Foundation at Abramoff's urging. "The tribe would never have given money for this."
Abramoff, a legendary lobbyist particularly close to DeLay, is also a fierce supporter of Israel -- "a super-Zionist," one associate says. That may explain why Abramoff's paramilitary gear ended up in the town of Beitar Illit, a sprawling ultra-Orthodox outpost whose residents have occasionally tangled with their Palestinian neighbors. ...
The group of Indian tribes had hired Abramoff to protect their interests in Washington, after they opened up lucrative gaming casinos. Donating to the fund had a side benefit, Abramoff told his clients: it was a favored cause of Rep. Tom DeLay.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20050424/NYSU006 )
More than $14,000 of foundation funds were actually sent to the Israeli West Bank where they were used by a Jewish settler to mobilize against the Palestinian uprising, reports Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff in the May 2 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 25). Among the expenditures: purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as "security" equipment. The FBI, sources tell newsweek, is now examining these payments as part of a larger investigation to determine if Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribe clients. The tribal donors are outraged. "This is almost like outer-limits bizarre," says Henry Buffalo, a lawyer for the Saginaw Chippewa Indians who contributed $25,000 to the Capital Athletic Foundation at Abramoff's urging. "The tribe would never have given money for this."
Abramoff, a legendary lobbyist particularly close to DeLay, is also a fierce supporter of Israel -- "a super-Zionist," one associate says. That may explain why Abramoff's paramilitary gear ended up in the town of Beitar Illit, a sprawling ultra-Orthodox outpost whose residents have occasionally tangled with their Palestinian neighbors. ...
Bush pleaded with the Vatican to pressure the bishops against abortion and gay marriage in the states: Ratzionger sent "Grave sin" letter
Holy Warriors: "Cardinal Ratzinger handed Bush the presidency by tipping the Catholic vote. Can American democracy survive their shared medieval vision? | By Sidney Blumenthal " | 04/21/05 "Salon.com" - -
President Bush treated his final visit with Pope John Paul II in Vatican City on June 4, 2004, as a campaign stop. After enduring a public rebuke from the pope about the Iraq war, Bush lobbied Vatican officials to help him win the election. "Not all the American bishops are with me," he complained, according to the National Catholic Reporter. He pleaded with the Vatican to pressure the bishops to step up their activism against abortion and gay marriage in the states during the campaign season.
About a week later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to the U.S. bishops, pronouncing that those Catholics who were pro-choice on abortion were committing a "grave sin" and must be denied Communion. He pointedly mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" -- an obvious reference to John Kerry, the Democratic candidate and a Roman Catholic. If such a Catholic politician sought Communion, Ratzinger wrote, priests must be ordered to "refuse to distribute it." Any Catholic who voted for this "Catholic politician," he continued, "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." During the closing weeks of the campaign, a pastoral letter was read from pulpits in Catholic churches repeating the ominous suggestion of excommunication. Voting for the Democrat was nothing less than consorting with the forces of Satan, collaboration with "evil."
In 2004 Bush increased his margin of Catholic support by 6 points from the 2000 election, rising from 46 to 52 percent. Without this shift, Kerry would have had a popular majority of a million votes. Three states -- Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico -- moved into Bush's column on the votes of the Catholic "faithful." Even with his atmospherics of terrorism and Sept. 11, Bush required the benediction of the Holy See as his saving grace. The key to his kingdom was turned by Cardinal Ratzinger.
President Bush treated his final visit with Pope John Paul II in Vatican City on June 4, 2004, as a campaign stop. After enduring a public rebuke from the pope about the Iraq war, Bush lobbied Vatican officials to help him win the election. "Not all the American bishops are with me," he complained, according to the National Catholic Reporter. He pleaded with the Vatican to pressure the bishops to step up their activism against abortion and gay marriage in the states during the campaign season.
About a week later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to the U.S. bishops, pronouncing that those Catholics who were pro-choice on abortion were committing a "grave sin" and must be denied Communion. He pointedly mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" -- an obvious reference to John Kerry, the Democratic candidate and a Roman Catholic. If such a Catholic politician sought Communion, Ratzinger wrote, priests must be ordered to "refuse to distribute it." Any Catholic who voted for this "Catholic politician," he continued, "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." During the closing weeks of the campaign, a pastoral letter was read from pulpits in Catholic churches repeating the ominous suggestion of excommunication. Voting for the Democrat was nothing less than consorting with the forces of Satan, collaboration with "evil."
In 2004 Bush increased his margin of Catholic support by 6 points from the 2000 election, rising from 46 to 52 percent. Without this shift, Kerry would have had a popular majority of a million votes. Three states -- Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico -- moved into Bush's column on the votes of the Catholic "faithful." Even with his atmospherics of terrorism and Sept. 11, Bush required the benediction of the Holy See as his saving grace. The key to his kingdom was turned by Cardinal Ratzinger.
Friday, April 22, 2005
"Elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."
The New York Times > Washington > Frist Draws Criticism From Some Church Leaders: "By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG | Published: April 22, 2005
As the Senate battle over judicial confirmations became increasingly entwined with religious themes, officials of several major Protestant denominations on Thursday accused the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, of violating the principles of his own Presbyterian church and urged him to drop out of a Sunday telecast that depicts Democrats as "against people of faith."
Dr. Frist's participation has rekindled a debate over the role of religion in public life that may be complicating his efforts to overcome the Democrats' use of the filibuster, a parliamentary tactic used by Congressional minorities, to block President Bush's judicial nominees.
...
Religious groups, including the National Council of Churches and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, plan to conduct a conference call with journalists on Friday to criticize Senator Frist's participation in the telecast. The program is sponsored by Christian conservative organizations that want to build support for Dr. Frist's filibuster proposal.
Among those scheduled to speak in the conference call is the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, a top official of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., in which Dr. Frist is an active member.
"One of the hallmarks of our denomination is that we are an ecumenical church," Mr. Kirkpatrick said in an interview on Thursday. He also said, "Elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."
As the Senate battle over judicial confirmations became increasingly entwined with religious themes, officials of several major Protestant denominations on Thursday accused the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, of violating the principles of his own Presbyterian church and urged him to drop out of a Sunday telecast that depicts Democrats as "against people of faith."
Dr. Frist's participation has rekindled a debate over the role of religion in public life that may be complicating his efforts to overcome the Democrats' use of the filibuster, a parliamentary tactic used by Congressional minorities, to block President Bush's judicial nominees.
...
Religious groups, including the National Council of Churches and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, plan to conduct a conference call with journalists on Friday to criticize Senator Frist's participation in the telecast. The program is sponsored by Christian conservative organizations that want to build support for Dr. Frist's filibuster proposal.
Among those scheduled to speak in the conference call is the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, a top official of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., in which Dr. Frist is an active member.
"One of the hallmarks of our denomination is that we are an ecumenical church," Mr. Kirkpatrick said in an interview on Thursday. He also said, "Elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Does "people of faith" include Muslims, gay Presbyterian? gay Presbyterian? ... or only conservative Christians and maybe Orthodox Jews
Faith-Based Pandering (washingtonpost.com): "By Richard Cohen | Tuesday, April 19, 2005; Page A19"
...
"The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith," ...
...
I am pausing now to wonder if the phrase "people of faith" is meant to include Muslims with several wives, Hindus with several deities or even the odd person here and there who believes, as I am sometimes tempted to, that God can be found in a pint of Ben & Jerry's Coffee Heath Bar Crunch. But I think somehow that "people of faith" is meant to embrace only conservative Christians and maybe Orthodox Jews, who are sometimes lumped together as Judeo-Christians. People of faith, you may rest assured, are people of their faith. All others need not apply.
I don't think a gay Presbyterian would be considered a person of faith, no matter how devout, nor, for that matter, a gay Presbyterian -- say, someone such as Hillary Clinton. The category would certainly not include a Baptist such as Husband Bill or a Jew such as Chuck Schumer or, I venture to say, an Episcopalian such as John McCain, whose faith sustained him in a Vietnamese prison. As for a Roman Catholic such as Ted Kennedy, whose faith informs his liberalism, take it on faith that he would not be considered a person of faith. The phrase would also exclude anyone of any faith who believes in a limited role for religion in public life, especially the schools, if only on the pragmatic grounds that otherwise we will be at each other's throats. This is a lesson of history. ...
...
"The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith," ...
...
I am pausing now to wonder if the phrase "people of faith" is meant to include Muslims with several wives, Hindus with several deities or even the odd person here and there who believes, as I am sometimes tempted to, that God can be found in a pint of Ben & Jerry's Coffee Heath Bar Crunch. But I think somehow that "people of faith" is meant to embrace only conservative Christians and maybe Orthodox Jews, who are sometimes lumped together as Judeo-Christians. People of faith, you may rest assured, are people of their faith. All others need not apply.
I don't think a gay Presbyterian would be considered a person of faith, no matter how devout, nor, for that matter, a gay Presbyterian -- say, someone such as Hillary Clinton. The category would certainly not include a Baptist such as Husband Bill or a Jew such as Chuck Schumer or, I venture to say, an Episcopalian such as John McCain, whose faith sustained him in a Vietnamese prison. As for a Roman Catholic such as Ted Kennedy, whose faith informs his liberalism, take it on faith that he would not be considered a person of faith. The phrase would also exclude anyone of any faith who believes in a limited role for religion in public life, especially the schools, if only on the pragmatic grounds that otherwise we will be at each other's throats. This is a lesson of history. ...
O'Connor says religious right hate-speech could spur violence against judges, calls her critics 'extreme'
AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth: "Monday, April 18, 2005 | | by John in DC - 4/18/2005 04:49:00 PM
Wow. I'm glad our old-time liberal non-profits have NOT jumped on the anti-judge hate speech issue that I've been preaching about for, oh, a good month now. Obviously I was wrong and the story has no legs whatsoever.
From this week's Newsweek:
In a speech earlier this month at Goucher College, O'Connor herself said she was surprised at all the violent threats she received. 'I don't think the harsh rhetoric helps,' she told the crowd. 'I think it energizes people who are a little off base to take actions that maybe they wouldn't otherwise take.'
More from O'Connor's speech criticizing the conservative Christians, who she apparently thinks are not 'thoughtful citizens' - but rather part of the 'extreme' in America:"
Wow. I'm glad our old-time liberal non-profits have NOT jumped on the anti-judge hate speech issue that I've been preaching about for, oh, a good month now. Obviously I was wrong and the story has no legs whatsoever.
From this week's Newsweek:
In a speech earlier this month at Goucher College, O'Connor herself said she was surprised at all the violent threats she received. 'I don't think the harsh rhetoric helps,' she told the crowd. 'I think it energizes people who are a little off base to take actions that maybe they wouldn't otherwise take.'
More from O'Connor's speech criticizing the conservative Christians, who she apparently thinks are not 'thoughtful citizens' - but rather part of the 'extreme' in America:"
New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign
Print Story: New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign on Yahoo! News: "Tue Apr 19, 6:20 PM ET
German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.
In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a 'grave sin.'
He specifically mentioned 'the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws,' a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.
The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion 'must refuse to distribute it.'"
A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read. ...
German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.
In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a 'grave sin.'
He specifically mentioned 'the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws,' a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.
The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion 'must refuse to distribute it.'"
A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read. ...
The Theocrats: 95% of judges approved, far cry from the obstructionism of the Republican Congress during Clinton's term
t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | The Theocrats: "By William Rivers Pitt | Perspective | Tuesday 19 April 2005
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
- Bob Dylan, 'With God on Our Side'"
...
They are the Theocrats, the Christian Taliban right here in America, and they are deadly dangerous both to this nation and the world entire. These people do not in any way represent mainstream Christianity, yet sadly they are redefining the meaning of that faith across the board. They would annihilate all that America has stood for these last two hundred years to 'save' the nation, literally as far as they are concerned, and right now, they believe they have the power to get everything they want.
...
Though we live today in an age where official hypocrisy is as common as sunlight and shadow, the reasons for Frist's looming attack on the filibuster forge new precedent in the annals of foolishness. Twelve of 204 Bush nominations to the Judiciary have been stopped by the Democrats, those twelve being far feathers on the right wing who have no place on the bench. This equals a Judicial nominee approval rate of 95%, which is a far cry from the obstructionism of the Republican Congress during Clinton's term, when one out of three seats in the Federal court system were left empty thanks to the efforts of the Gingrich brigades.
Why were these twelve nominees singled out and blocked? Let us look at a few examples. One Bush nominee, Jay Bybee, was one of the wonderboys who told Bush he could ignore laws forbidding torture. Bush nominee Carolyn Kuhl ruled that a woman's right to privacy was not violated by a doctor who invited a drug salesman to personally observe her breast exam. Bush nominee Charles Pickering once described a cross-burning as a "drunken prank." Bush nominee Jeffrey Sutton believes the Americans with Disabilities Act "is not needed."
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
- Bob Dylan, 'With God on Our Side'"
...
They are the Theocrats, the Christian Taliban right here in America, and they are deadly dangerous both to this nation and the world entire. These people do not in any way represent mainstream Christianity, yet sadly they are redefining the meaning of that faith across the board. They would annihilate all that America has stood for these last two hundred years to 'save' the nation, literally as far as they are concerned, and right now, they believe they have the power to get everything they want.
...
Though we live today in an age where official hypocrisy is as common as sunlight and shadow, the reasons for Frist's looming attack on the filibuster forge new precedent in the annals of foolishness. Twelve of 204 Bush nominations to the Judiciary have been stopped by the Democrats, those twelve being far feathers on the right wing who have no place on the bench. This equals a Judicial nominee approval rate of 95%, which is a far cry from the obstructionism of the Republican Congress during Clinton's term, when one out of three seats in the Federal court system were left empty thanks to the efforts of the Gingrich brigades.
Why were these twelve nominees singled out and blocked? Let us look at a few examples. One Bush nominee, Jay Bybee, was one of the wonderboys who told Bush he could ignore laws forbidding torture. Bush nominee Carolyn Kuhl ruled that a woman's right to privacy was not violated by a doctor who invited a drug salesman to personally observe her breast exam. Bush nominee Charles Pickering once described a cross-burning as a "drunken prank." Bush nominee Jeffrey Sutton believes the Americans with Disabilities Act "is not needed."
Air Force Cadets Complain of Religious Harassment by Christian Evangelists - from TBO.com
Air Force Cadets Complain of Religious Harassment by Christian Evangelists - from TBO.com: "By Robert Weller Associated Press Writer | Published: Apr 19, 2005
AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (AP) - Less than two years after it was plunged into a rape scandal, the Air Force Academy is scrambling to address complaints that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the school that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.
There have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination at the academy in the past four years, including cases in which a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet.
The 4,300-student school recently started requiring staff members and cadets to take a 50-minute religious-tolerance class.
...
Other critics point to a series of incidents, including:
-The Air Force is investigating a complaint from an atheist cadet who says the school is "systematically biased against any cadet that does not overtly espouse Christianity."
-The official academy newspaper runs a Christmas ad every year praising Jesus and declaring him the only savior. Some 200 academy staff members, including some department heads, signed it. Whittington noted the ad was not published last December.
-The academy commandant, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, a born-again Christian, said in a statement to cadets in June 2003 that their first responsibility is to their God. He also strongly endorsed National Prayer Day that year. School spokesman Johnny Whitaker said Weida now runs his messages by several other commanders.
-Some officer commission ceremonies were held at off-campus churches. In a letter dated April 6, Weida said the ceremonies would be held on campus from now on.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (AP) - Less than two years after it was plunged into a rape scandal, the Air Force Academy is scrambling to address complaints that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the school that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.
There have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination at the academy in the past four years, including cases in which a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet.
The 4,300-student school recently started requiring staff members and cadets to take a 50-minute religious-tolerance class.
...
Other critics point to a series of incidents, including:
-The Air Force is investigating a complaint from an atheist cadet who says the school is "systematically biased against any cadet that does not overtly espouse Christianity."
-The official academy newspaper runs a Christmas ad every year praising Jesus and declaring him the only savior. Some 200 academy staff members, including some department heads, signed it. Whittington noted the ad was not published last December.
-The academy commandant, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, a born-again Christian, said in a statement to cadets in June 2003 that their first responsibility is to their God. He also strongly endorsed National Prayer Day that year. School spokesman Johnny Whitaker said Weida now runs his messages by several other commanders.
-Some officer commission ceremonies were held at off-campus churches. In a letter dated April 6, Weida said the ceremonies would be held on campus from now on.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Will cancer vaccine get to all women? - US religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination
New Scientist Will cancer vaccine get to all women? - News: "* 16 April 2005 | * Debora MacKenzie"
DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.
The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.
In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus. ...
DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.
The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.
In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus. ...
Monday, April 11, 2005
Wolf Blitzer 'not so sure' liberal CNN host Begala is 'a good Catholic'
Wolf Blitzer "not so sure" liberal CNN host Beg ... [Media Matters for America]: "Wolf Blitzer 'not so sure' liberal CNN host Begala is 'a good Catholic'
On the April 8 edition of CNN's Inside Politics, CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruff discussed Pope John Paul II's funeral with Crossfire co-hosts Paul Begala and Robert Novak, both Catholics. Blitzer opened the segment by suggesting that while 'I'm sure Bob is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala.' In responding to Blitzer, Begala took exception to on-screen text* earlier in the program that characterized many Catholic doctrines as 'conservative':
BLITZER: While they were united today in mourning the death of the pope, U.S. Catholics are a diverse group, as illustrated by two of our Crossfire co-hosts, the conservative Robert Novak, the liberal Paul Begala. Both good Catholics -- I don't know 'good' Catholics, but both Catholics. I'm sure Bob is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala."
On the April 8 edition of CNN's Inside Politics, CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruff discussed Pope John Paul II's funeral with Crossfire co-hosts Paul Begala and Robert Novak, both Catholics. Blitzer opened the segment by suggesting that while 'I'm sure Bob is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala.' In responding to Blitzer, Begala took exception to on-screen text* earlier in the program that characterized many Catholic doctrines as 'conservative':
BLITZER: While they were united today in mourning the death of the pope, U.S. Catholics are a diverse group, as illustrated by two of our Crossfire co-hosts, the conservative Robert Novak, the liberal Paul Begala. Both good Catholics -- I don't know 'good' Catholics, but both Catholics. I'm sure Bob is a good Catholic, I'm not so sure about Paul Begala."
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "THEY ARE STALINISTS:
The more I read about the recent conference for conservative critics of the judiciary, the scarier it gets. One attendee, according to the Washington Post, had this to say:
[L]awyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that [Justice Anthony] Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, 'upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.'
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his 'bottom line' for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. 'He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' ' Vieira said. The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is 'Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.'
Cornyn is beginning to sound mainstream. This was a meeting Tom DeLay promised to attend, before going to the Pope's funeral. Last week also saw the meeting of something called the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. Christian reconstructionists play a part in it - they want to abolish the Constitution and put Biblical precepts as the only source of American law. They have an agenda, as cited by the National Journal:
According to [organizer, Don] Feder, the manifesto will call for a plan to begin impeachment proceedings against federal judges; remove judicial jurisdiction over issues key to religious conservatives, including marriage and the separation of church and state; limit courts' jurisdiction over the establishment clause of the Constitution, which has been used to enforce the firewall between religion and government; initiate a process for defunding courts that defy these new rules and continue to overstep their authority and eliminate the ability of Democrats to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees.
The manifesto is based in part on legislation introduced early last month by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., known as the 'Constitution Restoration Act.' Their bill would limit federal courts' jurisdiction and would enshrine a recognition of God in federal law -- a provision the bill would make nonreviewable.
Theocracy? Only hysterics think that's going on, don't they? "
The more I read about the recent conference for conservative critics of the judiciary, the scarier it gets. One attendee, according to the Washington Post, had this to say:
[L]awyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that [Justice Anthony] Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, 'upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.'
Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his 'bottom line' for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. 'He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' ' Vieira said. The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is 'Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.'
Cornyn is beginning to sound mainstream. This was a meeting Tom DeLay promised to attend, before going to the Pope's funeral. Last week also saw the meeting of something called the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. Christian reconstructionists play a part in it - they want to abolish the Constitution and put Biblical precepts as the only source of American law. They have an agenda, as cited by the National Journal:
According to [organizer, Don] Feder, the manifesto will call for a plan to begin impeachment proceedings against federal judges; remove judicial jurisdiction over issues key to religious conservatives, including marriage and the separation of church and state; limit courts' jurisdiction over the establishment clause of the Constitution, which has been used to enforce the firewall between religion and government; initiate a process for defunding courts that defy these new rules and continue to overstep their authority and eliminate the ability of Democrats to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees.
The manifesto is based in part on legislation introduced early last month by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., known as the 'Constitution Restoration Act.' Their bill would limit federal courts' jurisdiction and would enshrine a recognition of God in federal law -- a provision the bill would make nonreviewable.
Theocracy? Only hysterics think that's going on, don't they? "
James Dobson, the religious figure who all but dictates Republican social policy, refers to Supreme Court justices as the modern equivalent of KKK
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "Monday, April 11, 2005
NOW, THEY ARE THE KLAN: James Dobson, the religious figure who all but dictates Republican social policy, just referred to Supreme Court justices as the modern equivalent of the KKK. Yes, the GOP is getting even more extreme. Money quote from Dobson:
I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South and they did great wrong to civil rights to and to morality and now we have black-robed men.
The quote is around the 22 minute mark. Dobson then referred to the coming Supreme Court nomination battle as 'World War Three.' | - 3:53:00 PM"
NOW, THEY ARE THE KLAN: James Dobson, the religious figure who all but dictates Republican social policy, just referred to Supreme Court justices as the modern equivalent of the KKK. Yes, the GOP is getting even more extreme. Money quote from Dobson:
I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South and they did great wrong to civil rights to and to morality and now we have black-robed men.
The quote is around the 22 minute mark. Dobson then referred to the coming Supreme Court nomination battle as 'World War Three.' | - 3:53:00 PM"
Sunday, April 03, 2005
"a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement."
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: In the Name of PoliticsMarch 30, 2005 | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR | By JOHN C. DANFORTH
St. Louis — BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.
Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.
...
High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.
In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.
...
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.
St. Louis — BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.
Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.
...
High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.
In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.
...
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.
Bush Reaffirms Commitment to Government Support of Religion
Right Web | Analysis | Bush Reaffirms Commitment to Government Support of Religion: "By Don Monkerud | March 2, 2005"
After recent criticism for not doing enough to promote his faith-based program, President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to erode barriers against religion in government-supported programs and to grant more money to religious groups. The president made his pledge before 250 religious leaders at a White House-called conference in Washington, DC yesterday.
...
After Congress refused to pass Bush’s Faith-Based initiatives in December 2002, Bush issued a set of executives orders, increasing funding, weakening traditional barriers between government and religious activities, and building a huge network of religious groups across the country. Federal agencies are now providing legal, logistical, and technical assistance to religious groups, which are being used to gain support for the GOP. For example, the Bush administration sponsored 13 regional conferences and additional meetings across the country to lobby religious organizations. The meetings produced an email list of 13,000 faith-based groups, which would prove useful during the 2004 election.
...
Once considered a “cult,” Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church receive government grants to teach “healthy marriage” programs. Josephine Hauer, a Unification leader, works for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and told a seminar of religious leaders in Oakland, California, “I want to make this a marriage culture.” The seminar was sponsored by a $366,179 grant from HHS.
...
After recent criticism for not doing enough to promote his faith-based program, President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to erode barriers against religion in government-supported programs and to grant more money to religious groups. The president made his pledge before 250 religious leaders at a White House-called conference in Washington, DC yesterday.
...
After Congress refused to pass Bush’s Faith-Based initiatives in December 2002, Bush issued a set of executives orders, increasing funding, weakening traditional barriers between government and religious activities, and building a huge network of religious groups across the country. Federal agencies are now providing legal, logistical, and technical assistance to religious groups, which are being used to gain support for the GOP. For example, the Bush administration sponsored 13 regional conferences and additional meetings across the country to lobby religious organizations. The meetings produced an email list of 13,000 faith-based groups, which would prove useful during the 2004 election.
...
Once considered a “cult,” Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church receive government grants to teach “healthy marriage” programs. Josephine Hauer, a Unification leader, works for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and told a seminar of religious leaders in Oakland, California, “I want to make this a marriage culture.” The seminar was sponsored by a $366,179 grant from HHS.
...
Closest parallel to current American politics is Israel: not yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives ... fear assassination ...
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: What's Going On?: By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: March 29, 2005
Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.
We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.
But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.
Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.
One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.
Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.
...
And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.
The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.
But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.
Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.
...
The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.
America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.
Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.
We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.
But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.
Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.
One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.
Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.
...
And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.
The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.
But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.
Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.
...
The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.
America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.
Friday, April 01, 2005
The Jurors and the Bible: turn the other cheek and to let he who is without sin throw the first stone?
The New York Times > Opinion > The Jurors and the Bible: "Published: April 1, 2005
To the Editor:
Re "Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible" (front page, March 29):
This latest installment of the culture wars caused me to wonder. What if the jurors - who voted for the death penalty - had heeded Jesus' command to turn the other cheek and to let he who is without sin throw the first stone? They might have decided on a less severe sentence.
Would that have satisfied the religious right's call for a legal code based on the Bible?
To the Editor:
Re "Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible" (front page, March 29):
This latest installment of the culture wars caused me to wonder. What if the jurors - who voted for the death penalty - had heeded Jesus' command to turn the other cheek and to let he who is without sin throw the first stone? They might have decided on a less severe sentence.
Would that have satisfied the religious right's call for a legal code based on the Bible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)