Americans have long been in denial that there is a movement in the U.S. that seeks to impose a Christian theocratic government; that there is a movement that is effectively using the tools of constitutional democracy, (also known as elections) to end constitutional democracy as we know it; that this movement is growing in number and power. It can’t happen here, we reassure ourselves. Americans won’t let it happen. But in fact, we are closer now than we have ever been, to “it” happening here.
But I have good news. The darkness of denial, and the business-as-usual view that has enshrouded the entire political spectrum; the darkness of a blind-eye turned towards the looming threat of the end of the American experiment; the darkness, the darkness… is lifting.
The lights are coming on in America.
And one very bright light has just clicked on. An editorial in today’s New York Times suggests that those of us who have been sounding the alarm about this were not alarmist. The danger is real, and the time for action is now. The Times descibes Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s effort to squelch all Democratic ability to block unqualified and/or extreme judicial nominations as part of a theocratic religious war against constitutional democracy. The Times is properly alarmed by Frist’s decision to participate in a national Chrsitian Right teleconference that describes those who oppose some of president George Bush’s judicial nominations as opponents of Christianity.
The Times‘ headline is “Bill Frist’s Religious War.” The temptation might be to call this editorial hyperbole, but it is not. Key strategists of the Christian Right have believed all along that what they were about is “religious war.” To be able to enlist the Senate majority leader (they have already got the House majority leader), a man who also aspires to the presidency, is a major step forward. The Christian Right has framed it’s battles as against the supposed religion of “secular humanism,” but this was always a straw man. It was and is a war of agression being waged by a certain coalition of rightist Christians who hold to overlapping notions of Christian theocracy. They share a common cause in their desire to demolish the wall of separation between church and state, and to be able to utilize taxpayer money and public institutions and infrastructure to build their movement to a position of unassailable and permanent power in the United States.
But there comes a point when it is no longer possible for anyone who is awake, or thinking about waking, to turn away from the simple fact that Christian theocrats are the dominant faction in both houses of Congress. There are many in Congress in both parties that are unable or unwilling to stand up to this. The days of denial are over. It is time for Americans who believe in the survival of constitutional democracy to come to the aid of their country.
It is not my habit to post an article or editorial in its entirety. But I hope the Times will forgive me in this instance.
“Right-wing Christian groups and the Republican politicians they bankroll have done much since the last election to impose their particular religious views on all Americans. But nothing comes close to the shameful declaration of religious war by Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, over the selection of judges for federal courts.”
“Senator Frist is to appear on a telecast sponsored by the Family Research Council, which styles itself a religious organization but is really just another Washington lobbying concern. The message is that the Democrats who oppose a tiny handful of President Bush’s judicial nominations are conducting an assault “against people of faith.” By that, Senator Frist and his allies do not mean people of all faiths, only those of their faith.”
“It is one thing when private groups foment this kind of intolerance. It is another thing entirely when it’s done by the highest-ranking member of the United States Senate, who swore on the Bible to uphold a Constitution that forbids the imposition of religious views on Americans. Unfortunately, Senator Frist and his allies are willing to break down the rules to push through their agenda – in this case, by creating what the senator knows is a false connection between religion and the debate about judges.”
“Senator Frist and his backers want to take away the sole tool Democrats have for resisting the appointment of unqualified judges: the filibuster. This is not about a majority or even a significant number of Bush nominees; it’s about a handful with fringe views or shaky qualifications. But Senator Frist is determined to get judges on the federal bench who are loyal to the Republican fringe and, he hopes, would accept a theocratic test on decisions.”
“Senator Frist has an even bigger game in mind than the current nominees: the next appointments to the Supreme Court, which the Republican conservatives view as their best chance to outlaw abortion and impose their moral code on the country.”
“We fully understand that a powerful branch of the Republican Party believes that the last election was won on “moral values.” Even if that were true, that’s a far cry from voting for one religion to dominate the entire country. President Bush owes it to Americans to stand up and say so.”
[Crossposted from FrederickClarkson.com ]
The Times calls on the president to “stand up and say” that Americans did not vote for one religion to dominate the entire country. (Like thats ever going to happen.)
Its time for the rest of us to stand up, speak up, speak out, and get organized to remove some of these people from congress in the next election.
How do we respond to “Justice Sunday”? And will that be nationwide, as their site claims?
Calling it ‘INjustice Sunday’ is a good way to frame the whole stinking mess. And for anyone who talks about it say that instead of it being about religious choice it’s about a certain group of repugs and their Puritan friends who are anti-Constitution obstructionists.
I’m still trying also to get some sort of short email out to pastordan to follow up on his suggestion.
I like the idea of calling it Injustice Sunday; especially for purposes of letters to the editor.
for those holding counter events, I like the idea of referring to Social Justice Sunday. It says what you are for. Injustice fairly describes what we are against.
is what we should call it. Using INjustice Sunday just makes people think about their frame. Our frame says that we are the truthgivers and calling it Bill Frist’s Sunday Stunt draws attention to the truth. Even those who agree with Frist would have to agree that this is a stunt (an attention getting device). When we call it a stunt, we speak to the swing voter and the undecided more effectively. My 2cents.
Maybe we could just make fun of his hair 🙂
Well, as a bald man, I’m not sure how to take that remark!
yes, it will be nationwide. Given who is in the line-up, it is certain to draw a huge audience.
Well the true believers will probably believe every asinine thing these yahoo’s say but I’m hoping that normal, regular decent religious people get to see them all ranting/raving and frothing at the mouth so that it even gets through to them that these are not ‘christians’ as they know the word to mean.
Maybe Dobson will start ranting about comparing activist judges to the KKK again.
I think the work pastordan is doing is so important. It’s not just a fight of Christian against ‘other’, it is an intra-Christian battle as well.
Back in the 50’s we thought the battle was over…how wrong we were.
Two very important books about this are:
The Rise of Christianity, by Rodney Stark
and my brother’s book.
My US history is very basic, but I thought that it was under Eisenhower that the phrase “One Nation under God” was put into the pledge.
Not sure but think it was 1954.
I remember this qite well, I was in the 3rd or 4th grade when the change was made, and it was so hard for us to remember to put in the UnderGod and it thought it was a little strange. So it must have been about 1952 or 53.
On all of this. Frist and Delay are declaring a religious war, does he agree with this? I know he posts here, but he has a different UID.
I do know that the alignment with the religious extremists is having an effect on some republicans. One coworker is currently on the fence. He wouldn’t give an inch in the lead up to the election, but the Schiavo fiasco has really effected how he looks at the republican leadership.
.
Although he doesn’t post daily at BT.
Another Perspective
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
thats happening for alot of people. I’ve seen polls as high as 82% disapproving of the action of Congress and the president in the Schiavo case.
The Christian Right has succeeded in electing alot of people, but thier theocratic impulse is not as in tune with thier consituents as they seem to think.
Too many regular republicans sought to paper over their differences with the Christian Right. This episode has crystalized the matter for a lot of people.
Anything specific you’d like to ask me, or do you just want a general response?
I know from past posts that you are against the use of using the fillibuster to block judicial nominees. Do you agree with the stragedy being used by Frist, Delay and others to end it?
Does it bother you that republicans have alligned with people like Terry? Here’s a quote from him:
“When I, or people like me, are running the country, you’d better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.”
I realize that activists on our side have made some outrageous comments, but I’ve yet to see any democratic leaders actively associate themselves with people that make comments this outrageous.
Are you okay with this statement from Tom Delay?
Delay :
And finally, what role you think religion should play in politics?
It’s close to 3 am so I probably wont respond until tomorrow and I forgot, thanks for responding to my original post.
and the last shall be first.
In other words, I’m going to answer your last question first. I have no problem with religion in policits—I think it is impossible to isolate the two.
What I mean by that, I think, is best expressed in an article I wrote last fall. You can access it here. If you have any other questions, then please let me know and I’d be happy to answer them. On to the next…
* * * * *
On the filibuster question: I think it’s silly to claim that the Left is trying to prevent Christians, or even devout Christians, or even fundamentalist Christians, from getting on the federal bench. There are plenty of Christians in federal courts.
Likewise, however, I have yet to find anyone who can provide me with any evidence that a single one of these judges who’s been filibustered is, in fact, an “extremist.” I get people who respond with things like “even so and so said it, so it must be true!” quoting some right-winger and claiming that if the righty says this guy’s an extremist, that must really be saying something. Problem is, that could just be a righty who’s got a grudge for some reason and is taking a cheap, but powerful, shot at the judge in question.
I think there are a few of these judges who should not be passed because they’re bad judges—but that’s not reason to filibuster, it’s reason to vote against them when the vote comes. So what is the filibuster?
Many on the left have been quoting polls that say “Americans want us to stand up to the Right, and the filibuster is what we need to do it.” Well, no. That’s not why a filibuster exists. A filibuster exists to make sure your point is heard before debate closes. A filibuster is used to try and persuade people to vote the way you want them to—not to prevent a vote altogether when you’ve lost the debate.
Honestly, I think we need a filibuster, because there are times when leadership will try to rush a vote before the debate gets out of hand, and not everything is said. But I think there should be some sort of limit. At some point, either the issue needs to be tabled, or a vote needs to be called. These judges deserve an up or down vote—just because your side’s going to lose and you don’t like it isn’t a good reason to prevent it. Honestly, and this will sound cruel, when you figure out how to get the American people on your side an start winning some elections, then you’ll be able to start voting some fo these guys down. In the meantime, don’t abuse parliamentary procedure.
But, to answer your question more directly: no, I don’t think the nuclear option is a good thing. Like I said, we need a filibuster. Getting rid of it just because you’re in power is stupid and near-sighted. What happens when the power switches? Then we’re screwed. So I oppose it—but I also don’t necessarily have a better solution.
On to the next…
*
* * *
Terry’s a nutjob, what do you want from me? So’s Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, and all of these guys have run for PRESIDENT from your party. There are lunatics on both sides, and they have the ear of the leadership on both sides.
I dispute, however, that these people are stearing our party. They’re vocal, sure, but they’re not in charge. If they were in charge, there’d be a bill for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and there isn’t. Sure, Bush “supports” it, but has he done anything to push it? No.
You think evangelicals are behind the social security plan? Not in the least. The simple fact is, you get one issue where they’re vocal right now: right-to-life. They make a lot of noise, they make things tough for the government. But did Congress pass a law to reinsert Terri’s feeding tube? How about to ban euthanasia? How about to force a federal court to review the case? NO, NO, NO, and NO. They passed a law that said federal courts could hear the case if they chose to. If evangelicals are running the party, whey is that all that passed?
Furthermore, what Republican leader are you saying has associated himself with Terry?
On to the next…
*
* * *
Tom Delay, eh? Well, when you guys start weeding out the corruption in your own party, I’ll start to listen. The problem on both sides is that people worry about the top dog, and not anybody below him. These alleged abuses of Delay’s began years ago… where were you guys then? You don’t care about it until you can do the maximum damage to the opposition party. That’s fine, but own up to it and be proud. You’re not incensed at his behavior, as many try to claim, you’re thrilled and gleeful at the idea of bringing down the Republican leadership—somewhere deep down in a place you don’t like to talk about when you’re at parties, you know you’d be far more upset if the Republican leadership was entirely above board in the ethics department.
But anyway, on this specific statement, I see one problem: judicial review is essential to a functioning government. Other than that? The separation of Church and State as is stands today does not exist in the constitution. You find it, you tell me where it is, and we’ll talk about it. The first amendment says that Congress will not establish a state religion, and that Congress will not stop a religion from being practised. That’s. It. This other stuff about individuals who hold public office not being able to express their faith in their work, not being able to decorate their office however they like (when a statute says they may decorate it however they like) because however they like includes a statue of the ten commandments is not in that document. You can read it in, sure, but it’s not there.
Right to privacy? Same deal. Now, I think we should have a right to privacy—but if we want it, we need to pass a constitutional amendment because as it stands we do not have one.
I don’t like that courts get to make up whatever they want, and bring international opinion to bear on their decisions. I think judgments should be renderred based on the facts, and the text in front of the presiding judge.
So I think Delay’s statement as you quoted it has some merit, would be the short answer.
OK. Now that I’ve written a book, if you have any more questions, please feel free to ask, and I’ll do my best to respond.
Hmmm… don’t know why that middle section got all bold.
sorry about that.
I’ll start off with the filibuster issue. I wanted to know if you agree with the tactics the republicans are using to gain support for going ‘nuclear’. They don’t argue ending the filibuster for reasons like those that you site, they do it by riling up the religious right. As for the ending the filibuster, both sides have used it to block up and down votes for ambassadorial, judicial and Justice Department appointments – it’s nothing new. You believe that the filibuster is needed but your okay with removing it because the democrats are, as you state, abusing the filibuster this time? It seems odd to call ending the filibuster short sided and then support ending it.
Personally, I believe this has less to do with judicial nominees and more to do with an over all goal of absolute power, as expressed in this diary. I might believe otherwise if I had seen any signs of cooperation or compromise from republicans on most issues, but I haven’t.
On the constitutional amendment, 45 republican senators voted for that amendment. How can you site that amendment not passing as evidence that the religious right isn’t steering your party when bush supported it and a majority of your party voted for it? Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson may have ran for president but they never came close to winning the nomination. While I strongly disagree with some of their positions on issues, I wouldn’t call them all lunatics. Now the members of E.L.F., they are lunatics.
On Tom Delay, He is a leader of your party. So if he is guilty of ethical and possibly criminal violations, of course that makes him a bigger target. I seem to recall republicans spending millions of tax payer dollars and 8 years trying to take down a leader of the Democratic Party. To hear a republican complain about democrats focusing on Delay is insane after all the crap we went thru during the 90’s. Claiming that corruption is okay if both sides do it is a weak argument to me. Especially after the republicans painted them selves as the party of ethics and morals
Delay:
I am especially pleased to support this comprehensive overhaul of House ethics rules and conflict of interest laws because it is an important first step in enhancing the ethical standards throughout Government and adjusting compensation for individuals whose skills are essential to the quality of service Government provides to the American people. It is my hope that honor will be restored to elected offices so that we can continue to work for the values that we have fought for in the past with quality representation in the future.
So what changed between that statement and now?
I was referring to Santorum when talking about Terry. I’ll admit that just talking with him doesn’t necessarily associate them, but it does give that impression.
On the filibuster you’ll notice that I advocatd its use to extend debate, not to prevent the vote on a specific candidate, no matter what, and at all costs. Even if there are legitimate reasons to do that for some candidates, or some pieces of legislation, it’s too easy for it to be abused. I support it for expressing your reasons to oppose a vote, a candidate, a piece of legislation, and if you don’t convince anybody after a while, then shut the hell up and let the vote progress.
As far as “it’s long been used to block” yada yada yada, I don’t care. People have long killed each other in cold blood—does that make it ok? No, of course not. I don’t think that’s how a filibuster should be used, pure and simple.
As far as the 45 senators voting for the amendment–the leadership knew who’d vote for it and who’d vote against it, and they didn’t push it. There wasn’t a big public to-do to force people into supporting it, to exert any kind of public pressure. In short, they didn’t put in the effort that they would have for a failing piece of legislation that they really cared about—like they did for, say, social security.
If the christian right really controlled the party, you would have seen that. They got just enough votes so the christian right couldn’t revolt, but didnt’ quite give them what they want. Good way to keep a constituency on the leash, eh? It’s basically what the Dems have been doing for minorities for decades.
I didn’t say that Delay’s status makes him a bigger target, I said it’s the only reason he is a target. This stuff was going on long before he took leadership status, and the question stands: why weren’t the Dems screaming about it then?
When did Delay make that statement, and can you give me a source on it? I’d like to research it a bit before I respond, but I’ll agree that it’s pretty damning.
Santorum, I believe, is a member of the Christian Right. I think it’s fair to say that they’re associated. I also think that Terry, while coming across as a nutjob to you, makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. My point in citing Jackson, Sharpton, etc. is that they seem just as far off the reservation to someone like me as Terry does to you.
Because a lot of Santorum’s constituents listen to men like Terry, it makes sense for him to give a listen, too.
I have a sneaking suspicion that he does it to what you guys flame out about it to… hehehe.
They are quotes from Congressional Record, I found the quote here. They don’t provide any other links and I wasn’t able find it. There are also a couple other quotes that you can read if you want.
On the filibuster, I see it as an important tool that shouldn’t be removed just because one side or the other misuses it. I don’t want to scrap police enforcement because some of them are corrupt. No matter what anyone on either side says – there is no such thing as absolute truth.
I watched FDR: A Presidency Revealed last night and learned more about his attempts to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices. The language he used, compared to the language the republicans use now is eerily similar. The republicans successfully used the filibuster as a tool to help stop it from passing. An upside for democrats, republicans regained the house after he tried this. Here’s hoping the republican attacks on the judicial branch blows up in their face as well:)
Since the republicans knew the amendment wouldn’t pass then I can only assume it was pandering to the religious right. If pandering is best the explanation for voting for an amendment, something is seriously wrong with that vote. Also, why did bush change his position on the constitutional amendment? Surely 9/11 cannot be the reason, as it was for his views on nation building.
I can only speak for my self as an ordinary citizen, but Delay would have received little or no national coverage before he became the house leader. On the flip side, any criticism leveled against him would also gain little to no attention from the national MSM. It’s pretty difficult to go after someone if you don’t know about it. Before the net, access to this information would be very difficult to find outside his home state. Online sites do bring attention to actions of others, just not to the degree that is spent on leaders.
It pisses me off that Bush’s thugs have stolen the word “Christian” as theirs. Why in the hell haven’t the real Christians taken umbrage at this and spoken out? Bush’s base has been convinced that being Christian is to follow his insane anti-Christian lead.
Maybe the solution would be for the real Christian churches to point out the difference between Christ and Bush in their sermons. Or maybe it would be a good idea to tell the ministers about it. When will the truth be realized?
as they are. What is a “real Christian” in your opinion? You’ve got it all figured out, I assume? Lots of conversations with the Big Man Upstairs?
Their version doesn’t fit in with yours—that’s fine. But don’t pretend that you know it’s any less valid than your own.
Furthermore, churches cannot preach about Bush, or they lose their tax-exempt status. Churches cannot endorse or oppose specific poliicians.
A real Christian follows the teachings of Christ. And I’m not as bad as those who claim to be a Christian and ignore His words.
Comment originally posted at Kos.
Here in the small town Midwest it’s still dark. Dubya carried my county in a landslide and those supporters here still think he speaks directly to God. The economy is moribund, many don’t have access to health care, the public schools are about to take a financial hit, university tuition is going way up (this is a college town), and the price of gas is up – but hey, dubya’s helping keep their marriages safe from gays, their guns safe from lefty pacifists, and the ten commandments safe from those Communists at the ACLU – not to mention the added benefit of killing all those heathens in Iraq.
If I see one more of those superficial expressions on a ribbon magnet I’m going to puke.