Jeff has an interesting piece up on what conservatives really wanted with the SCOTUS pick:
First, the base is not necessarily asking for a “social conservative,” I don’t think (after all, James Dobson is behind Miers, and yet an array of staunch conservatives are still quite unhappy) so much as it is demanding a legal conservative with a track record of intellectually supporting conservativism by showing a fealty to the text of the Constitution. And so while yes, nominating a strong conservative could indeed exacerbate party divisions insofar as such a nomination will expose Senate Republican “moderates” for the unprincipled political fencesitters that they are, no, I don’t think it will hurt the Party so much as it will party members who cede control of the process to the managed and manipulated outrage of Senate Democrats and a not entirely disinterested media.
Jeff appears to believe (and if I am wrong, I am sure he will correct me), as do many others (see the folks at Red State), that one of the reasons we got stuck with Miers is because of the foolish misdeeds of the ‘Gang of 14.’ I disagree.
All the Gang of 14 did is, in my estimation, bring people back from the edge of the precipice when it was unnecessary to, if you will, ‘go nuclear.’
Believe me- if Democrats were filibustering an extraordinary number of candidates, and had no deal been made (which is what the Senate and Senators do- make deals- see “Gang of 14”), I would have had no problem with the Senate going ‘nuclear’ (or if you are a real party hack- ‘exercising the constitutional option’).
But as it was, I was watching a large group composed of the more belligerent members of the Republican caucus, fresh on the heels of berating the judiciary up one newspaper and down another for judicial activism for failing to be the right kind of judicial activists in the Schiavo affair. I was watching Bill Frist and others in the same caucus paint anyone who failed to agree with their judicial philosophy, or, more accurately, their brand of judicial activism, be tarred as someone who was ‘anti-religion’ or not a ‘person of faith.’ I doubt you need a refresher course on the ad hominems leveled at the unfortunate Judge Greer.
In short, I saw what looked to be a calculated fight to intentionally exercise the nuclear option, or, to put it in more honest terms, to simply change the rules of the Senate that had been agreed upon simply because things weren’t working out the way they wanted it to- so it was time to blow it up. It was an attempt at governance through brute strength, rather than deliberation. And that to me was not a good thing, not a precedent I wanted established, and not an outcome that would be good for any of us.
The Gang of 14 simply allowed for conditions where several judges who would not have been confirmed got confirmed, and it was a gentleman’s agreement to play nice in the future after several years of escalating tension. In the end, it was a good thing.
And it has PRECISELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY CONSERVATIVES EVERY WHERE ARE PISSED AT THE MIERS nomination. As we saw with Chief Justice Roberts, a well qualified strong conservative can be confirmed with an large majority of the vote. That the Gang of 14 seems to have given their tacit approval not to filibuster Miers is not an admission of her qualifications- it is that the agreement made to avoid the unneccessary implosion of Senate rules still stands, and the confirmation process will work as it is intended.
The blame for this nomination, quite simply, starts and stops with the White House. It is not, as Jeff points out, because conservatives are ‘sexist’ or ‘elitist,’ charges that infuriate me to no end. It is not because a bunch of weak-kneed moderates would vote down a conservative judge. It is not because the vetting process showed that there were skeletons in the closet of great minds like Luttig, McConnell, etc. It is not because, pace Dobson/Rove, conservative legal scholars everywhere were cowed into submission and terrified of a vicious confirmation process.
It is because this White House dropped the ball, and continues to offend and bungle at every opportunity. It is because, rather than fulfill their promise and appoint a qualified conservative with impeccable credentials and a solid judicial philosophy, they reached yet again into the inner circle to find someone Bush felt ‘confortable’ with and someone they thought would be confirmed without incident.
In short, it was an act of monumental cowardice, and the finger-pointing and smears, rather than help the cause of Harriet Miers and the White House, serve as a giant blinking neon sign pointing to the incompetence of the current White House and their reliance on short-term political calculations rather than exhibiting a quality most conservatives admire.
Principle.
Mr Furious
Tremendous post, John. Nothing to add. Great job.
SomeCallMeTim
the incompetence of the current White House and their reliance on short-term political calculations rather than exhibiting a quality most conservatives admire.
Principle.
Bush nominates Miers, and conservatives suddenly start recalling prior disagreements with the Administration. Yet the Administration’s faults were legion and apparent well before the ’04 election, and still these people gave full-throated support to the Administration and its election efforts. So, tell me again, how does the description above differentiate between the Administration and its suppporters?
John Cole
Don’t conflate your legitmate policy disagreements with incompetence.
SeesThroughIt
The thing is, that’s what a lot of wingers still want–and that’s why they’re pissed at the Miers nomination. They wanted Bush to nominate the wingnuttiest judge he could find, force a filibuster (claiming, of course, that filibustering a wingnutty judge is “uncalled for” and “obstructionist” and all this other bullshit), and blow up the Senate. This is their ideal course. Sad, isn’t it?
Tangentially, I find it amusing that these same people call the 14 who saved the filibuster “unprincipled,” completely overlooking how the 14 acted entire upon principle–a better principle than the ‘nutters have, at that.
Geek, Esq.
Pass the popcorn.
Btw, Bush apparently believes that religious tests are AOK for SCOTUS nominees.
I am suspicious about this conservative love affair with originalism and textualism. A couple of points:
1. Where in the constitution does it say that future interpretation should be done using originalist and textualist theory?
2. Why do conservatives support originalism and textualism? Because originalism and textualism produce the kinds of results they like. Duh.
Kimmitt
That’s really not fair — the Administration’s incompetence in Iraq was absolutely visible to anyone who cared to examine it, as was the Administration’s war on science (and the culture of corruption).
I really don’t buy the “principled conservative” bit; I think that if Meiers were more clearly a movement hack rather than a Bush hack, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I can’t help but to hold the opinion that the emotion conservatives feel is absolutely real, but it’s the emotion of a man who suddenly finds his post-menopausal wife unattractive and seeks new companionship; it’s real, but there are ugly reasons for it.
srv
That would be John’s ‘principled’ ‘conservatives’.
DougJ
You know what’s sad to about the whole Gang of 14 thing? That everyone seems to view it as an anamoly. Once a upon a time, people believed that democracy was about compromise. That the most extreme disputes between two clashing arguments could be settled through the work of a few in the middle who were willing to make a deal. Now people see that as a “betrayal”. That speaks volumes about how low our democracy has sunk.
Geek, Esq.
Uh, I agree with DougJ.
:shocked:
Defense Guy
It doesn’t. For that you need to go back to the author(s) and what was said on the subject of the future interpretations.
Geek, Esq.
But, that’s a cardinal sin according to textualists.
Defense Guy
How do you come to that conclusion?
Geek, Esq.
Textualists stricly disavow consulting things like legislative history and other extraneous sources of information.
It’s paradoxical to argue that non-textual sources indicate mandate that textualism be applied.
TallDave
My main problem with Miers is that she’s not Eugene Volokh.
What will it take to get a libertarian nominee? President Giuliani?
Geek, Esq.
Strike that “indicate.”
Defense Guy
Geek
Then you are talking about narcissistic textualists, ones who cannot comprehend that their reading of the words may be different than the intent of the author(s). When we have the author(s) on record saying, ‘hey look to the original intent when deciding future changes/interpretations’, than only ego or ideology can explain such pig-headedness.
jg
Separation of church and state was mentioned in a letter one of the founding fathers wrote and its dismissed completely by stricy constitutionists.
Kimmitt
A time machine, which takes you back to 1928.
TallDave
The first Amendment says “Congress shall make no law.” That has been interpreted via “separation of church and state” to mean “Your local gov’t shall have no baby Jesus in a public square at Christmas.”
jg
Te local gov’t putting a Baby Jesus in a public square is an explicit endorsemnet of Christianity. If I wasn’t a Christian I might have a problem with that. The gov’t shouldn’t be doing things that APPEARS to take a side on religious issues. The gov’t, as an institution, should be completely neutral. No religious displays somehow has been interpreted by persectued Christians (persecuted in their minds only) to mean no Christian displays. All religions are being ignored, not just Christianity, there’s no bias.
Joe
Totally agree with this post. A judicial activist has come to mean that the court didn’t rule the way I wanted. If the SC is packed justices that Dobson aprroves of, the Dems will be using the same term to discribe rulings.
I am ready for a divided government again. This seems to leave the opinions of the far left and far right out of the picture.
TallDave
jg,
It’s not a law, and it’s not passed by Congress.
And it’s not an “endorsement,” it’s free people freely celebrating their religion. If a community of Muslims wants a Ramadan tent or a Jewish community wants a giant menorah, they should be allowed to erect them. If you don’t like it, vote against it. If you lose the vote, welcome to democracy, where you don’t always get what you want.
The gov’t shouldn’t be doing things that APPEARS to take a side on religious issues.
See, now we’re back to the real problem: treating perception as reality. What next? Laws against violent movies where actors “appear” to be committing murder?
tzs
Well, consider what legal analysis got erected on the lines out of the Gospel:”I have two swords.” “Put them up, one is enough.”
Which was expanded by medieval jurists into a huge plethora of arguments on how much political and legal power the Church should have vis-a-vis the secular authorities (and vice-versa, too, of course.)
After that, the link listed above “Congress shall make no law….” to banning plastic Jesuses in mangers in public squares is, um, trivial by comparison.
And in the best traditions of our Western legal development.
Shygetz
A nuclear holocaust and a return to the barter system based on a bottle-cap currency.
DougJ
The same people who “appear” to be applying a religious litmus test for nominees are probably in favor of such laws.
Krista
jg – unfortunately, a lot of these people seem to think that secularism is a new and dangerous form of religion, and that it is being promoted above all else. And then there are those who argue that the US was founded on Christianity, and should remain that way. (Of course, they completely ignore the fact that slavery was another illustrious founding tradition…) Besides…it’s not like the government is shutting down churches and telling people that they can’t be Christians anymore, so I don’t know why everybody has their panties in a twist about public institutions trying to remain faith-neutral.
Geek, Esq.
When it comes to SCOTUS justices, they’re all narcissists. Scalia especially.
The whole debate about textualism tends to obscure a basic fact: even the most die-hard liberal law professors teach their students that the text of the law is of primary importance–if the text will not bear the meaning of what someone proposes, then it cannot be said to mean that.
The problem with using extraneous sources to determine intent is that a plenary body frequently doesn’t have a single intent–any bill passed by Congress has at least 218 people voting for it, for example. In the case of the constitution, the document was filled with compromises.
I would argue that the text and the structure of the constitution argue against textualism and originalism. Why? Because the document is so damn short and lacks specifics. When a legislative or plenary body leaves a document without such specific guidance, it essentially punts any and all unresolved issues to the courts.
Which is one reason why originalism and textualism face so many challenges. What do they say when the framers or legislators intentionally avoided addressing a specific issue in order to ensure passage?
tzs
(In addition, I wish our legal students had solid backings in understanding Roman law and how it got interpreted into European law before they were exposed to the supposed ‘schools of interpretation” about the Constitution. A good background in understanding Natural Law and Aquinas’s political theories wouldn’t be bad, either.
Are the Strict Constitutionalists trying to interpret the US as a Civil Law country? Because otherwise, this makes no sense. )
TallDave
The problem is, the gov’t IS taking sides. They’re denying free people the right to freely exercise their religion.
I think when you take people’s rights away, you need a better reason then “well somebody might be offended.” You know who would really be offended by this crap? The Founding Fathers.
Veeshir
Ummm, how do you get this:
Te local gov’t putting a Baby Jesus in a public square is an explicit endorsemnet of Christianity.(two or three sics in there)
From this
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?
Local gov’t…Congress
endorsement…establishment
That’s like having the rule, “no chocolate chip ice cream after supper” and saying, “don’t buy any chocolate chip ice cream as you can’t have it”.
If you don’t want a manger on city property, propose a law and get it passed. That’s how it’s supposed to work. You’re not supposed to use the judiciary to approve policy decisions through fiat.
Here’s some help on what the originators of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote and ratified it.
TallDave
it’s not like the government is shutting down churches and telling people that they can’t be Christians anymore
Sure, you can be a Christian. Just not on public property.
Shygetz
So, by your logic, it’s ok to violate the freedom of speech so long as it’s done by Executive Order. Please, that was not the original intent, and it is not the intent we want to live by now. If people of the community want to celebrate their religion, they can use private property to do so. The public property must respect the views of the entire law-abiding populance that they represent; as such, if there is even one person that demands that the local government not endorse a religion by promoting it on public property, they are within their rights. Why is it such a big deal for people that they have to leave their nativity scene on their churches or front lawns, anyway?
TallDave
Shygetz,
Executive orders are orders for the federal gov’t to do something. They’re not laws.
Defense Guy
Geek
I would take issue with the idea that the document lacks specifics. The idea that the governments powers are limited and enumerated is born out by the fact that it lays out what they are. Modern government has merely been very good at folding current needs into old rules (ie Medical Marijuana being the purvue of the feds under the commerce clause).
I would grant more to the idea of the difficulty of finding the intent from a group rather than an individual, but since we were left the written arguments at the time of it’s crafting and the caution to use them when addressing the document, I would say it’s a dodge to not at least attempt to do what was asked.
TallDave
The public property must respect the views of the entire law-abiding populance
That’s exactly my point, they’re not respecting the rights of the law-abiding populace to practice and celebrate their religion.
as such, if there is even one person that demands that the local government not endorse a religion by promoting it on public property, they are within their rights.
That’s just asinine. What about the rights of everyone else?
Shygetz
I call shenanigans! The fact that the government cannot publically display things endorsing one religion over another has NOTHING to do with not being able to be a believer on public property. You know it, all of the people who put that argument forth know it, and it is just a dishonest attempt to play the martyr. Given that, in America, you have to be some flavor of Christian (or Jewish in a few cases) to have any realistic shot at holding a national office, I think that it is the atheists that have most cause to complain.
And Veeshir–read the 14th Amendment. It says that the states cannot abridge the rights held in the Constitution, including those in the 1st amendment. And you should be thankful it does.
Hippie Doug J
What will it take to get a libertarian nominee?
When conservatives starting voting Libertarian and not Republican.
Geek, Esq.
To play textualist, the natural response is “If that’s what they wanted, why didn’t they put it in the constitution?”
Shygetz
TallDave–Ahh, but the Constitution says (as you pointed out) “Congress shall pass no law…” Says nothing about Executive Orders, does it? Or, if you like the example better, what if the local government passed a law saying no one can profess to be a Libertarian, or any other countless violations of free speech. That’s ok by you, right?
So which right is that? They are free to say what they want. They are free to put up religious displays on their private property. They have all of the freedoms guaranteed to them. They want the government to promote their religion. They do not have that right.
ppGaz
Originalism and textualism are faux concepts, from the get-go. Anything said or written 250 years ago must pass a test of anachronism. If textualism is the rule, then the right to zygote life does not exist in constitutional government, since all recognition of existence in the document is applied at birth.
“Textualism” is a dishonest manipulation, and it really means “interpetation of the text as I want it interpreted.”
It means exactly that, and nothing else, ever. All claims to the contrary are nothing more than the Big Social Conservative Lie factory at work … it comes from the same well that produces the “America was founded as a Christian nation” bullshit.
Fuck the people who say those things, and let’s stop treating these slogans as anything other than what they are: Slogans. Right there with “intelligent design.” Bunk.
TallDave
endorsing one religion over another
Yeah, every town I know celebrates Christmas with big signs saying “CHRISTIANITY ROCKS!! ALL OTHER RELIGIONS SUCK!!” Celebration of one’s religion is not endorsing it over others.
not being able to be a believer on public property.
Can’t voluntarily say a prayer in a public school either.
So we can believe, as long as we keep quiet, stay on private property, and don’t tell anyone. I wonder how you would feel if that standard were applied to homosexuality or feminism?
RSA
Mahablog has some nice ruminations on the limitations of originalism. Among the issues raised were Congress’s power. . .
“To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;” Apparently during the 1800s there was some discussion of whether printed currency was constitutional.
“To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;” Hmm. I’ve worked on much longer-term government contracts myself.
Congress was tasked with raising and maintaining armies and navies; I wonder how the Air Force was justified? Proper foresight concerning aviation may have been somewhat lacking among those Enlightenment Liberals. . .
TallDave
Shygetz,
Executive orders apply to gov’t employees. They’re orders.
So which right is that? They have all of the freedoms guaranteed to them. They want the government to promote their religion.
They’re not asking for the gov’t to fund missionaries to convert the infidel, or explain why Christianity is better than other religions. They want to practice their religion, not promote it. Denying them that right violates the First Amendment.
srv
It’s funny, all these people who believe their religious freedom is defined just by what they can do on public property. I submit that a faith and religion can’t be very faithful if it requires guvmnt sanction.
Yep. Except that it means majority rules, and if the majority wants to explicitly support a religion then the minority is screwed. Which is why all those appeals of [insert any cause here] happened. It is sad, a majority really wants gov’t to sanctify their religious beliefs over the rights of the minority, and ‘activist’ judges had to step up for what legislatures would never do.
That said, for those who haven’t read all of the Federalist Papers, consider it your public duty.
KC
Excellent post, John.
Lines
Shorter Veeshir and TallDave:
“Help! Help! I’m being repressed! Look there, didn’t you see me being repressed?”
Give me a break you Jesus freaks. When tax payer money is paying for the maintenance and construction of public property, no one has a right to put their explicit version of any religion on that property. Christians, because they have the bully pulpit right now, are screaming the loudest about this. You want to celebrate your religion? Put it in your store front, put it in your front yard, put it on top of your private building. There are plenty of places where religion is in your face, why does it need to be in places where public money is used to finance the property?
Your whiney persecution complex is why you are upset. Get over it, you arn’t going to win this one and it only makes you look like babies when you continue to blubber and cry.
ppGaz
US Constitution, Article 6.
Bernard Yomtov
Stop spreading lies. Of course you can say a prayer in public school.
ppGaz
Exactly right. But what the PseudoChristians want is to be able to get everyone else to stop and listen to their frigging prayer. They want the teacher to lead the prayer or suggest the prayer. They want the religious artifacts chiseled into the school and courthouse buildings at taxpayer expense. They want to pretend that not being allowed to use government resources to advance their crap is somehow limiting their “practice” of religion. In fact, what they want is to “practice” on you, and make you pay for it.
Lines
By the way, John:
Good post! Disagreeing with the RedState and Goldie in the same post? I hope you have bodyguards, they play rough.
Orogeny
Why is it that a certain breed of christian seems to feel that they aren’t able to freely practice their religion unless they can enlist the government to help force others to participate in their rituals?
Ya’ll can practice your religion in any way you want, just don’t ask me to pay for it. You can put a creche in the front yard of every christian’s house on the block, I don’t care. You can post the ten commandments on the wall in every room of every private structure that will allow you to do so. Just don’t expect me to go along with your enlisting the government to use my tax money to promote your religion.
Defense Guy
I see arguments against tax payer supported religous symbols (ie Nativity), but then what about use of public land for display when the display is privately funded?
Where do we draw the line? Isn’t it better to leave it to the community in question to decide for itself?
Tim F
Name a religion in which the only place that you can practice is on public property.
Defense Guy
Communism.
Orogeny
Who decides which religions get to use the public land? Does the community decide which religions are “acceptable”? Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster get the recognition He deserves?
Tim F
A useful precedent would be the controversy in which the Smithsonian reversed a decision to screen a privately-funded film endorsing creationism. People understood that the Smithsonian appeared to endorse the film even though it did not pay for it.
Tim F
Sounds like you have a mission, Defense Guy. Get out there and petition for the Communists’ right to practice their religion.
Veeshir
Umm Lines? I don’t believe in a god.
Just because I don’t doesn’t mean that nobody else can. It’s called freedom baby and it’s very cool.
If you don’t like to see a manger, don’t look at it.
Once again, how is displaying a manger on city property the same as Congress establishing a state religion? Especially since both Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists like the nativity scene but not each other.
Also, it seems to only be the Christian religions (plural) that get this treatment.
Defense Guy
Da, but first all lands need be held by glorious people movement.
Lines
Wow, now thats some specialty kind of repression. I get tired of seeing Buddist statuary in the front lobby of the courthouse and pentagrams on the front doors of the public library.
Give me a break. You whine because you are the super majority in the US and you CAN whine. Try whining about your inability to put up your Christian Symbols in the Iranian Public Buildings sometime.
Andrew J. Lazarus
And I’m the first to point out Harry Reid’s excellent Brer Rabbit imitation here. The Democrats have scarcely been heard from on the Miers nomination. And, truth be told, they have little reason to vote ‘No’ (Abstain would be a good trick!) because who knows what sort of creature Bush would give us on a second go.
Lines
How about if the Shrubinator had appointed a Muslim? Harriet Muhamdah? She could trade in her black robes for her black burkha!
And we could have Bush on record saying: “People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Muhamdah. They want to know Harriet Muhamdah’s background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. Part of Harriet Muhamdah’s life is her religion….”
So if the Shrub said he’s appointing a Muslim because of her religion, you’d also be ok with that?
SeesThroughIt
This is exactly why American politics today completely and thoroughly suck. We’ve got single-party rule, which never works regardless of the party, and we’ve got an ennobled bunch of nutters thinking they run America. They think the only way to govern is by sledgehammer and that opposition is akin to treason. If we get rid of them–or relegate them to the fringes where they belong–we’ll be able to start cleaning up the mess this country is in.
Oh well.
tzs
Yeah, and what about us pagans, baby?! If you don’t provide full approval and gov’t funding for me to slaughter a white horse on a shield in the public square you’re discriminating against me! DISCRIMINATION!
(Kudos to those who pick up the Lysisitrata reference.)
Hey, how about bringing back some of those old-time South American religions, y’know, like some of the stuff the Incas did? That would be, erm, cool.
Veeshir
Lines, my point was that it’s only the Christian symbols who get the boot from public property. I cited two specific instances with two different religions with their symbols or teachings done on city or state property. I could have mentioned the brou-ha-ha over California removing a cross from their flag but leaving in the American Indian religious symbol. Or what’s going on in San Diego over a cross in Mt. Soledad War Memorial.
Since you bring up Buddhism, find me a link where a church or the ACLU or somebody like that sued to keep Buddhist images off of city property on First Amendment grounds. I’ve seen plenty where Christians sued to get their symbols next to other religion’s symbols, I even linked to one of them. I wouldn’t disbelieve that it’s happened, but I’ve never heard of it.
Lines said
Give me a break. You whine because you are the super majority in the US and you CAN whine.
You really should re-read my comment. You know, where I said I don’t believe in a god. They’re not my symbols, I’m merely observing what’s happening to other people.
jg
I went to public school and there was plenty of praying. Usually around finals week.
Kimmitt
Man, those Intervarsity Christian Fellowship kids must be doing something completely different from what I thought they were doing.
Defense Guy
This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it appears that they were going to show it, and then must have backed out due to public pressure, which would indicate that before the pressure they did not see a problem with it. Maybe it wasn’t how it went down, as I don’t have the details, I’m guessing. Second, and more concerning is the idea that a museum would balk at showing something lest it be seen as endorsing it. A museum, especially this one should not have to worry about that kind of narrow-minded thinking. They can accurately show images of slavery in the American History wing and no one can accuse them of endorsing it. Showing a movie on creationism falls into the same category.
Lines
And what I’m saying is that there are no other religious symbols to be removed. Christians are the only ones having their symbols removed from the public square because they overwhelmingly the ones with them there. Sure there is the remote case of the “indian religious symbol” which probably is more of a heritage symbol than a religious one.
If you think private institutions may put up public displays of religion on government property, then I suggest you go have a chat with the wonderful Reverend Phelps and get his take on it. You know, placing a monument that says God wanted Matthew Shepard to be drug to death behind a pickup truck for his abominable practice of homosexuality.
And then I’ll put up a FSM monument to pirates, where pirates are anal raping sailors right next to it.
jg
Shouldn’t but since people will then start to say that event he Smithsonian believes in Creationism I think it was the right move. Its not what you believe its what other people think you believe that gets used in campaign slogans. No chance the right wing media machine would let them say they were doing it just for a ‘client’.
Mike
This is a Christian nation – founded on Christian principles. There is no official Christian religion in the U.S. and you are free to worship any. The founding fathers never imagined that there would be anything other than Christianity so I have no problem with religious items on public property. It is what our Christian founding fathers would have wanted. It doesn’t matter which branch of Christianity you practise. That is the wonderful part about living in this country. The others need to learn to live within the ways our country was founded and leave others to practice and preach word of the Lord. If they do not like it there are other countries where there beleifs are the norm.
Lines
Mike, I’m sorry, but you can’t Dougj Dougj. Good try though.
Steve S
Explain to me again why a manger has to be placed on city property, and not private property, or property belonging to a church?
Perhaps some people feel religion is just meaningless drivel, nothing more than the moral sentiments of a society. I do not. I believe religion holds real purpose and value, and as such should not be spat upon by connecting it with the sectarian government.
Steve S
No. Our founding fathers were a combination of christians, deists and other faiths or no faiths.
What they understood was that the intermeshing of religion and government as had occured in Europe just prior to the founding of this great nation of ours had corrupted religion, as well as prevented the free practice of faith. They set out to change that dynamic, by building a seperation between the sectarian purposes of governmental society, and the private religious purposes of the individual.
I ask again, why do you want to spit upon religion by intermeshing it so?
ppGaz
No. The “community” does not make constitutional decisions on its own. Having the local government decide to put a cross on the courthouse is not a “community” decision. It’s a “government” decision, and that’s where the problem comes in. Publicly paid for buildings are not “community” issues, they are government issues.
ppGaz
Worthwhile point. Religion is protected from government, as much as the other way round. Religion in general does not benefit from government sponsorship, because then it falls victim to the same venalities and corruptions that plague government.
RSA
Um, not quite. It’s closer to showing a Holocaust revision movie in the History wing. Now, if the museum were to show creationist movies in the Religion and Mythology wing, I’d be good with that.
Elinor Dickey
I think that’s a fair comparison about slavery and creationism. Presenting a theory is not the same thing as endorsing it, just as depicting slavery is not the same thing as endorsing it. I think the more people are exposed to different theories — intelligent design, creation science, or evolutionary science — the better informed they are the better able they are to decide which theory they believe.
Elinor Dickey
Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say that others should leave if they are not Christians. That seems like a little extreme to me. But I think that those of faiths other than Christianity should try to understand that Christianity is the accepted norm in this country. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to practice their own faiths, but it is important they don’t stop Christians from practicing either.
jg
It corrupted gov’t too. Which to me is much worse. I can ignore the church and still live day to day. Its tought to ignore the gov’t.
I get chills whenever someone puts creationsim and ID alongside evolution in a sentence. Unless the sentence is saying that they shouldn’t all be studied in the same classroom. I learned creationism in sunday school, ‘God built this place, this is how he did it, now trouble yourself no more with this topic’. Id is based on the premise that if you sound like you knwo what you’re talking about, use tough to say terms like ‘irreducible complexity’, then you can sell snake oil to conmen.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Elinor, does the Institute for Historical Review get equal time for its “proof” that the Holocaust of the Jews never occurred? You know, so the 9th grade World History class can make up its own mind.
John S.
Gotta’ love that.
ppGaz
That’s right. And the earth is 6000 years old.
Krista
Have you ever thought that perhaps it’s because it’s only the Christians who keep insisting on placing their symbols on public property in the first place? Nobody is telling Christians that they can’t practice their religion, or put up nativity scenes, or what have you. But I can see why some people would have an issue with their tax dollars being used to promote and celebrate a belief system that is not their own. Why is there this shrill insistence on behalf of Christians to be in everybody’s faces so much?
Tim F
That is not an accurate comparison. If the Smithsonian hosted a pro-slavery trade show (pamphlets, collar demonstrations, lectures on whipping technique) you would probably have qualms.
Tim F
If you want to go there, remember that this is the government that sells creationist literature in Grand Canyon gift shops. They pull whatever they can get away with, until they get caught. Then they act all embarrassed and pretend like that’s the only thing they’ve done that week.
Kimmitt
This has to be some kind of a joke.
Krista
I figure if someone’s belief system brings them happiness, that’s fine. Stick a nativity scene in your yard year-round. Dress up like the Blessed Virgin. Go to church, or temple, or whatever, every single day, if that’s what floats your boat. Heck, there’s a guy up the road from me who has a 10-foot tall Star of David attached to his satellite dish. Whatever. I don’t care.
But do not cry “poor, pitiful, persecuted me” when other people don’t want their tax dollars to go towards a celebration of your belief system.
Elinor Dickey
What about all that NEA money that goes towards art that promotes an anti-religion, secular humanist belief system?
Tim F
You cannot label everything that is not explicitly religious as ‘secular humanist’ and call that a belief system. It is as dishonest as claiming that science is a faith like Christianity and should be taught on an equal footing.
ppGaz
You are right, Tim F, of course. But it’s worth mentioning that the NEA is a bad idea. I’d shut it down in a heartbeat. The government has no place trying to be in the art business. Or the public broadcasting business, for that matter. These things should be handled through the private sector.
Kimmitt
I guess. I grew up watching Sesame Street. At some point, the common good kicks in, especially for things as ridiculously inexpensive as the NEA and public broadcasting.
Still, I’ll trade PBS and the NEA for an end to whiny fundies complaining that the gov’mint isn’t giving them enough money/indoctrinating other people’s kids/criminalizing sex any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
Elinor Dickey
Wouldn’t you call a “Piss Christ” secular humanist? How about a picture of the Mother Theresa made out of cow dung?
Patterico
John Cole:
All the White House’s fault, huh?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Would Bush have gone with an non-optimal pick like Miers if he had no worries about a filibuster? With his popularity ratings this low.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I don’t know, and I don’t think you do either. We’re just guessing.
Tractarian
Shorter Patterico:
It’s not Bush’s fault his popularity ratings are so low!
Krista
I think that analogy would only work if ALL art was anti-religion. Which it’s not. Some art is very religious, some art is very anti-religious, and some art is completely faith-neutral. If the NEA was only providing funding to anti-religious art, then your point would have a lot more merit.
Tim F
The NEA gives out more than two grants in a decade. If you want me to find two objectionable articles written by a given right-wing rag or two embarrassing things said by any given rightwing pundit in the past decade, and use those to support an argument that they shouldn’t exist, just say the word.
Elinor Dickey
There is lots of wonderful religious art, too, but somehow the NEA never gets around to funding it. The NYT and the New Yorker never write about it. Just like intelligent design is automatically not science to the left, because it begins with the assumption that there is a Supreme Being, art with a religious bent is not art. And you say people of faith aren’t marginalized.
Elinor Dickey
Just to put in terms *you* can understand, how would you feel about an “art piece” called “Piss Bill Clinton” or a picture of Jimmy Carter made out of cow dung? I bet you wouldn’t like it.
Krista
I’d laugh my ass off. But that’s because I actually have very little reverence for anything.
Kimmitt
WTF?