« Ask Polly Sigh | Main | The John Kerry Democracy Cell »
Christian Coalition v. Founders & Framers
[Editors Note: Part of our ongoing Sunday series examining the intersection of religion and politics and its relationship to our present state of democracy, written exclusively for the DCP, by Matthew Carnicelli]
The United States Supreme Court heard arguments this week in two cases – Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500, and McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693 – that challenge the constitutionality of displays of the Ten Commandments on government property. The presentation of oral arguments in these cases provides an excellent pretext for a further exploration of the complex role of the Judeo-Christian tradition in early United States history. My task of historical excavation is complicated by the fact that the Ten Commandments held by Catholics, Protestants and Jews are not identical. So, for the sake of clarity, I refer exclusively to the Protestant version in the following analysis.
As I have noted earlier, the Founders and Framers were an intellectually diverse group. Some were Christians of one denomination or another (and differing degrees of conviction), while others were Deists. They drew their inspiration from a wide range of authors and sources – from the historians and orators of Greece and Rome like Polybius, Plutarch, Sallust, Tacitus, and Cicero, to contemporary thinkers like Locke, Hume, Hutcheson, Montesquieu and Beccaria. As we saw with Thomas Jefferson, some of these men might also have been inspired by the philosophical tenets of Jesus, but were not believers in his divinity.
The Founding Generation were inescapably a product of The Enlightenment – which in combination with the Scientific Revolution of the previous century – can be best thought of as a revolt against the then settled tradition of ecclesiastical, scriptural, and hierarchical authority in matters of human knowledge and law.
To be in revolt against a thing assumes intimate knowledge of that thing. The Ten Commandments had considerable impact on the underlying assumptions of Enlightenment era thinking, not to mention the Founders and Framers’ essential conception of the good. Hence, it should not be surprising that a number of the Commandments eventually found their way into Federal and State Law – but not all, and not in perpetuity.
Consider, for instance, the First Commandment, which prescribes: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. It is instructive to note that when given the opportunity in the Nation’s founding document, The Declaration of Independence, to appeal to an ultimate authority, Jefferson evokes “Nature’s God” – a Deistic conception of the Supreme Being – rather than Yahweh, Jehovah or even Jesus Christ.
Jefferson and the committee that collaborated on the Declaration were sending a specific message by that use of that language. They were articulating, for better or for worse, a very different conception of The Creator than that portrayed in the Book of Exodus.
Then, in 1791, this same Commandment (which one can argue is the most important of all from a theological perspective, and the one which the God of the Old Testament was most adamant about) was specifically rejected by the Nation through its adoption of the Bill of Rights – and the First Amendment’s guarantee of absolute religious freedom, including the implicit freedom to have other Gods before Jehovah. Clearly, the Founders and Framers were having nothing to do with Commandment One.
In contrast, Commandments Six through Nine – the four precepts that religious and ethical scholars participating in the Council of the Parliament of World Religions in 1993 agreed were common to all their traditions – found their way quite naturally into Federal and State law. Rather than requiring adherence to a specific conception of the Deity, these Commandments speak against actual forms of destructive human behavior, and consequently remain foundational elements of our ethical and legal understanding. These Commandments read:
– Thou shall not kill;
– Thou shall not commit adultery;
– Thou shall not steal;
– Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
A Commandment like the Fourth – Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy – was once widely enforced through the imposition of a variety of State “blue laws”, like the Massachusetts Sunday Laws. The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of these regulations in 1961, finding that although their original intention may have been specifically religious, the current generation of regulations had “been divorced from the religious orientation of their predecessors”. But today, even these prohibitions are disappearing.
Clearly, the Founders and Framers, and the generations of American legislators and jurists who succeeded them, saw the Decalogue as influential, but not uniformly so – and not so influential that it should be treated as the foundation of American life or law. The Founders had an opportunity during the Constitutional Convention to endorse Christianity as the official state religion. They chose not to. Nothing that conservative Christians claim today can counter the historical record.
I hope that in the final ruling on these two cases, expected in June, the Supreme Court will deliver a historically informed, broadly drawn, consensus-creating decision that can put this issue to rest for the foreseeable future. In doing so, they might need only to look upon the walls of their own building – and the frieze depicting Moses and the tablets as well as other important law givers such as Napoleon, Confucius, Hammurabi, Justinian, and Muhammad – as an example of the kind of eclectic representations that would both honor the role of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the American experience as well as put its influence in proper perspective.
As sons of The Enlightenment, the Founders and Framers naturally chose to put their faith in human reason, and the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature’s God", as best as they understood them, and not predominantly in the revealed wisdom from Sinai some twenty-five-hundred years earlier. They gave birth to a secular democratic republic with the first written constitution in human history, not a theocracy.
You can disagree with their choice; you can even hate it. But let me suggest that if you hate their choice, then you hate the very thing that made America truly exceptional on the world stage, and forever changed the course of human history.
Nations claiming to be "under God" or comprised of a "chosen people" were nothing new. But a Nation dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal", to a government of laws, and not of men, and to a system of checks and balances against the pernicious encroachment of human ambition and overconfidence, was breathtakingly new. It was so new, so remarkable a development in human affairs, that some still glimpse behind our forefathers' choice the guiding hand of a merciful God.
*****
For a further exploration of the Ten Commandments, visit ReligiousTolerance.org.
"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home— but not for housing. They are strong for labor— but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage—the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all—but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine— for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing—but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing—so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it." — Harry S. Truman
Matt, another wonderful entry and proven argument. I'm always left wondering what went wrong with my education.
This quote is one of the clearest demonstrations that the position of the right wing is not based on any moral or ethical position but instead on
corporate profits.
"And now the liberals want to stop President Reagan from selling chemical warfare agents and military equipment to Saddam Hussein, and why? Because Saddam 'allegedly' gassed a few Kurds in his own country. Mark my words. All of this talk of Saddam Hussein being a 'war criminal' or 'committing crimes against humanity' is the same old thing. LIBERAL HATE SPEECH! And speaking of poison gas . . . I SAY WE ROUND UP ALL THE DRUG ADDICTS AND GAS THEM." - Rush (oxycontin) Limbaugh, Nov. 3, 1988
Matt, as always, a gift to know what you're reading, thinking and writing. :-)
"I'm always left wondering what went wrong with my education." -- Marjorie G.
Hmmm... I'd have to say that if you're always left, M.G., then there wasn't a darn thing that went wrong with your education...
*ahem*
right plus might still equals wrong,
Otter
Otter
Very observant, and 'right'? Actually saw some otters in CA last week, with a newer appreciation.
Bono On Short List for World Bank?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4845137,00.html
Meanwhile, Wolfowitz at the IMF?
What will Greg Palast say ..
Hi Ray:
Those things said by Truman are still true today. Foreclosures, bancrupsy, homelessness those seem to be what they want--even though crime increases, starvation increases, and abortion increases as a result.
We stand for the jobs, home ownership, food on the table, less unwanted pregnancy, and the well being for all. Our taxes do work for us and we work to make life better for people once they're here.
I'm reminded of before the election a "republican" said to me when I was registering voters, "Damn democrats..."
So I'm thinking to myself, "I stand for all that good, so why are they damning me?"
Truman's Democratic nomination speech:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/links/truman_speech.html
The speech could have been made this year!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/6/63144/06015
This is a VERY good summary/analysis of the Bankruptcy Bill.
The Founding Generation were inescapably a product of The Enlightenment – which in combination with the Scientific Revolution of the previous century.
Matt,
Amen! You've got it all, and this is the spirit that should have prevailed all the way, but that the Born Again fight like hell.
They cannot stand the thinking of the sons of Enlightment because it stands on reason and not on belief. Any cartesian analysis cracks up their mad ungrounded concepts.
If you had had philosophy classes in high schools since the beginning, the Born Again would have had little chances to exist because they would have had to face people able to analyse and criticise their message. There would have been religious people, which is just a matter of freedom, but not such extremist radicals.
PS. Better not fail at that philosophy exam for us, the mark gets multiplied by 7!
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-tent6mar06,0,1401921.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Check it out, the LA Times has an experimental columnist section now...an experimental column in which the Los Angeles Times invites outside critics to slap around a newspaper whose editorial endorsed TWO candidates for mayor. At least they can laugh at themselves! It reminds me of a photo my friend took near Times Square:
http://www.pbase.com/kayakbiker/image/29555561.jpg
Speaking of religion and moral values - I don't belong to the Methodist church of my youth anymore and my original family were Quakers. I do still retain the moral values I learned at Lake Poinsett Church Camp in South Dakota.
Each day we had a different ethical dilemma to dissect from all sides: Vietnam War, capital punishment, women's rights, civil rights, etc. My antiwar activities date back to that time, age 15 (Eugene McCarthy campaign was lst). My minister ended up with only 3 people in the congregation because he opposed the Vietnam war - my dad & 2 old ladies. His daughter and I were on the debate team together, the only girls. We argued that there was no monolithic Communist threat and that unilateral military intervention in Vietnam was stupid.
For those following the Sgrena case, Kos diarists are hitting it pretty hard & heavy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8741-2005Mar4?language=printer
I know I should put Kerry criticism into some healthier place, but once again, complaints about his message to the military, as if an unfiltered and clear view of him got conveyed about anything, much less at a time of the media's own conflict about the war.
With a party that sits nervously between the Dept. of Peace and pro-security, John Kerry should have had a bullet proof story of standing up for Vet's rights for decades. Swifties, notwithstanding.
Including, too, his Military Bill of Rights not getting traction on the campaign trail, or recently, with a press too eager to annoint Hillary with ink space as entertainment news. They can't wait to serve up the country to more Hillary nonsense, despite how serious, savvy, and short, a candidate.
More press time, unfiltered, yes, but I suggest that regardless of handling the war positions, when the country couldn't decide, and still can't, his pro-military credibility saved the Dems to fight another day. They'll never thank him.
blogger activists = pajamahadeen
Marjorie G
Some criticize JK for being too far to the left, some for being too far to the right & I'm numbering among those alot of current & former military. It was great that he was able to figure out to represent the whole country & he did.
There are plenty of hypocrites - I have met former Republicans who think he's not made enough of his antiwar activist record (yet they themselves supported the war at that time!) and I met peace activists who thought the same thing (and I found out they themselves work on a defense contract at Boeing).
Plenty of armchair quarterbacks.
Speculation about Kerry v Reid philosophical difference:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=152
Interesting comments follow, & one person points out that this may be a planted Repub story to draw attention away form the SS debate & make the Dems look fragmented; another points out the basic fundamental conservatism of Reid in the lst place, & there is the usual juvenile position that Kerry should have worked miracles and walked on water, the simplistic position that it is bad to suggest more troops when in fact the reason for more troops is to have less overuse of the Reserves and Guards. Most people don't investigate that far though. I didn't agree with all those Senators who voted for IWR in the lst place, but have bothered to get a little more background so as not to be so "kneejerk." I guess they're young ..
Di
Love pajamahadeen.
Worked this weekend with issue activists saving Social Security door-to-door. A couple of them were there at the town hall tour with Hillary, Harry, et al, and the unbilled Kerry. I so enjoyed my take of a great, clearly spoken Kerry performance, and all they could he was sure a lot glummer, in that sarcastic, belittling way. Immediately took offense to the disrespect, and he said, well, he voted for him.
We have a whole bunch of punkish, smart aleck, but caring, twenty-somethings who I wish had more heart for what this process takes. They also went to meeting of progressives from beyond New York to agree on a kind of manifesto. To talk to the red states, no less.
This self-love, perfect principles, by way of self-love elitism have got to go.
Stephen J. Ducat Dissects "Anxious Masculinity," Making Sense of America's Strutting, in a Psychoanalytic Kind of Way
I saw the Republican National Convention as essentially a hyper-masculine strut-fest. The real point of the convention was to make John Kerry their woman.... They had already done that with John Edwards by dubbing him the “Breck girl.” And Arnold Schwarzenegger went on to proclaim that any men who were anxious about the loss of jobs under the reign of George W. Bush were, as he put it, “economic girlie-men.” The inference was that Democratic candidates who were always whining about pink slips may as well be wearing pink slips.
(read the rest at
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/03/int05011.html
A great read. Posted before, but perfectly appropros for the military take above.
Off to a free Chamber music concert.
Be well, Di
Colorado Could Get 2nd Dem Senator
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4845642,00.html
Please enjoy this LA Times guest editorial, written by Americablogger John Aravosis.
OUTSIDE THE TENT
Sex, Lies and Spies: This Isn't News?
By John Aravosis
John Aravosis is a writer and political consultant and the editor of AMERICAblog.com.
March 6, 2005
An experimental column in which the Los Angeles Times invites outside critics to slap around a newspaper whose editorial endorsed TWO candidates for mayor.
*
Bloggers uncover that someone working as a reporter in the West Wing is also advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay escort — someone whose name, a year earlier, had appeared in the U.S. attorney's subpoena of White House documents during the investigation of the Valerie Plame-CIA scandal.
The mainstream media, including the Los Angeles Times, remains largely silent. Why?
The story of James D. Guckert (a.k.a. Jeff Gannon) broke Jan. 26. It started as a blip of a controversy over a little-known "reporter" for a conservative website asking a kiss-up question at a White House briefing. Bloggers investigated "Gannon's" identity and found that he had little training in journalism and an apparent connection to male prostitution. Bloggers wanted to know how someone with this background had for two years received White House "day pass" press credentials. Within days, the story exploded online, yet it took a month for The Times to give the story a mention, and then its coverage was a textbook case of how not to write the news.
The piece cited or quoted by name five sources as well as an unnamed media critic — none expressing any outrage — as well as Guckert himself. It failed to quote the bloggers who broke this story — including me — or anyone who thought Guckert's ability to waltz through security with a pseudonym and get within a few feet of the president during a time of war might be a serious issue.
That's not to say we Internet sleuths didn't get an honorary mention. The story called us "left-wing bloggers" and "gay activists" (not all of us are), diminishing our credibility and helping to keep our ample and well-sourced evidence out of public discourse.
It's not as if bloggers were the only ones on the case. Democratic Sens. Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, Edward M. Kennedy, Frank Lautenberg and John Kerry have asked the White House to investigate. And senior House Democrats have called on the federal prosecutor investigating the leaking of the identity of CIA agent Plame to subpoena Guckert's diary.
In labeling the story "White House Notebook" and treating it largely as a look at the imprecision of attempting to define "journalist," The Times missed the more serious news angle — the apparent breach of White House security by someone with a troubling past.
And then there are the obvious questions about whether he might somehow fit into the Bush administration's ongoing campaign to neutralize the media by paying off pundits like Armstrong Williams. If nothing else, there's a story too in the fact that the administration has said nothing since the story broke about its pressroom ally's extracurricular activities — a rank case of family values hypocrisy.
I can think of three possible reasons The Times didn't cover this obviously major story with any vigor:
(1) Trepidation about gays, sex and power. In the age of wardrobe malfunctions, news organizations are extra cautious about covering anything involving s-e-x. And a gay angle only makes things more confusing. Would you be anti-gay or pro-gay if you wrote about an allegedly homophobic journalist who happened to be gay? Answer: Allegations of prostitution aren't just about someone's private life, they're about a crime that can lead to blackmail, especially if state secrets are involved. And in any case, your readers are adults — give them the facts and let them decide for themselves.
(2) Reverse liberal guilt. Too sensitive to right-wing accusations of being liberal, traditional media have overcompensated by becoming too timid in covering certain stories. They seem loath to aggressively report on scandals involving Republican politicians, in general, and this White House in particular.
(3) Blogophobia. Liberal bloggers scare the mainstream media. Media critics fret over our supposed lack of professional credentials, even though many of us are journalists. They doubt our facts but don't independently investigate the stories.
The lack of coverage plays into the hands of the White House. Mainstream media editors act as if our investigation of Guckert is about prurience and lacks merit. But there is more than enough evidence to make any reporter want to check out the possibilities of White House deception and media manipulation.
The Times' editors shouldn't allow themselves to think they are above the fray. In truth, they are failing to speak truth to power.
Native Texan- thanks for the info on the bankruptcy law proceedings in congress. You have just cost Joe Biden every shred of respect that I ever had for him, and I used to respect him a great deal. For him to go along with the Republicans on this issue is unconscionable. I'll never have another good thought about the man, without remembering how totally uncaring he was on this issue.
On topic:
I think it is worth noting that the "replica" of the ten commandments in Texas (and currently being debated in the Supreme Court) is actually a publicity item dontated by MGM when the movie "The Ten Commandments" was released in 1956. Yul Brenner and Charlie Heston were on hand for many of the donation ceremonies.
Matthew:
Thank you once again for a very educational and
explanatory article.
I am here to learn, and this place is an oasis.
Tricks of the Trade
By Holly Bailey, Richard Wolffe and Tamara Lipper
Newsweek 14 March 2005 Issue
Republicans are worried. Can stagecraft save Bush on Social Security?
The White House likes to call them "regular folks"-people with real-life questions about the president's agenda. Only some are more regular than others. Carlos Huertas was billed as a concerned grandfather and hard-working engineer when he sat onstage next to President Bush to talk about retirement accounts in downtown Tampa, Fla., last month. "The thing I like about the proposed reforms in Social Security," Huertas said, "is that, just like I do on the 401(k), I can invest in the market where I get a better return." The president nodded his head in agreement. "We're not talking about, you know, needing to become a great financial analyst in order to make decisions," Bush told his town-hall-style audience.
Small wonder that Bush found Huertas so convincing. The Florida granddad is an activist for FreedomWorks, a conservative group founded by former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp and Dick Armey, the former House GOP leader. FreedomWorks campaigned heavily for Bush's re-election last year and now fights for his plan to overhaul Social Security. That means more than the normal run of TV ads and grass-roots campaigning. FreedomWorks officials tell NEWSWEEK they have worked closely with the administration to coordinate the town halls, often suggesting names of the people onstage. At least five of its activists have appeared with Bush, and the group has bused hundreds to eight of his events in recent weeks. By the group's own tally, at least one third of the audience in Tampa were FreedomWorks members.
The president took the show to Westfield, N.J., last week, where he talked with a small business owner, a stay-at-home mom and a recent college graduate. Bush received respectful coverage from the town's newspaper, the Westfield Leader, which said the meeting was simply meant to "gauge opinions of New Jerseyans." In fact, a day before the event, an advance team of White House officials held a dress rehearsal for the participants so they could fine-tune their testimonials. They do this before each show, usually with a stand-in playing Bush. It helps the people "say things clearer," says one FreedomWorks member.
snip~
The president says he'll just keep pounding the podium until the country comes to see things his way. But the early slide in the polls suggests there are limits to the powers of White House stagecraft. In a debate shaped by Congress and outside pressure groups, it is becoming harder for the president to control the script once he steps off the stage.
continue~
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/030605F.shtml
HUGE News: Kerry Confirmed For 08'
Dear JKFA Forum Members,
Good news from this morning's edition of ABC's "This Week". The guest on the show is none other then John Kerry's close friend and mentor Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who has literally known Kerry for decades and both work with each other on a day to day basis. Ted was posed with a VERY interesting question by the host. Would he support Hillary in 2008?
"Well, we have a candidate up in Massachusetts. I think Hillary would be outstanding at whatever she decides she wants to do." The host said, "So, Kerry is your man?" And Ted said, "Yes, Kerry is my man."
Now what does this mean? It means that Ted Kennedy is saying he's supporting his CLOSE friend John Kerry in 2008. If anyone would know if John's planning on running again it's Ted. Ted pretty much confirmed what we at JKFA have been waiting for. John Kerry is running for President in 2008. Take Ted's word for it, let's get done to business. Right now is the time to start. We have so much that needs to be done at JKFA. Right now, we are hiring moderators for the JKFA Forum, the moderators will be the only ones allowed to view and talk in a exclusive War Room forum. Also we need editorials about Senator Kerry, and people to push our Kerry petition which is now up to almost 450 signatures.
Kerry is running in 2008, and let's get done to business. John Kerry still has our back, don't you think it's time you started watching his back? Join the movement!
- Jordon Wright
Webmaster/Owner of JohnKerryForAmerica.Com
Some interesting links posted today....
Marjorie - your link to the Washington Post opinion piece about Dems needing to make amends with the military is one long boring piece of Repub propoganda. First of all, this notion that Rove has made that much of an inroad into the African American community is bogus. JK got the same amount of the black vote that Al Gore got, which incidently is larger than even Clinton got. Yes, Rove has gotten lots of PR on his efforts to reach out to the black community but that hasn't translated into the voting booth. There is a difference and some people seem to be confused by it. Yes, the Repub's supposed "moral" stances played well with South American immigrants, but that would have happened Rove or not. As for the part about Dems needing to apologize to the military establishment for their efforts to stop the Vietnam War, I say only when those folks who were for that war admit it was a mistake going in there in the first place. Did the warrior get confused with the war during Vietnam, unfortuantely yes. But imo, the protestors hearts were in the right place at the time. They were in their own way looking out for the soldier. And as for allowing military recruitment on college campuses to make amends --isn't that called ROTC? Most colleges have this program, so what's his deal? Plus, I think it's up to the individual college to allow military recruitment isn't it? Not the DNC. And finally, the real reason why JK lost is voter fear of changing presidents in a time of war, no matter how lousy the sitting one is. This has been stated over and over again in the credible comprehensive wrap ups of the 2004 campaign. And is bearing out in the polling, including Shrub's tepid approval ratings. And you know what, the last poll I saw showed JK made gains among the military voter in 2004. So I ask, where the heck is this guy getting his info from? He's obviously ill-informed and out of touch.
Linda E. Re: Biden - Yes, Joe is great for funny sound bites but rarely delivers in the end. However, in voting for the bankruptcy bill he is voting for his constituency. Alot of the big financial corporations are based in Delaware because of it's loose, corporate-friendly laws. Same goes for South Dakota.
DiAnne - As for the Raw Story article... Who knows. Maybe there is some truth to it. If it is then JK is right. If we've learned anything since the election is that ShrubCo is a fulltime marketing and communications machine. They don't wait for the next election cycle, they are at nonstop full throttle 24/7. For Dems to remain relevant, we have to get even more aggressive. Reid has us off to a nice start but we could be doing do much more. I agree, let's not let Shrub be able to gain a middleground victory on SS. Let's shut him down on this and hand him a defeat. I do think JK and Reid appear gentlemanly and any disagreement is not a rift but just a needed healthy debate. I doubt either would ever let it get ugly or public.
I don't read the Chicago Tribune very much anymore (for obvious reasons), but I just happened upon this article about how compassionate Christian schools are... Please read this.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/content/education/chi-0503060429mar06,1,4211570.story?coll=chi-news-hed
School orders mom to spank son--or else
6-year-old suspended after mother refuses to spank him for numerous disciplinary infractions; instead she yanks him from school
Florida Dem
Yes - the Senate is all about debate. It is not a place designed for people to all be in agreement. That would be ludicrous. The whole point is the get issues out & come to compromises.
Other:
Here is a translation of Sgrena the Italian journalist's writing:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m10180
Here is an article about a nonpartisan blogger who supposedly has a White House press pass for tomorrow's gaggle:
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/west_wing_reportage/default.asp
& here are some cool photos, political in a global village kind of way:
http://www.ashesandsnow.org/index2.html
and finally, my Republican Uncle's take on the quotation from Rush Limbaugh I posted earlier today (in which Rush said drug addicts ought to be gassed, and that it was liberal hate talk to say that Saddam was a war criminal just because he gassed a few Kurds & that Reagan should be able to sell him weapons:
"You are right on about Rush........sometimes I think O'Reilly is maybe a rung above him but they are both windbags......they try to get by saying it is "entertainment"
N & S California rivaly goes back many years....LA has always tried to get water from Northern CA going way back.....they had their eyes on Feather River water..... The elites from SF have always looked down on "tacky" and "tinsle town" LA
good report on 60 minutes by Lesley Stahl on Tom Delay of Texas.....hope they nail him good....."
&
Did anyone see that other horrifying story on 60 Minutes, involving a CIA man who "told all" - the account I heard verbally made me shudder
A good article about liberalism and federalism from the NYT today...a very good read. Ties into our concept of cells working at a local level to work state politics.
The Joy of Federalism
By FRANKLIN FOER
Instead of retreating to Vancouver, many liberals today are retreating from national politics and focusing on their own states
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/books/review/006FOERL.html
And here's something I posted earlier in the weekend about a forum with the editors of The New Republic, The American Prospect and The Nation, where they talk about liberalism, how it became a dirty word and how to make the Democrats the majority party again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/books/review/006LIBERA.html
Madame DeFarge
Good stuff! We're definitely gearing up to work locally here - I can feel it!! We have a Cell retreat in a couple weeks, & some of us have already picked a candidate to work with for 2006, we have the copies of the Voter Reform legislation pending, & a friend & I are scheming to go to a luncheon with 8 female Senators!!
Did anyone see that other horrifying story on 60 Minutes, involving a CIA man who "told all" - the account I heard verbally made me shudder
Posted by: DiAnne at March 6, 2005 10:42 PM
DiAnne, I didn't see it, but would like to look up the transcript, if there is one. What was the date? Is 60 minutes CBS?
I thought he was talking about tonight:
"60 Minutes, the show, discussed how humans are "rendered" by the CIA (their limbs are boiled).
A former CIA guy who they interview said he didn't have any problem with it. His job is to protect 'Merkins. How does illegally grabbing people off the streets of other nations (and not always bad ones) and subjecting them to torture help ? When word gets out, 'Merkins will be targets. 60 Minutes found the flight destinations of the CIA planes on the internet. There are no secrets! Stupid b*st*rds. What a short-sighted policy."
Here's the complete story, from 60 Minutes website - I think it was aired tonight, & it looks like there's a video on-site.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml
DiAnne:
Hey wait a minute....Didn't Rush's maid out him as a pill popper? If we ever adopt the gassing of addicts, he should be first in line.
DiAnne:
Do you have a citation or link on the Limbaugh, Nov. 3, 1988, quote? What really amazes me about these folks is the audacity they have in completely flip-flopping on an issue when the leadership calls for a propaganda change. I mean, the complete lack of shame never ceases to sort of stun me even after all these years. I know that ties into the Ten Commandments somehow....
Chuck in Baku
Chuck in Baku to All:
Actually, I think this is the tie-in between my last post and the topic of this thread -- I think that government support of a particular religious creed does go against the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, it also seems, in the case of this thread topic, seems alien to the principles of Christianity.
I am always amazed by the audacious gap between what the Bible says and what the so-called "Religious Right" lobbies for. For example, in the version of the Ten Commandments in my Bible, it says: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image -- any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them." (Exodus 20:4 and 20:5). Literally read, that sounds to me like a categorical prohibition on public statues -- which would include graven images of the tablets themselves.
I don’t subscribe to any particular religion (I guess that makes me a Deist), so I don’t have any problem with public statues, but I do have a problem with hypocrisy. It seems to me that hypocrisy, especial in matters of faith, is the root of all evil. I find a resonance with that thought in the New Testament as well, for example in the exchange between the Pharisees and Christ in Matthew (22:34-22:40), where the commandments are reduced to two principles: 1) love God “with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind,” and 2) “you shall love you neighbor as yourself,” and then, in the next chapter (23), expands on the theme to the constant refrain “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”
Chuck in Baku (very amateur Bibilcal Scholar).
Chuck in Baku up on a soap-box again
Sorry, but I couldn’t help one more go at amateur Biblical Scholar hour.
Another hypocrisy that has always bothered me about the so-called “Religious” right concerns these issues around prayer in public places, and I mean public places in the sense of places held by the government on behalf owned by all citizens in common. In the Sermon on the Mount, no less, Christ says it as plain as can be:
“And when you pray, you shall not be like the Hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.
“But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the Secret Place, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.” (Matthew 6:5 and 6:6).
By what contortion of logic can, say, open, group prayers in a public high school football stadium be reconciled with the words of Christ as recorded in the New Testament? I have never been able to square that circle in my head.
Chuck in Baku
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/pag/sgrena/en/420dc5a37ba4d.html
ilmanifesto.it/pag/sgrena/en This if I am not mistaken is Sgrenas site
Chuck in Baku again – once last time as my prior posts have got me perusing Matthew’s gospel version of Sermon on the Mount again plus some other parts of Matthew.
Now, as to involving God in the Pledge of Allegiance, or swearing oaths on bibles, Matthew 5:33-37 has Jesus specifically saying that such oaths are contrary to the ways of righteousness: “Again you have heard it said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord. But I say to you, do not swear at all; neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool.... nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the eveil one.
Likewise, this “Faith-Based Initiatives” thing – again, with reasoning that parallels the prayer thing I alluded to above, repudiates the vision of Christ as put down in Matthew 6:1-4: “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deed before men, to be seen by them .... Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound the trumpet before you like the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory form men.”
Chuck in Baku
PS: Plus putting God’s name on money seems blasphemous to me from the perspective of the New Testament. Again, the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not lay up treasures on earth ...; but lay up for yourself treasures in Heaven.... For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew: 6:19-23) And likewise: “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.” (Matthew: 6:24). And then, after the Sermon on the Mount, again, calling the Pharisees hypocrites, there is the concept of “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew: 22:21). I find it especially poignant in this last passage that the Pharisees were specifically trying to set a political trap for Christ on that one, which seems to me to be the reason Christ referred to them as hypocrites in that one.
Chuck in Baku signing off again again.... but on topic!
OK, I know I said that would be my last one. (But notice I didn’t swear to it or take any oaths!) Nevertheless, here’s my one final though, for what it’s worth. It seems to me that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution, by keeping Caesar and God in separate realms, were acting not only as good enlightenment Deists, as true believers in the Rule of Law, as defenders of the proposition that government must be of, by and for a sovereign people, and as practical politicians, but were actually acting very much in the spirit of Christ according to the Gospel of Matthew.
Keep the Faith, everyone!
Chuck in Baku
Chuck in Baku
I'll get you that citation but I don't have it.
I got the quote from Mpls Vets for Peace.
& I just heard from an old friend who is at an Army Hospital in Heidelberg that I sent it to, along with the Harry Truman one - he said Rush Limbaugh not blocked there but Jim Hightower is but he found a back door way to his website and had learned about Gannon. "Is this for real?" he asked.
I'm listening to the best set on Paris radio http://www.novaplanet.com (Marvin Gaye avec "Let's Get It On", Staples Singers "Let's Get It On," & some of the new Snoop Dogg. It's midnight here & morning there.
"We've got to start making some friends on this planet." John Kerry
Chuck
I have inadvertently perpetuated an urban myth, as the Limbaugh quote was a spoof quote in a Boondocks cartoon.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh2.asp
That's almost as good.
DiAnne:
Thanks for letting me know on that Rush thing. Actually, I find the reality somewhat more troubling. If memory serves, all of the charges against Saddam Hussien now relate to activities prior to 1991 -- the last batch of charges relating to the ruling party's brutal suppression of revolts that were encouraged by the U.S., I believe, and certainly carried out under the nose of our troops. That he was a bloody dictator no one can deny. However, unless we are going to be very hypocritical on the whole situation, we have to admit that throughout most of the period when that regime did its worst (at least according to the current Saddam Hussein indictment), we were either actively or tacitly supporting it. And when its last great atrocities were carried out (as opposed to the everyday variety common, unfortunately, to much of the world), we could have put a stop to it but didn't.
Chuck in Baku
More trouble ahead about "friendly" firings.
A Bulgarian soldier, aged 30, got shot by the Americans last friday. i just saw the funerals on France 2.
Here is the article linked to it.
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5583111
That's the peak of the iceberg; it happens everyday, because the young guys who arrive there are so frightened that they shoot first.
Now the European papers have all gone in a thorough investigation of those everyday "blows".
Do you know how much a family gets when someone is killed by error? $2500.
About the European papers investigating, here are some excerpts.
- There won't be any explanation by the Americans because they are not willing to, nor from the Italian government because of their tight links.
- This was the case that unveiled what is going on everyday, and this is what must be put in the light now.
- This was supposed to be a "peace" mission and turned into officialised killing.
http://www2.dw-world.de/french/presse/1.127655.1.html
By the way, Italy will be talking about their troops presence in Irak on March 14. Even a minister of Berlusconi talked about withdrawal.
Thanks to the New-York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/international/middleeast/07patrols.html?8bl
Ex-hostage disputes U.S. account
Sgrena, the hostage whose life Calipari saved, promised Calipari's widow to find out why they were attacked.
In an article published Sunday in her newspaper, Il Manifesto, Sgrena wrote, "Our car was driving slowly," and "the Americans fired without motive."
She described a "rain of fire and bullets" in the incident.
CNN's Rome Bureau Chief Alessio Vinci said that in her various interviews Sgrena disputed the U.S. account that the car was driving fast and warning shots were fired.
He said she was not ruling out the possibility that the Americans may have targeted her on purpose because the U.S. opposed negotiating with kidnappers.
The U.S. military said Sgrena's car rapidly approached a checkpoint Friday night, and those inside ignored repeated warnings to stop.
Troops used arm signals and flashing white lights, fired warning shots in front of the car, and shot into the engine block when the driver did not stop, the military said in a statement.
But in an interview with Italy's La 7 Television, the 56-year-old journalist said "there was no bright light, no signal."
And Italian magistrate Franco Ionta said Sgrena reported the incident was not at a checkpoint, but rather that the shots came from "a patrol that shot as soon as they lit us up with a spotlight."
One thing has to be remembered about Calipari. he was the one who carried on the negociations for the 2 Simonas, got them free and back to Italy in December.
He had already been all through the process, and knew how dangerous the road to the airport is. On top Sgrena and the wounded intelligence officer were questioned separately, and their report is identical.
For madame Defarge.
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=280575
Back on topic here...
A Modest Proposal
by Richard Mouw
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/161/story_16188_1.html
The Ten Commandments are on the front pages again, now that the Supreme Court is deliberating about the propriety of displaying that ancient moral code in public places. I have a suggestion for the justices to consider. Maybe they could recommend an alternative: substitute the Beatitudes for the Ten Commandments.
Actually the idea is not original with me. I got it from an unlikely source when it comes to spiritual matters: Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut, a gifted novelist not known specifically for his religious insights, made some good theological sense last year in a column he wrote. He noted that there is a lot of talk lately about making the Ten Commandments visible in public places, but no one ever seems to mention the Beatitudes as having any meaning for our public life. Why not? he asks. After all, the Ten Commandments are from Moses, but if you really believe in Jesus you should want his unique teachings to get some publicity. So, proposes Vonnegut, let’s put “Blessed are the merciful” signs in our courtrooms. And let’s have a big “Blessed are the peacemakers” billboard in the Pentagon.
I’m intrigued by Vonnegut’s suggestion. That’s not to say I have problems with the Ten Commandments. Both Moses and Jesus are in the Bible I read regularly. The commandments that God gave Moses on Mount Sinai are of fundamental importance for human morality, both collective and individual. But they do have a stern tone about them, and it could be that by emphasizing the "thou-shalt-nots" of the Ten Commandments, we Christians are coming across as a bit too self-righteous. Furthermore, it has long been acknowledged by Christian theologians that at least the first few commandments—the ones dealing with worship and idolatry—are not the sorts of things we want to impose on everyone in our pluralistic democracies.
On a more positive note, it might be better for Christians—especially those of us who talk a lot about "moral values"—to let our fellow citizens know that we do care a lot about the "blessed" traits that Jesus sets forth in the Beatitudes: meekness, peaceableness, empathy with the poor and the grieving, a spirit of mercy—things of that sort. To be sure, we will be criticized for this, too, by the folks who don’t want us to inject any of our religious views into the public square. But if we are going to be scolded by those who resist religious teachings, let’s at least be scolded for promoting something that comes straight from Jesus.
When George W. Bush said, during the last presidential campaign, that Jesus is his favorite philosoper, he took a lot of criticism from the intelligentsia. I did not join in the ridicule. Jesus is also my favorite philosopher. I believe Jesus has profound things to say to contemporary America—to all of us as citizens, as well to each of us as private individuals.
Which leads me to an even bolder proposal. People like me can push for this sort of move, but no one will really pay any attention. But if the President and a well-known novelist were to team up in urging the justices of the Supreme Court to endorse the public display of the Beatitudes—well, then we might actually get somewhere. The more I think about the idea, the more I like it. President Bush, please contact Kurt Vonnegut immediately.
Matt you are spot on. I was watching some of the talking heads on this topic on C-Span, the spin word is "BULLDOZING", they will spin that word like a tornado dropping down on uneducated brains, that don't know how to think for themselves. The spinmasters say that if the SCOTUS rules against them, that will mean that we will see thousands of "BULLDOZERS" tramping across the US "BULLDOZING" anything that looks even a little bit religious. HOGWASH... We need to fight the spin words. I try and catch them in every topic possible. They are losing on SS front, their spin words just don't spin on this issue, I think they have tried 3 different words on this topic, and oops, sorry Rove, but even uneducated people know what SS is, and that they have payed into it for their entire lives, it belongs to the American people not a bunch of rich arrogant bureaucrats.
So watch for the spin words, they are good at throwing them out, and if a few don't work they just throw a few more out. This is a fight we must win. The War on Words, get your dictionaries ready.... the simpler the word the better.
NO SURRENDER !!!
Posted by: Andrée - France at March 7, 2005 08:59 AM
Merci bien, Andrée.
OT
Six times more Americans get political news from Internet
The number of Americans relying on the Internet for political news grew sixfold between the 1996 and 2004 presidential campaigns. This growth was accompanied by a sharp drop in the influence of newspapers.
Chicago Sun-Times reported that Eighteen percent of American adults cited the Internet as one of their two main sources of news about the presidential races, compared with 3 percent in 1996. The reliance on television grew slightly to 78 percent, up from 72 percent.
Meanwhile, the influence of newspapers dropped to 39 percent last year, from 60 percent in 1996, according to the joint, telephone-based survey from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
more>
http://www.ebcvg.com/news.php?id=4719
I went to a concert at my daughter's college yesterday, it was wonderful to see such young minds dedicated to their love of music and voice.
So anyway, after it was over we went to my daughter's apartment, (which still shows a K/E sign proudly in their front window,along with many others I saw on her street) with her other 2 roomates, and the minute they walked in the door, they didn't turn the TV on, they went straight to their computers. My daughter showed us a new site she just joined called PLAN,I can't remember what all the letters in PLAN stand for just that it is a Progressive site to getting involved with activism and with non-violence activities. she found it through her Young Democrats site. The young know what is happening and they have not stopped. I told my daughter and her roomates to keep involved we need your young voices and minds more then ever, and oh by the way, they love to talk politics.
NO SURRENDER !!!
Posted by: KerryDem at March 7, 2005 09:38 AM
That's very inspiring, KerryDem. Now if we could just get people in middle America who drank the kool-aid to detox from NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX (ok, I know I'm dreaming...) and turn to the internet for news.