Recently in
Church and State Category

We here at the DCP aren't anti-religious -- far from it, actually. We're well aware of the spiritual aspects of living a creative and meaningful existence. We regularly reflect upon the Tao of politics in this space. We acknowledge the faith-based principles underlying many of the peace movements happening in America today. And we're certainly not anti-Christian here, even those of us that aren't Christians ourselves.

But we are opposed to erasing the lines of separation between church and state. We agree with the framers of the Constitution that a political theocracy has no place in American society. And that means we're increasingly concerned about the unparalleled degree of overlap that exists between the Bush administration, the neoconservative movement, and the overtly Christian right wing of the Republican Party.

That's why we're going to turn today's DCP blog threader over to NY Times op-ed contributor Paul Krugman, in the form of excerpts from a column of his titled "For God's Sake":

In an excellent column entitled "The antigay obsession" in the Boston Globe, columnist Derrick Z. Jackson has some great quotes from leaders in South Africa, where the parliament just voted to legalize same-sex marriage.

South African Defense Minister Mosuia Lekota was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "The roots of this bill lie in many years of struggle. . . . This country cannot afford to be a prison of timeworn prejudices which have no basis in modern society. Let us bequeath to future generations a society which is more democratic and tolerant than the one that was handed down to us."

The tone of affirmation in South Africa had been set years before by the likes of former South African President Nelson Mandela, who lost a son to AIDS, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu, who has repeatedly criticized homophobia in the church. "This is crazy," the retired archbishop said eight years ago. "We say the expression of love in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship is more than just the physical but includes touching, embracing, kissing, maybe the genital act. The totality of this makes each of us grow to become giving, increasingly God-like and compassionate.

"If it is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual, provided the relationship is exclusive, not promiscuous?"

We’ve all been wondering if the Prince of Darkness, a.k.a. Karl Rove, had one final October Surprise up his sleeve. And with the flood of political gay bashing that we’ve witnessed from President Bush ever since the New Jersey Supreme Court shockingly decided that homosexuals were Americans too, and his demonization of the intent behind John Kerry’s badly delivered joke, it seemed possible that Rove might pull off one final dark miracle.

Well, Election Day came a little bit later in 2006 – and that left room for life to present an already disenchanted electorate with its own November Surprise. One of the cornerstones of Rove’s GOTV strategy involves the placing of amendments that would ban same sex marriage in state constitutions on ballots, in an attempt to insure that religious conservatives, thought to be strong supporters of GOP candidates, would turn out in large numbers on Election Day. Well, this time that effort may backfire.

Before yesterday, Ted Haggard, the pastor of the New Life mega-church of Colorado Springs, was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and a fiery opponent of gay marriage. Today, he is a pastor forced to step down from his pulpit, accused of having a three-year relationship with a male prostitute, not to mention a taste for Crystal Meth.

[photo: Sebastian Scheiner, AP]

I ran across this while Googling on local reaction to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah:

We at Tikkun and the Network of Spiritual Progressives ask you to join our effort to place ads in national and international newspapers calling for an end to the slaughter in Lebanon, Israel and the Occupied Territories—and to use this moment not only to create a temporary cease fire, but to resolve all outstanding issues between the various parties in the Middle East. We are calling upon the international community to foster a new approach to resolving conflicts. We approach these issues from our commitment to a “Progressive Middle Path,” recognizing that in the context of the past 120 years, both sides have legitimate grievances and both sides have acted with insensitivity and cruelty toward the other. We do not accept that one side is the “righteous victim” and the other side the “evil aggressor.” But we do recognize that at this moment Israel has far greater military power, and so we ask for Israel to take the first steps toward ending the cycle of hatred and violence, even as we condemn Hezbollah for initiating the current escalation of violence.

Tikkun's advertisement appeared Monday in the NY Times, and there are plans to place similar ads in the Washington Post, and newspapers in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Which leads me to question:

1) Why is Tikkun having to go to these lengths raising money to buy ads providing this perspective on the conflict?

2) Why is this view on the conflict not getting airplay in the mainstream news media?

Any answers out there?

Folks who remember that they are Christians only when it comes time to campaign, had better expect to answer a few questions on the topic, or expect to be exposed as Doug Feith's competition for the stupidest ******* guy on the face of the earth.

Yes, Congressman Westmoreland, we are looking at you.

From The Colbert Report, we learn that Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (GA-8), who co-sponsored four separate bills to display the Ten Commandments in the courts, etc., can't actually name the Ten Commandments.

Anyone want to take a guess at how many he can name?

Watch the video (courtesy of Crooks and Liars) for the answer. It's priceless.

It's Campaign Season Christians like Westmoreland that make the baby Jesus cry.

The West was united after 9/11. It understood that it now faced an awesome threat from forces inspired by an ethos of blind hatred, religious intolerance, and ideological insanity. The time had come to wage a war of ideas against that threat, a war that the course of the West’s entire intellectual development had prepared it to fight, and without which the continued evolution of humanity would be impossible.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration, itself a bastion of blind hatreds, irrational ideology, and imperialistic fantasies that would have shocked and digusted the Founding Generation, chose to instead re-fight the last war, the Gulf War. It chose to put personal vendettas, family alliances, vainglorious dreams, and short-sided economic agendas ahead of this noble and essential cause. And all the while, as this May 21, 2006 Washington Post expose reveals, the authentic enemies of freedom, of democracy, of spiritual pluralism, and of the rights of women, have continued to propagate their venomous ideology across the globe.

Mr. President, with allies like the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia, have we any need of enemies?

*****

This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)

By Nina Shea

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Saudi Arabia's public schools have long been cited for demonizing the West as well as Christians, Jews and other "unbelievers." But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis -- that was all supposed to change.

A 2004 Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.' " Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, has worked aggressively to spread this message. "The kingdom has reviewed all of its education practices and materials, and has removed any element that is inconsistent with the needs of a modern education," he said on a recent speaking tour to several U.S. cities. "Not only have we eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system, we have implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan." The Saudi government even took out a full-page ad in the New Republic last December to tout its success at "having modernized our school curricula to better prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow." A year ago, an embassy spokesman declared: "We have reviewed our educational curriculums. We have removed materials that are inciteful or intolerant towards people of other faiths." The embassy is also distributing a 74-page review on curriculum reform to show that the textbooks have been moderated.

The problem is: These claims are not true.

[Editor's Note: I opened my mail this morning and it was full of requests to post on Alito. The first post is a call to action from DCP member Rick Albertson. The second post comes to us from DCP member Barry Schwartz. As some of you may know, Senate Majority Leader Frist has refused Senators time to speak on the floor of the Senate about Alito until January 25 (the day after the scheduled committee vote). In response, Senators are fanning out across America to give speeches urging action against the Alito confirmation. I will reprint a short portion of Senator Edward Kennedy's (D-MA) speech with a link to the full text. The upshot of these posts is clear. ACT NOW.]

CALL NOW

From Rick:

This news alert slash call to action comes direct to you from the fine folks over at Political Cortex. We're reproducing it here body and soul because goshdarnit, fellow DCPeople, this is important stuff and we all need to get on the horn and on the keyboard and make your feelings known before it's too late!

Via Political Cortex
[gently edited to comply with DCP's federal regulations]

Alito's not a done deal!

Over at Daily Kos they estimate he no longer has 60 votes!

Let's make sure thatwe are heard: CLICK HERE TO CALL YOUR SENATORS

John Edwards has endorsed this petition for FILIBUSTER

Phone, fax, and email addresses for the Judiciary Committee

People for the American Way has collected over 60,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours: Save the Court Petition

MoveOn.Org's Stop Alito Petition

Democratic Party's Reject Alito Petition

Stop the NRA's Oppose Alito Petition

And while you're at it, sign: Planned Parenthood Petition

NARAL Say "No" On Judge Alito

Brady Campaign

Human Rights Campaign

National Abortion Federation

National Council of Jewish Women

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association

National Organization for Women

National Partnership for Women and Families

National Women's Law Center

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

US Action

From Barry, via WaPo:

It's all in the record.

Law professors at Judge Alito's alma mater, Yale Law School, analyzed more than 400 of his published opinions and concluded: "In the area of civil rights law, Judge Alito consistently has used procedural and evidentiary standards to rule against female, minority, age and disability claimants..."

"In the context of these civil rights cases, Judge Alito seems relatively willing to defer to the claims of employers, the government, over the individuals advancing civil rights claims."

KENNEDY: And other objective observers who have examined Judge Alito's record have reached a similar conclusion. According to an analysis by the respected University of Chicago law professor, Cass Sunstein, said, "when there is a conflict between institutions and individual rights, Judge Alito's dissenting opinions argued against individual rights 84 percent of the time. In almost all of the cases in which Judge Alito dissented in order to reject an individual rights claim, he was sitting on a court with a majority of Republican appointees."

A comprehensive review of Judge Alito's published opinions by Knight-Ridder similarly found that Judge Alito has "seldom sided" with "an employee alleging discrimination" and "almost never found a government search unconstitutional..."

An analysis published by The Washington Post found that "routinely, he defers to government officials and others in positions of authority" and has "very little sympathy for those asserting rights against the government."

In sum, in case after case, Judge Alito's decisions demonstrate a systematic tilt toward the powerful institutions and against individuals attempting to vindicate their rights. He cites a few instances in which he has decided for the little guy, but they are few and far between.

Justice Lewis Powell captured the spirit of America best when he said: "Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring idea of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists."

In evaluating Supreme Court nominees, there are no more important questions than whether they are dedicated to equal justice under law. Judge Alito is a highly intelligent man, but his record does not show a judge who is willing to enforce the constitutional limitations on executive power when government officials intrude on individual rights.

His record does not show a judge who is open to the claims of vulnerable individuals asking only justice against powerful institutions. His record does not show a judge who upholds the liberty and privacy of citizens seeking to protect their fundamental rights.

His record just does not show a judge who is committed to equal justice under law.

Full text of Senator Kennedy's speech can be found here.

It's clear. The time to act is now.

Blog entry written by Rick Alberson and Barry Schwartz, with contributions by Casey Morris and Suz Krueger.

[Editors Note: DCP regular Native Texan sends us this report on the what happened in Texas yesterday. Many thanks go to Native for the time and effort spent so that we may gain a beter understanding and greater insight into Texas politics.]

I teach at a small, secular private high school in Texas. The faculty is almost all liberal, with a few painful exceptions. Since it is Texas, after all, the majority of the students hold the conservative views of their parents. However, there are many smart, dedicated liberal students as well. Yesterday they made us all proud.

For the first time yesterday, our school was being used as a polling place. Texans were voting on a ban on gay marriage.

On Monday, thinking it would be an educational experience, a few other teachers and I took our morning classes to the room where the voting was to take place to hear from the Republican head of the precinct. I honestly do not remember ever being so mad in my life.

This man passed out propaganda from the Free Market Organization and referred to Democrats as “black hats” and Republicans as “white hats.” When a student asked a simple question regarding technicalities of how the precincts are determined, this man opened up a pocket constitution, read the first amendment, declared that “separation between church and state should not exist,” and THREW the constitution at another teacher! Then he passed out an article which he himself had written in support of the ban on gay marriage, which said *DIRECT QUOTE* “Nothing good came out of the 1960s...Everything that was good in the 60s turned bad.” It was disgusting.

The good news is that the students who were there to hear him, excepting just one, recognized how hateful and unjust this was.

The next day, election day, three seniors bought poster board and markers and began making signs in support of equal rights and against Proposition Two, the ban on gay marriage. Others joined in and made more and more signs. During lunch, which happened to be when the most people came by to vote, around 30 students held their own signs outside the school and chanted “Prop. Two will not do!” Some of the best signs said:

All men are created equal. When we say ALL, we mean ALL!

Keep CHURCH and STATE separate!

Armando over at DailyKos posted this article from Yoo and Paulsen at the LA Times. Let's ignore the snarky implication of "Where were these guys on Robert's?", and move forward to what is obvious--that this is the approach the Senate should be taking on all nominees.

The administration's stealth strategy assumes that it is improper for senators to ask, or for a nominee to answer, a question about Roe vs. Wade or any other substantive constitutional question. This has things exactly backward. The Constitution not only permits such questioning, it arguably requires it. Although the Constitution makes judges independent after appointment, it sets up an explicitly political appointment process before a judge is approved. Why on Earth would determining a nominee's approach to interpreting the Constitution be thought to be out of bounds, before giving her a lifetime appointment to do exactly that?

Is there any line of inquiry that the Constitution does not permit? Yes. It would be improper to try to exact a pledge as to how a nominee will rule in future cases. As long as the inquiry stops short of that, it does not violate the Constitution's protection of judicial independence, nor does it violate judicial ethics. Parties before the courts are entitled to judges who will consider their cases without bias. But they are not entitled to judges who have no views of the law. An open mind is one thing; an empty head is another.

Well said.

As a follow-up to my critique last week of “strict constructionist” judicial philosophy (Judicial Fundamentalism), I thought this 2004 Op Ed by Professor Joseph J. Ellis, exploring the related ideology of “original intent”, would be of interest.

Joseph Ellis is the author of several well received books on American history, including his most recent New York Times best seller, His Excellency: George Washington; others books include American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson; The Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams; and Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. He is the Ford Foundation Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College.

*****

What Would Jefferson Say About the Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage?

By Joseph J. Ellis

Abraham Lincoln once observed that America was founded on a proposition, and that Thomas Jefferson wrote it. He was referring, of course, to the section of the Declaration of Independence that begins, "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . " The reality, though, is that we are founded on a debate over what Jefferson's proposition means. And the current struggle over gay marriage is but the most recent chapter in that longstanding American argument.

Editor's Note: Cross posted at The Daily Kos under diary title, "The Elephant In Harriet Miers Room."

With the announcement of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, a number of questions came to my mind regarding how her personal experiences may have shaped whatever her judicial philosophy may be.

In choosing Ms. Miers, the President has sucessfully escaped a nominee with a judicial record on which to base an opinion, but to that strategy, I would say, "Not so fast, Mr. President".

Sure, there's no record to question, but since there isn't anything to question, that leaves an awful lot of room for asking questions. Questions about anything and everything that may have shaped her thinking about the law.

Let's look at the "elephant in the room" questions first:

Ms. Miers, are now or have you ever been a homosexual? Have you ever had a homosexual experience?

Ms. Miers, have you ever had sex outside of marriage?

Ms. Miers, have you ever had an abortion or have you ever been pregnant?

Well, those few questions alone ought to get the conversation going.

Look, I am not saying that asking about someone's personal life is a great thing. I am saying that I didn't bring the subject up for judicial review by filing any number of legal cases, the results of which threaten to insert themselves into the general geography of my uterus.

On paper, this choice makes my brother look qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Anyone here know my brother? Here's a heckuva guy and a good lawyer, but he's neither a Holmes nor a Fortas.

Not every lawyer is qualified for the Supreme Court by virtue of the fact that they are a lawyer.

And frankly, I don't know if Bush's girl scout is a good choice or not. But I do know this: We don't need a girl scout on the Supreme Court any more than we needed a Brownie over at FEMA.

While browsing one of my favorite websites the other day, The Pluralism Project, I came across a link to this provocative Op-Ed, from the Dallas Morning News. In this column, the author, an agnostic, argues for the teaching of religion in the public schools.

Say what?

Let me rephrase that: she argues that the public schools should be teaching children about religion, and about each of the philosophical perspectives that impact lives in a community. This is an idea that I've been advocating for a quite a while, and I believe that Ms. Mitchell does an excellent job of laying out the case for it. Give her column a read, and let me know what you think.

*****

You Might Not Expect an Agnostic to Say Let's Teach Religion in the Public Schools

by Deborah Mitchell

Sometimes we find allies in the most unusual people. I'm not a Christian, not a Jew, not a Hindu and not a member of any other organized religion. I'm agnostic, and I suppose that puts me on the fringe in my community.

It can be a scary place: There are no safety nets, no lights at the end of the tunnel. When I turn in for bed at night and the room is dark and quiet, I imagine that death feels similar to that nothingness.