FRIST AGAIN

ROOTZ

fitz

I have sinned….my 1 should have read FITZ AGAIN

Larry -

You’re forgiven.

:)

Peterr — thanks so much for following up your post from last week with this discussion. These are the sorts of issues that need more airing out before the elections in November — and well before the 2008 Presidential season starts ramping up. We have deferred discussions like this to the far right — and I, for one, think it’s about time we reclaim debate instead of ceding the question entirely. It’s time that people don’t automatically attach the word “right” to “religious” — and this sort of discussion points out the vast array of differences. Thanks so much for getting it started!

I have to admit, Larry, that was frightening! For a moment, I thought perhaps you were in need of an exorcism.

And I want my DISBELIEF respected!

Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.

Athiests arise. You have nothing to lose but the Fascist Bullying of the “Pious.”

Peterr, you nailed it, great post, thanks.
BTW, if you haven’t had the chance to imbibe, iirc, Jane had a killer post about “Declaring Victory,” in the “War on Xmas,” last December or January.

My minister had an interesting take on the church and state issue. He said try substituting a kind of religion-ish group that you despise, and see if the rules make sense.

Here’s my EPU from above: Blank Kludge 335 late nite:

Marked “For egregious” (EYES ONLY): http://w ww.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/06/30/storage_ giant_emc_to_buy_rsa_for_21b/

Here is the original link.

Me?

Link is about merger involving a data security company. Oh and look it’s a miracle, VA says the missing laptop was ‘found’ and they pinky promise that nothing was stolen! They said so!

These stories all remind me of the guy who smashes windshields by night and operates a windshield installation company by day.

Create the problem, offer to $olve the problem.
$o $imple.

Greetings, egregious.

Sincerely,
Kludge.

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” – Sinclair Lewis

ABB!!!

Peterr, thanks so much for turning me onto her — obviously another must-read to add to my list.

David at 8 — I found the above illustration and thought it was perfect for this discussion this morning. And, fyi, it was from a now-defunct atheist website. (Thank goodness for cache files, because the illustration was just too perfect…)

egreg;

just to clarify and be certain. I agree w/your assessment. I remembered your previous points on the issue. Makes sense to me. (But, some might say I push tin-foil…) so
FWIW

;->

Christy 14 — ALL these graphics you find for us are stunning. I can’t imagine where/how you do it, but they and you are constantly impeccable.

Larry it was a “fristian slip”, sometimes an asshole really IS an asshole.

I clearly remember coming home from the first day of fourth grade and telling my mom that my teacher Miss Rosencrantz was not religious — we did not start the day with a prayer, as all school days up until then had! Mom sat me down and explained the change in our nation’s laws that summer. This may have been when wee Teddy first heard of SCOTUS….

PS At that point, in fourth grade, I was rather intrigued that there was a force, somewhere in the universe, that my teacher had to obey! This was an alien a concept as was not starting the day with a prayer….

@8

Damn straight, too many people, even those normally friendly to progressive causes, equate freedom of religion with “freedom to practice religion”. It’s still perfectly acceptable in our society to discriminate and otherwise harass atheists and agnostics for their beliefs.

What, you worked out a reasonable moral code without the strict laws handed down by God Almighty? INCONCEIVABLE!

lotus at 16 — Jane and I always joke that finding the illustrations takes us as long (or longer sometimes) than the actual article writing does. We’re both very picky about the visuals — but we are lucky to have a lot of graphics folks who sometimes send things along for us to use. And we also both tend to collect images here and there for later use if they are eye-catching enough. But it’s tough to marry the right pic with the post — and every once in a while, we just get really lucky. :)

PeterR,

before I dive in to what looks like a delectable post (found ABB about 2 months ago via Redneck Mother) just gotta say

the Fourth is approaching and is on my mind – it is becoming increasingly like a personal Holy Day for me and mine

The brilliance and prescience of the Founders and their Intelligent Design looms larger on an almost daily basis for me – I swear to Goodness, just reading the Bill of Rights these days chokes me up. On my better days, I thank Fate for placing me here at a time that so closely resembles that of the Founders, to genuinely ask myself everyday – How Would A Patriot Act ? and to have found this community of fellow pampleteers just makes me so grateful

ok, back to the post

Christy,

Can you make sure Jane sees comment 69…

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..tlas-wept/

Lucky, hell, Christy — it’s another mark of your two geniuses.

And speaking of Jane, any word from her re how Katie an’ them are doing this morning?

windje @12 sez:

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” – Sinclair Lewis

It bears repeating.

.

Larry at 23 — Will see what I can do. And the latest from Jane is that Katie is doing okay. Just FYI everyone.

Peterr,

Great article. But I’m not so sure that the generational component is that critical. What is happening now is an ideologial movement motivated by obscure theories of Christian Dominionism combined with the right’s vision of the past as some conservative utopia.

I totally agree with you that the separation of church and state is good for the church. As a pastor, do you think that that opinion is growing in the christian community?

And the latest from Jane is that Katie is doing okay.

Glad to hear it.

.

egregious and Blank,

said on 12/19/05 – “this is somehow related to COMMERCE either some ‘Pioneer’ getting paid back with a snooping and or scanning contract – or checking out Orange Juice/Oil futures to benefit some supporters”

and I’ve seen nothing in the ensuing 6 months to dissuade me -

I agree with your point that separation of church and state protects the church as much as the state – I think it is a good one to make when and if progressives discuss religion in the public sphere. You might also add a codicil – when just barely religious persons are given a patina of religiosity in their public lives (prayer in school, public religious displays, etc.) they tend to think of themselves as sufficiently churched – and I guarantee you a great many of them haven’t darkened the door of an actual church in years. Why should they, when they get their religion from the government Mondays thru Fridays? My parents rail against attempts to banish a tacky Nativity scene from the state capitol grounds but don’t bother to actually go to church on Christmas Eve. To be perfectly honest, I don’t give a rats ass one way or another about the Nativity scene, but I do care that people think they can find reigious inspiration at the state capitol.

As an example of how snarled-up things can get between religion and government, maybe it isn’t so OT if I ask whether you’ve heard the latest from Holland. The attempt to cancel Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Dutch citizenship has now brought down PM Balkenende.

The Times of London has the story.

2,533.

It’s a number. Just a number. The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq to date for The Messianic Glory of this Great and Fearless Warrior:

http://www.bgladd.com/The_Disgracer_in_Chief.jpg

0.

It’s a number. Just a number. The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq to date by Saddam’s WMD.

http://www.bgladd.com/Just_a_Number.jpg

And, oh, BTW, didja hear that Noble Clarence The Thomas, in his angry Hamdan dissent, excoriated his Supreme Court Brethern for failing to have any “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare.”

Well, ZERO is also the total number of days this pathetic clown fought for this nation in uniform.

Unlike Justice John Paul Stevens, the author of the Hamdan majority opinion, who served in the U.S. Navy during World War II.

Wolcott was so enamoured by last night’s TRexxing he linked to it after a delicious introduction http://jameswolcott.com/archiv…..uments.php

our GeorgiaBoi is indeed flying close to the sun!

PeterR,

fine ass post – do you mind my asking about the denomination you serve ?

It’s ok not to answer, but I ask ’cause I keep waiting for some mainstream Church Leaders to speak out about the “hijacking of a Great Religion” – talk about your crickets !

I frequent the National Council of Churches site – and they are great in responding to all my questions – except this one

No one wants to be seen as disparaging another Church, but what could be so bad about standing up FOR the Constitution ?

Duh. You know what I meant. Fumble fingers to start the day.

dharmarific @ 27

Hard to say. In some circles, it certainly is happening.

Quick example: Back in the mid-90s, following the example in Colorado TheoCons, some rightwingers in Missouri began to circulate petitions to amend the state constitution to allow discrimination against GLBTs – in housing, employment, etc. When word of the petitions began to circulate in mainstream circles, a group of clergy came together to oppose it publicly and in the name of religion. “We have lots of different theological opinions on homosexuality,” they said, “but we are united in saying that everyone in our society deserves the full protection of the laws.”

When the TheoCons realized that their message of “This is the ‘Christian’ thing to do” wasn’t going to fly without a fight, they backed down and never filed the petitions.

So it can happen – but it took a specific right-wing proposal to get these folks into the discussion.

[BTW - I love the handle!]

Though I do not attend church or mass anymore, one could say that I have a bit of residual believer left in me. Those that are devout in their beliefs should support separation of church and state with all their soul. For without rigorous separation, our government could insist, indeed make it mandatory for all its citizens to subscribe to a certain religion. And that is really scary. Wasn’t that one of the prime reasons the Pilgrims left England? To escape state sponsored and enforced religious beliefs. “True believers”, I would think, would see an immediate and profound contradiction between what the Bush fundamentists are trying to foist, and freedom of religion. Speaking for myself only. I don’t view religion as the problem. It’s the politicians and those who want to take away our “God given right” to worship, or not to worship. That’s the problem. Good post.

O/T hubby just turned on the teevee -

MegaDildoes Daryn !

The Georgetown Law panel discussion is just beginning on C-Span1.

EPU’d –

The News Hour segment on the Hamdan decision was very illuminating. One point that jumped out at me — The SCOTUS interpreted the Geneva Convention Common Article 3 to include the Gitmo Detainees, and in so doing filled a gap in the treaty. The rest of the world adopted a Geneva Convention revision in the 1980’s, but Reagan rejected it. (EPU’d excerpt downstairs)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb…..06-29.html

cbl -

I’m a Lutheran, of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America variety.

(There are lots of different flavors of Lutheran, from the TheoCon variety to the wildly progressive. Three guesses as to where I come out on that spectrum . . .)

Peterr,

Great observations.

Living in a semi-suburban area where the preponderance of Christians are fundamentalists, evangelicals or charismatics, I’ve noticed a trend since late 2005. It relates to the closing comment by ABB in your quote. ABB points out what has been obvious to a lot of us since before Bush moved from Texs to DC, “that the current administration is giving Christianity a bad name.”

Up to late 2005 fungelical Christians seemed fairly uniform in support of Bush. But since then, though the huge mega-churches (500 or more members) continue their support, the smaller, more independent ones are rapidly peeling off from Bush.

I posted the comment below at the end of Redd’s Hamdan post:

“I can imagine George Bush looking himself in the mirror this morning as he shaves, saying “OK, Stevens, you’ve covered your ass, so…..?””

Yesterday Tommy Yum mentioned that Bush called the Hamdan decision a “quote, ‘decision’”.

Coincidentally, that is also exactly how I refer to Bush v. Gore.

It all makes me wonder what would have happened if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way in 2000. Would the Bush camp have graciously accepted a contrary decision in Bush v. Gore?

OfT from the WaPo’s online chat with Dana Milbank.
I was shocked, pleasently, that he used the term “roots,” which I bolded below. He used to call us “Froomkins.”

“Durango, Colo.: Does Feingold have any chance in 2008, or is he just way too liberal?
Dana Milbank: I’m always wrong about these things, but I’d put it at pretty close to zero. It’s not necessarily the liberal thing — he voted for Roberts, don’t forget — but the notion that most everybody in the party doesn’t like him. Even if the roots love him, he’ll still need some establishment help.”

David Ehrenstein said: “And I want my DISBELIEF respected! Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.”

I agree completely! In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment as such:

Neither [state nor Federal government] can force or influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbeleif in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendence or nonattendence.

Of course, this administration has no use for any of the First Amendment, so why should we expect them to respect the various interpretations thereof?

Note: I’m not sure why there’s a “‘” in my requoting of David’s comment. It’s not in my text, but it pops up in the preview. Anyone know why it’s doing that or how to fix?

windje, thanks for your 8:30.

cbl@22 – Amen, honey. Us hicks in the sticks who still believe in things like, oh, the constitution and bill of rights, not the Capitalist Manifesto (is there such a thing?) are in a deep creek, sans paddle. I really wish he hadn’t said the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

Peterr! Fantastic post, man. Holy groves of trees indeed. Raised Catholic, married in a Taoist Companionating Ceremony, that’s the altar I worship on. God created the world and let ‘er rip. It’s up to us now what we do with it. Miracles happen in the spaces in between.

Jefferson’s metaphor of the wall of separation is deceptively simple–like the perfect illustration in the cartoon above. But the problem is that we are dealing with another religion. state religion. it’s state religion that’s more of a problem than fundamentalists. (sometimes using the weighty symbols of the guys on the other side of the wall to give themselves authority, or making civil symbols into the holy taboo–flag burning). there are religions on both sides of the wall.

Peterr,

Thanks for this post. In MHO we need more, much more–on this critical subject.

…and whilst on the subject of more…I am out of Jamesons…..
off I go……….”my penance never ends…”

Larry

I was raised a Methodist, but left the church because Killing for Christ is the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.

Humans are never so vicious, as when the wage war on each other in the name of God.

The founding fathers recognized this, and wisely created the separation of Church and State — to put a check on man’s basest instincts.

Amy Goodman is interviewing Barbara Olshansky wrt the Hamdan decision– part of the transcript is up now.

>>>>>>>>>>

BARBARA OLSHANSKY: You know, for us, I think it was a tremendous reaffirmation that — of the institutions and how they can work in the country. The fact that the judiciary was willing to step up to the plate and look at what the executive is doing and do the right thing, take the action to make sure that the executive complies with the law. And for me, although it sounds so basic, it’s something that we were watching erode over the last five years, and so that was, you know, probably the most heartening part of it, and that they were willing to look at it in its entire scope.

And what this decision says in very sort of calm, rational, historical terms is that the entire structure of the war on terror is unlawful, that it was based on a premise, an idea of an enemy combatant, which is a status that was created by the President, that it was intended to take place on an island that was outside the law somehow, and that the President could create all of the laws that applied there, like it was his own constructed universe.

And what this decision does in a very rational way is say you can’t do that. No piece of what you have done is lawful. And it’s quite an astounding decision for that reason. It really goes to, as you said, every part of the war on terror.

http://www.democracynow.org/ar…..30/1334232

Christy,

Your 26…Thanks.

Peterr, I have a feeling you’ll forgive me if I momentarily direct everyone’s attention to EPU’d 107 (and the next few) on the last thread. Seems that those of us wishing for a good long dose of Mary may be about to get our wish. (Shhh, don’t let on a thang.)

Bill W of AA once said IIRC that an important step to sobriety was learning that “God is God and I’m not.”
I think our President Clusterfuck hasn’t quite learned this one yet.

Right wingers often say that “Separation of Church and State” aren’t mentioned in the Constitution.

Maybe we should keep reminding them of something:

In the Constitution:
“Congress” = “Government”
– i.e., because in the Constitution, unlike Bushworld, only Congress makes laws

and

“Establishment of Religion” = “Church”
– i.e., because they wanted to use better, more legally applicable words instead of “church,” which could mean a lot of things

So, re-read the First Amendment above, substituting “Government” in where it says “Congress,” and “Church” in where it says “Establishment of Religion,” and see what happens.

It’s kind of neat to actually read the Constitution before shredding it.

Peterr–no one ever raises this ugly head, but 5 out of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic (o.k. Kennedy is a little iffy when it comes to practice), but the particular 4 who are disturbing are “very religious”. As a different sort of Catholic, this alarms me, and I am afraid there will be a backlash against us Catholics one day when people wake up and see this bias on the court.

Saw a bumpersticker recently that read:

“Love Thy Enemy”
probably means not killing them.

Not always. I did attend public schools, not in NY but in Ohio, before the 1962 ruling. We were not forced to recite the Lord’s Prayer, but if we did not choose to, we were made to go and stand in the hall. I think my formative experience as a strong supporter of the First Amendment was when, in second grade, my new best friend turned out to be the only Jewish girl in the class. On day 1, she got up and walked out of the classroom alone. Everybody stared. The next morning, my obnoxious little self got up and walked out with her. Oh, what a long walk that was. I got in trouble for it, but my parents amazingly stood up for me. So we went and stood in the hall together.

I was a religious child, too. Choir and all at the Episcopal church. But it just plain seemed wrong.

It’s wrong to force people to practice a religion they don’t believe in. It’s wrong to make a spectacle of people who refuse to practice a religion they don’t believe in. It is just plain wrong to use the power of authority to do that. And the Theocons themselves would agree with this, if they had the wit to imagine themselves on the receiving end of Offical Authority trying to make them bow to Mecca, or spin a prayer wheel, or kiss the feet of a statue of Augustus Caeser.

They are a small, if vocal, minority. They are hijacking our Constitution, and our fundamental values and beliefs.

El Cid,

“God” isn’t mentioned in the Constitution either, not that word nor any references to a supreme being, Creator, Divine Providence, or any other similar phrase.

Religion only gets two mentions in the Constitution – and both of them are negative. One place is the first amendment, and the other is the prohibition against using any religious test for holding public office.

Hmmm . . . two references to religion, and both are prohibitions . . .

Via Crooked Timber, Steven Poole has a great bit of snark on the dissenting opinions in the Hamdan case. He’s not a lawyer, but I hope his view on the tribunals and the Geneva Conventions is correct:

Alito does not challenge the finding that Geneva Common Article 3 applies; he argues instead that the special military commissions used at Guantnamo do in fact constitute what Geneva demands, a “regularly constituted court” [p177]. This is a difficult argument to make, given that Geneva’s elucidatory commentary explicitly defines “regularly constituted” courts as meaning “ordinary military courts”, and explicitly excludes “all special tribunals” [p180]. Because the Guantnamo military commissions do not rise to the standard of ordinary courts martial and are used nowhere else, they are clearly the sort of “special” tribunals banned by Geneva, as the Court in fact found.

Anyone have an informed opinion on this? If this is correct, it would mean that whatever enabling Spector decided to do, he can’t just reconstitute Bush’s military tribunals by congressional action (at least not without withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions.)

Those who advocate religion outside of their churches are really admitting that their churches fail to provide a sufficient religious experience. They may go to church once a week, but they are left wanting by what they receive. The solution is not forcing everyone else to pray their way in public places. The solution is for them to find a church that meets their religious needs.

Thank you, Peterr, for this fine contribution to FDL. I hope others of faith will follow your example: protecting their faith from the state as the state fends off attempts by other faithful to hijack it.

========
Had Enough?
========

Peterrrrrr! big shout-out from this secular humanist.

I want to make a very simple point about religion, the Founders and the Constitution that I haven’t seen brought up: Most of them were (gasp) lawyers!!! The majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were trained as attorneys, if not actually practicing. Those who were not — including a handful of ordained clergymen — had extensive experience in their respective legislatures. This means that they were thoroughly grounded in legal thinking and the language of law.

As such, they constructed a legal document, with the precision and careful use of language that entails. Even the ambiguities were carefully worked out, even the evasions (”slavery” does not appear in the text) were carefully deliberated.

Which means if they had intended this to be a “Christian nation” they would have BLOODY WELL SAID SO!!! Instead, they did precisely the opposite. The two places in which religion is mentioned in this legal document put it clearly, expressly and unambiguously beyond the purview of the government.

The Founders were not dopes. They knew exactly what they were saying. If they were here today, they would smack us upside our collective head and say, “Schmuck! Can’t you read???

(Of course, it would look more like Fchmuck…)

.

Beth M –

Good for your rebellious little self, and your rebellious parents, too!

Going along with “we’re an empire now, we make our own reality,” I guess we’ll withdraw from the Geneva Conventions.

Bets as to when?

I’m sorry, I screwed up the formating on that.

David Broder is either having serious keyboard issues or else he has invented a new language…

btw– Milbank and Broder both took questions from me. woo-hoo!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00935.html

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/2…../index.htm

Toxic politics
Is the United States coming apart? The idea of the status quo persisting forever cannot simply be assumed, especially when the national rhetoric is so divisive.

By Cait Murphy, FORTUNE assistant managing editor
June 30 2006: 10:38 AM EDT

ASPEN, COLO. (FORTUNE) — Juan Enriquez is very, very smart. He’s got a zillion degrees, founded the Life Sciences Project at Harvard’s B-School, has started several businesses, and even helped in peace negotiations with Mexico’s Zapatista rebellion. One distinguishing feature of his intelligence is that he likes to ask interesting questions.

At FORTUNE’s Brainstorm conference in Aspen, Colorado on June 29, he drew a crowd with this one: Is the United States becoming untied? The question is also an ad for his book, The Untied States of America — a rather curious assembly of statistics, random thoughts, pictures of Ah-nold, old maps and the occasional narrative.

(snip)

And some of the points of division that Enriquez identifies are just differences, not fractures. The beauty of such a big, sprawling mess of a land is that if you don’t like the direction of State X, you can move to State Y. You don’t have to leave the country – or split it up – to find what you want.

That said, there is something toxic in the air, with the most strident blues and the harshest reds dominating the debate in Washington, and screeching over the airwaves seemingly everywhere else. Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, seem incapable of working and playing with others.

But this is emphatically not where the country is, which is one of the reasons the current Congress has record-low approval ratings. In most of the country, reds and blues are not at each other’s throats — they are working together, coaching Little League, hell, even marrying each other.

(snip)

Peterr 36 — Thanks, I love the handle too, but I’m not attached to it. ;-)

I am begining to see a growth in confidence of the progressive Christian community. Although I’m not a Christian, I think the progressive Christian message of love and inclusion is the antidote for the strident, rules based, message of the religious right. Thanks for being a part of the solution.

OfT: David Broder is seriously drunk-spelling in his chat….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00935.html

Recently finished reading a pertinent book: The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman. It deals mainly with the 4th and 5th centuries ACE and does a great job of showing that Christianity’s inclination to forcing its world view down peoples’ throats goes back practically to the origins of the religion itself. Constantine was barely cool in his grave before the previous persecutees became enthusiastic persecutors now that they had the force of the collapsing empire behind them. All in all a great, informative read, especially for a lifelong recovering Lutheran such as myself. I highly recommend it.

David Broder is either having serious keyboard issues or else he has invented a new language%u2026

Golly, angie, he sure is having typing problems. I noticed that last week too. Wonder if he’s ill . . .

Punaise –

Better a shout out than a shout at – thanks!

One more on Hamdan, though I realize it’s OT — there have been several instances (Tony Snow most prominently) where the administration appears to be having to deal with its own previous propaganda, specifically their endless attempts to claim that the only two options with the Gtmo detainees are to do exactly what Bush wants or to let them go. Snow’s saying they have to reassure people that “this is not a get out of jail free card” made me think “only people who were stupid enough to believe you before!”

I guess I’m just wondering about how much this is more cynical manipulation, and how much prominent Republicans and their base actually believe their own propaganda.

It seems like this is one of the points to hammer on, to chip away at the non-TFM support — “They told you this was the only way other than releasing them. Now we know it’s not. How many other cases where they tried to scare you into letting the government control people’s lives weren’t true either?”

Preview is our friend.
Preview is our friend.
Preview is our friend.

whew– Broder said he just got a new keyboard, so it ain’t a sickness or drink.

Second that whew, angie.

Peterr – just curious – do you read or participate in Street Prophets?

guys,
the hubster just said Katyal debated Yoo last night ?!?! Link anyone ???

friends are our purview

(quaker oaths?)

I saw them on Newshour, cbl.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/supreme_court/

Cut Broder some slack — at least he’s showing up to chat.

My brain-hand-typos are really bad too, and without spell check and proof readin’ my typin’ looks like an idjits.

Here’s the transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb…..06-29.html

In other words, Scalia says that those who practice minority religions or those with practices rooted in opposition to prevailing religious beliefs only have such rights as the majority deigns to give them politically.

Peterr – Actually, the Supreme Court had ruled long before the case you cite on Native American peyote use that there is a distinction between belief and practice (See, Reynolds v. United States 98 US 145 (1879)). There is really little to distinguish between Reynolds and the reasoning in Reynolds. The SC was really just following long standing precedence.

Whether you like Scalia’s reasoning or not, it really wan’t that original.

Live blogging C-Span! Finally, the rationalization for buying this laptop. The Georgetown Law School panel on Hamdon and Military Tribunals – Meal Katyal, lead plaintiff atty – and he is good! Eloquent tho he said he thinks any president would have grabbed for all that power in time of war. Said difference between looking tough and being tough – shoulld be tough by going through our courts. This decision not a rebuke to Bush but just what the Founding Fathers anticipated. Also, we should celebrate that an illiterate Yemeni could sue the highest official in the most powerful nation in the world and get his day in court. This is a powerful message that our system is better than yours.

Minnesotachuck @ 72

Haven’t read Freeman’s book, but the general premise sounds right.

I can’t help but say, though, that this isn’t a trait peculiar to the church. Whenever any oppressed minority reverses the tables, there’s incredible temptation to “return the favor” to those who oppressed them. We could be talking about corporate boardroom politics, cleaning house by the NeoCons at the CIA, or anywhere else the tables get turned.

One of the miracles of the 20th century, in my book, was the relatively peaceful transition of power in South Africa from white to black, that bucked this temptation in a big, big way.

Angie & Lotus,

Broder is not well, in spite of his new keyboard excuse. He has some pretty serious health issues from years of ignoring serious health issues.

Peterr,

What a fine post. I’m glad to see fdl hosting views with a religous perspective. Too long has the right been allowed to claim a monopoly on faith, and too long has this administration tried to tar progressives as anti-religion.

As member (at least by birth) of a minority relgion (Jewish) I have first hand reason to appreciate the separation of church and state. I can still recall the severe discomfort I felt as a child in public elementary school in the 60’s having to sometimes recite specifically Christian prayers and songs. It was intended (pardon the pun) in good faith, but it felt like – and was – an affront to my autonomy and culture.

I fondly recall the quote of a Southern Babtist to her prayer-happy school: “You teach ‘em the first three r’s… and I’ll take care of the fourth, religion, at home.”

The founding fathers had it right to put a wall between government and relgion. Their approach was essentially: “With respect to matters of faith, let’s leave our churches – and citizens – alone.” Amen.

wildly OT, big sports news (no soccer spoilers here): major riders DQ’d from the Tour de France

Contenders Ullrich, Basso barred from Tour de France

STRASBOURG, France — The Tour de France was stripped of three of its biggest names on Friday after Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso and Francisco Mancebo were named in a doping investigation in Spain.

Can anyone tell me how forgiveness of sin works in the Evangelical Church? I was raised a Catholic, so I get the confession/penance angle, but does being born again give you an automatic pass?

I ask because one of the most frustrating thing about the Bush Co god-botherers is that they don’t even attempt to avoid things that are clearly a sin in their dogma. I know, they are truly hypocrites, but by making them defend their actions in terms of their religion we can claim back some of our moral high ground. The hole in the argument is that God might forgive them, but if there is a mechanism that they have to go through, we can ask if they have done so.

Is it fair to ask the President if he thinks Jesus would approve of the things that he has done in the GWOT?

Stephen Parrish, CPA at 69:

Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, seem incapable of working and playing with others.

Sigh. This kind of thing makes me sick. Democrats in Congress spent the ten years after 1994 getting kicked in the nuts and laughed at afterwards every time they trusted Republicans that this time they were really interested in working together. And now that they’ve finally figured it out, we get a parade of weasels like this declaring “oh, the problem’s on both sides equally.”

When you have two kids fighting, it’s fine to say “I don’t care who started it” and just make them stop. When you have one kid who’s a bully, pretending he’s not will just mean that the other will continue to get beat up.

punaise @ 79 & 91

I drop by Street Prophets from time to time, but not all that often.

As for the cycling mess, it’s incredible. Something like 50 riders on a half a dozen teams, and evidence that appears to be airtight. Even the team spokespeople aren’t defending their riders.

Thanks so much as always Angie !!!

mommybrain 88, I’m truly sorry to hear that. He’s been a fine journalist for as many years as I’ve known there were such things. Off his game a bit lately, probably, but he’s still someone I respect and honor.

Morning reverend. A couple of thoughts:
1. Sometimes I wonder if some evangelicals are just plain scared…and they shouldn’t be. It’s almost like they fear if my child doesn’t have morning prayers at school, he’ll turn into the devil. Or, if my child doesn’t have daily bible class at public school, he’ll turn into Hitler. And then there’s other evangelicals who are more the “true believer” types…my way or the highway. Perhaps, there are different “grades and shades” of evangelicalism.

2. To an extent, I also fault religious leaders for the current problems with church/state. When a church, or a group from a church speaks out and “demands” prayer in school…where’s the religious leaders of that same religion? Why aren’t they speaking up and saying “no, we do not need God’s teachings in our public schools to be good Christians”, and so forth. They seem to be all too silent on all this. And, I’m NOT blaming Peterr at all…just an observation.

Ghostman

Punaise – heard that on the beeb this morning – no lance, no ulrich, no basso … gonna be a strange Tours!

watching World Cup but wanting to see cspan too … hope Kathryn in MA keeps live blogging -better than tivo!

Even more wildly OT:

Full Metal Clarence

‘Let me see your Ook face’

;>)

cycling/steroids: guess they really ‘lanced’ a festering boil.

FWIW, it’s possible the WaPo is trying to embarrass Broder into retirement. As others have mentioned, this “creative spelling stuff” is not new for him, but it appears more serious than I have seen it before. If the WaPo cared about him or their reputation, they could find someone to type his verbal resposes into the chat. WAG Alert (wild ass guess).

I was just thinking the same thing, John Casper. Shame on them for it.

Sitting here watch a fairly boring Germany vs Argentina match, polishing and oiling my bugle. I’m off soon to play “taps” at three memorial services for deceased veterans. One will be at the National Cemetery at Fort Richardson.

Chaplains have always fascinated me. They have been a part of our military since the beginnings, When Washington took over the Continetal Army, there were fifteen chaplains for 23 regiments. The US Army Chaplain School is at Ft. Jackson in the heart of conservative South Carolina.

Chaplains have always been used by military commanders in a particularly unreligious way before battles.

Oops, game just got more exiting Vossa crossed himself after his goal……..

I would put nothing past the corporate media, John Casper. That would be truly despicable, though. cbl– you’re welcome.

Bill E @ 92

There’s no formal mechanism in the way you speak of, except for the pressure of the community to stand up against visible and public sinners. In that vein, Evangelical icon Tony Campolo posted just such a column at HuffPo, calling out Bush for his policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..22895.html

Campolo has a big evangelical following, but not in the same political league as Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson. Still, I wish that more evangelicals would follow his lead!

Carlos Vasquez – Supreme Court authoritative interpreter of treatys, contradicting John Yoo re Geneva Convention. Congress cannot “restore” the administration’s interpretation. To do so would be clear repudiation of the treaty, which the Professor hopes will not happen, at least re the treatment of our own soldiers.

breaking news: Barry Bonds enters the Tour de France!

now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

Peterr !!

Go Luban– talking about War Crimes!!!!!!!!!!!

Percy,89: “The founding fathers had it right to put a wall between government and relgion.”

Not disagreeing with this statement, just want to refine what it says about a “wall between government and religion.”

I think “wall” is the wrong choice of simile here because a wall implies that there would be no common ground between government and religion. In fact, there is much common ground between government and religion, and that is the welfare of the people and the health of the body politic.

I think what the founder had in mind was a relationshp of mutual respect between the state and the churches, and while the government should not interfere with the practice of religion, the churches should not interfere with the act(s) of governing.

So the separation we are talking about is not an insurmountable “wall” between the two as much as an understanding whose continued and ongoing obervance shall be held up by law.

This may be nitpicking, but we often frame our thoughts around similes and metaphors, then we get caught up in them, forgetting that they are just figures of speech, not hard realities.

David Luban – outlined the 4 articles of the Geneva Conventions, including protection from humiliation and degrading treatment. Now, incumbent on interrigators and now punishment attaches, to military and civilian (think CIA).

Bill E. @ 92 (again)

Given Bush’s use of religious language and justification for his policies, I think that if a reporter asked questions – respectfully – that juxtaposed Bush’s actions with Jesus’ statements, it would be a very interesting exchange. . .

Q: President Bush, you speak of yourself as a faithful Christian, guided by scripture. How do your guidelines for treatment and interrogation of prisioners in what you call the “war on terror” square with Jesus’ injuction to “love your enemies”? Can you explain how waterboarding is showing love for your enemy?

I’ll let you imagine the answer.

separating church and state makes sense only for people who believe that other people have a right to believe something different than they do. For those insecure people who want to force others to believe the same as them, such as the cult of republicanism does, using the power and tools of governement to impress their beliefs on those who believe differently makes perfect sens.
.

Jeesh.

Captain Hook can type better than Broder.

-GSD

David Luban – Military rewriting of their Field Manual should include this decision. However, the definition of torture and conduct that shocks the conscience has to be settled in the federal courts.

George Bush walks on waterboards.

punaise,

Does Hamdan mean Bush has to stop practicing executive Unitarianism?

punaise @ 115

Pass me a towel to wipe up the coffee!

Bill E, imo Evangelicals are going to trace their position on “penance,” back to Luther. BTW, in no way do I mean to blame Luther for Evangelicals, his influence on Xtianity is up there with Paul, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. As I am sure you know, Roman Catholics have their own brand of Evangelicals who look to Falwell and others for leadership.
Luther rejected the notion that Jesus instituted a Sacrament of Penance and his biblical exegesis here, as per usual, was far superior to the pope’s.
With that said, I think you will find a wide variety of interpretations about “Reconciliation/Penance” within the Evangelicals (or as I like to call them “selective literalists”). The common theme, however, will be Luther’s understanding of the “priesthood of the faithful.” God does not invest the minister/pastor/presider with the authority that the pope claims he bestows on bishops and priests wrt absolving some sins (within Roman Catholic canon law, some sins are so serious that only a Bishop or the Pope can absolve them).
IMO Evangelicals, who are really serious about scripture, are driven to rejecting “selective literalism.” As they read just the New Testament, the sheer variety drives them towards some acceptance of some pluralism about the faith.

Ghostman your 96

IMHO..their problem with fear is that they were (wrongly) taught it as the “foundation for love.”

THIS IS WHY WE TORTURE, GUANTANIMO, ETC.: TO INCREASE BUSHIE’S POWER. THAT’S IT.

I JUST HOPE THEY CAN NOW BE PROSECUTED AS THE WAR CRIMINALS THAT THEY ALL ARE.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..nes-nation

Senior administration officials told Guter and the other JAGs that the urgency to extract intelligence meant the traditional military justice system could not be used. But there was, Guter detected, more to the administration’s maneuvering.

“There was another motive,” he said. “This was seen as an opportunity, a vehicle to restore presidential power and authority. It was a very convenient vehicle. It was perfect. Fear tends to drive power to authority and to the executive branch.”

On Feb. 2, 2002, President Bush signed an order that said the Geneva Convention did not apply to the war on terrorism. Though prisoners held in that war, the order said, would be treated humanely, they were not subject to the Geneva Convention measure known as Common Article 3, a baseline provision that had been applied to all conflicts and all detainees in recent military history.

ET – there’s no methodist to his madness.

(thanks for reminding us of your “taps” duty. saddest music.)

Peterr

Promoted to the front page!! Way to go!

Hamdan – feel safe in assuming no atty likes to see their work overturned or professionally rejected in any way, right ?

John Yoo – do you think he’s figured out yet that he was not ’selected’ for his scholarship or fealty to strict constructionism – that in fact his sorry ass was selected for the pliant nature of his personality ? and now he stands with his, um, work tossed out roundly by the highest legal authority and the folks doing the ’selecting’ could care less ?

punaise,

yeah, it is raining today, making the birches and poplars droop in sadness as well……

cbl,

You’re right. Let’s see how long it takes Fox to hire Yoo as their go-to guy on all things legal.

OfT
Stop the Torture
by emptywheel
“I’m not a lawyer. And I don’t have the time to even begin to wade through yesterday’s decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. One of my favorite takes on it, so far, comes from Anonymous Liberal, who basically says:
* David Addington’s head is almost certainly exploding right now
* “The Hamdan decision represents, in [AL’s] opinion, a fatal blow to the Addington/Yoo theory of executive power.”
* SCOTUS judges are not as stupid as Senators Graham and Kyl think they are

We’ve already heard that Congress will act to pass some kind of justification for Bush’s little military tribunals. But in the meantime, I’m particularly interested in how this ruling will affect our practices of torture ….”

A fictional and highly imaginative statement by Bush on Hamdan:

“[To himself: Karl wants me to say this with emphasis and lots of hand gestures, but no pounding on the dais.] As preznit of these Yewnited States I accept the decision of the Court though I profoundly disagree with it, and sincerely believe that this decision will severly damage our ability to conduct our war on terrism, of which as you know I am the leader. Nevertheless, I have advised General Gonzales to immediately commence an internal investigation on the backgrounds of the five justices who voted in favor of this decision. And to the three who cragejusly stood up to the bullying five, a Medal of Freedom for each of you is now in the works.”

looseheadprop 122

Peterr
Promoted to the front page!! Way to go!

yeah, now watch him go all “TRex” on us… :~)

I agree Tom – Chicago at 9:55.

It would be interesting to discuss, at some point, seperation of Church and State as it relates to Islam. Can an American citizen who is a Muslim prevent his daughter from getting an education? Can he kill his sister if she is raped?

kathryn in MA 9:27am — Katyal made an effective message for the right-wing, without realizing it…but will the monsters in this administration see it for what it is?

Really, if that dolt Snow-Job could come out and say, “Look, democracy in action, the three arms of government are at work when an “illiterate Yemeni” can be heard”, what kind of in-roads would that make on the base that is leaking away?

Ugh. Damned near had it handed to them and I’ll bet they stick with the Decider’s petulant toddler-like position instead.

Ghostman @ 96

You’ll get no arguments from me on your observation. I’ve observed the same all too often, and am hoping that conversations like this can help make it less common.

One thing that all clergy are hungry for from their parishioners is good honest conversation and feedback. It’s not that clergy don’t hear from their people, or try to “please” them by saying what they want to hear. It’s that clergy of all stripes want to know that people are actually listening, and that they (the clergy) are speaking to the issues that concern the community. Too much of the time there’s a sense of “I can’t tell the pastor that” or some other kind of self-editing that people put on their comments to clergypeople.

For those reading this thread who are church-goers, you might ask your religious leaders about speaking up on this. Tell them how offended you are at the bad name that Christianity is getting because of the lack of a separation of church and state in the White House. (Maybe even pass along ABB’s rant above!)

Looks like Broder’s been reading “Finnegan’s Wake.”

PWS your 130

Only.If he is a republican.

PWS,

There are hundreds of web sites which discuss the points of your question in detail. Try starting at little green footballs.

Here’s another scary thought:

One more Justice and Bush wins this appeal. I think we know how Roberts would have voted. Bush just needs one more vote.

Redshift says: “And now that they’ve finally figured it out, we get a parade of weasels like this declaring “oh, the problem’s on both sides equally.”"
June 30th, 2006 at 9:33 am

I think that we will find that the acrimony started well before the beginning of the Bush administration. How much of it is genuine partisan bickering? How much of it is for show, played out while it’s televised, followed later by drinks somewhere away from public view?

Aren’t we seeing the same phenomenon on the televised talk shows? Looking at what has been mentioned in recent threads, it’s easy to conclude that the level of discourse (such as it is) on those shows is driven not so much by the desire to inform their viewers (who deserve to be well informed) or to promote a particular ideology as it is driven instead by a desire for ratings – the more shock value or acrimony displayed on the televised talk shows, the higher the ratings, or so it is perceived by those who own the networks and by those who are trying to do what they think necessary to keep their shows on the air.

carefully not feeding the trolls ..

on the Pach post on church & state, I posted the following in EPU territory … maybe worth repeating – this is the prophetic role of the church in all it’s glory:

Stop the Genocide in Darfur – Rally on Monday, May 1, 2006, 4:30 PM
Statement by: Rev. Michael L. Pfleger, Pastor,
Faith Community of Saint Sabina

It is time for America to break the silence and apathy on the genocide in Darfur, from the White House to the church house, from your house and my house.

Since 2003, nearly 500,000 Black Africans have been killed and over 2 million have been driven out of their homes. My problem is… Where is the moral outrage?

Paul Rusesabagina said that when genocide was taking place in Rwanda, the church was silent and their silence gave permission to continue.Sadly the same is true today when it comes to Darfur.

The faith communities must make their voices heard. We must pressure the United States to make Darfur a priority and to aggressively support a UN peacekeeping force to protect civilian lives and then put pressure on China and Russia to support it, rather than turning their backs on Darfur to keep their flow of cheap oil.

We cannot be more concerned about friendly relationships than about the destruction of human life. We must push for more states to follow the lead of Senator Jacqui Collins to pass legislation to demand disinvestments from Sudan until the genocide ends and then force or boycott companies like Pepsi, Proctor & Gamble and others if they fail to withdraw their investments immediately.

Yes, it is time to speak out to take action to break the silence. Every church, synagogue and mosque who dare to call themselves communities of faith ought to begin a calling campaign to the White House, I believe that if every house of faith chose to call and write the White House this week and voice their outrage and demand U.S. action. The shallow and cheap words of this administration that call it genocide and do nothing about it would be forced to take real action. I challenge every person of faith to call the White House 1-800-224-2084 and voice your outrage.

Houses of faith – It’s time to wake up.

Houses of faith – It’s time to stand up.

Houses of faith – It’s time to speak out.

Houses of faith – It’s time to take action.

Houses of faith – Let us either put our faith into action or close our doors!

©2006 Saint Sabina all rights reserved.

lhp @ 122, punaise @ 128

Thanks, and no worries about me going TRex. I’ve got a four year old to keep me off the pundit streets . . . paraphrasing what the Peanut said to Christy the other day: “Dad – no more computer!”

Fortunately for us, he’s busy keeping a close eye on Germany v. Argentina for me, while I’m here.

“David Addington’s head is almost certainly exploding right now”

Darkblack, paging Mr. Darkblack to the white courtesy Photoshop Request phone please

will love you long time if it’s animated !

Late to the thread but,
Peterr! I about fell out of my chair when I saw you go to the angry one! I would love to meet that gal!And Boy Howdy she can snark!Another fine post. Shine more light, the infection isn’t dead yet.

PWS,130

The hypothetical situations you mention are neither unprecedented nor unique, and conflicts between acts in the name of religion and the existing laws always have to work their way up the courts, as provided by the Constitution. But in the end, the Constitution maintains that as an ideal the government and the churches are to remain separate.

Just ask Orrin Hatch R,UT) about his Mormonism and the laws against polygamy in Utah as well as in federal statutes.

In respect to your question, then, what is the difference between Mormonism and Islam that would affect the laws differently? Can there be one law for LDS and one for Islam? Buddhism? Judaism? Wicca? Atheism? Conscientitous objectors?

Once you settle on the principles, you can talk about how the principles apply to a particular case.

PWS, my take, fwiw, is that there is tremendous diversity within Islam over “Mosque and State,” just as there is in Xtianity over “Church and State.”

One of the really damaging and extrordinarily reckless consequences of Bush’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is that we are helping extremists such as Osama bin Laden at the expense of the moderates in Islam.

Could not BE more OT, but p’raps memorable enough to forgive:

Record Hammerhead Pregnant With 55 Pups
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:47 p.m. ET

BOCA GRANDE, Fla. (AP) — The likely world-record hammerhead shark caught in May weighed 1,280 pounds because it was pregnant with 55 pups — the most scientists have ever seen.

Scientists at Mote Marine Laboratory, where the shark was taken for a necropsy, said Thursday that 52 were nearly full-term and just a few days from birth. The shark was estimated to be between 40 and 50 years old.

Scientists previously believed that hammerhead sharks gave birth to 20 to 40 pups at a time.

“Although we are thankful that the fisherman gave this unique specimen to Mote, and we are learning a lot about this species from this large female shark, we were saddened to see so many unborn pups inside her so close to birth,” said Dr. Robert Hueter, director of Mote’s Center for Shark Research.

The shark was caught off Boca Grande on May 23.

. . .

orangejumpsuit, your 109 is bothering me a bit.

” In fact, there is much common ground between government and religion, and that is the welfare of the people and the health of the body politic.”

I assume you mean in a perfect world –

In my experience neither government nor religion, have at their core, the welfare of the people or the health of the body politic.

That’s not to say that there aren’t religions or governments that do, all of us here know that this particular government holds both of those concerns in utter contempt.

It was Thomas Jefferson who first used the phrase “wall of separation”. I’d like to sit down with Mr. Jefferson and ask just what he meant.

IMHO, the higher the wall these days the better for all concerned.

Thanks Peterr for the great post.

Question re rendering out of country to be tortured – A: Hamdan doesn’t reach that. Just Article 3. Q- How far can Congress go to strip the Courts of power to decide this. A-are restrictions on what can be raised, exclusive review is constitutional. Q re war crimes A reasonal reliance on council mental state (?) David Luban says its a felony to commit a war crime. May disobey tho running risk it is found legal and you will be court martialed. Quotes an Israeli law of ‘flying black flag of illegality over it’ then should disobey. Luban also referenced the blogosphere at one pt.
Panel wrapping up. Says Professor Katyal and his law students deserve great praise and nations owes them a great debt.

new thread: http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..of-tyranny

Amen on all thanks to Peterr for this great thread!

ET @ 102 “…polishing and oiling my bugle…”.
Geez, for a second there, I thought that was a new euphemism for …. well, you know.

C-Span now showing Spector’s speech re “recifying” the Court’s decision.

susan, this might give you a little insight. From Thomas Jefferson’s bill of 1785:

… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

PWS– wow– you have mangaged to string together a stupendously ridiculous series of words, imo.

This is about the separation of religion and state and the laws and founding principles of OUR country. You seem to be of the opinion that all Muslims are violent and misogynistic.

You are quite wrong.

sorry – Specter. Doing just what the law professors hope that Congress won’t do. He is saying Congress has the power to make rules concerning capture of prisioners. I guess he is quoting something that predates the Geneva Convention. He wants to repudiate the Geneva Convention?

new thread — http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-166939

We often speak of “checks and balances” as the way in one branch of gevernmnet is kept from running roughshod over the other two and thus the country. (a certain Supreme Court ruling comes to mind . . . see the next thread!) In a similar kind of way, the First Amendment provides an analogous check and balance – the state shall not become the church (even if we could agree on what “the” church is/should be), and the church shall not become the state.

Checks and balances. What a concept!

“The Inquisition (Let’s begin)
The Inquisition (Look out sin)
We have a mission to convert the Jews
(Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew)
We’re gonna teach them wrong from right.
We’re gonna help them see the light
and make an offer that they can’t refuse.
(That those Jews just can’t refuse)
Confess, don’t be boring. Say yes, don’t be dull.
A fact you’re ignoring:
It’s better to lose your skull cap than your skull (or your govalt!)
The Inquisition (what a show)
The Inquistion (here we go)
We know you’re wishin’ that we’d go away.
But the Inquisition’s here and it’s here to stay!

“I was sitting in a temple.
I was minding my own business.
I was listening to a lovely Hebrew mass.
Then these Papus persons plungered
and they throw me in a dungeon
and they shove a red hot poker up my ass.
Is that considerate? Is that polite?
And not a tube of Preperation H in sight!”

“I’m sittin’ flickin’ chickens
and I’m lookin’ throught the pickins’
and suddenly thes goyim pull down valls.
I didn’t even know them
and they grabbed my by the stoghum
and started playing ping pong with my balls!
Ooh, the agony! Ooh, the shame!
To make my privates public for a game?”

The Inquisition (what a show)
The Inquisition (here we go)
We know you’re wishin’ that we’d go away.
But the Inquisition’s here and it’s here to-
“Hey Toquemada, whadda ya say?”
“I just got back from the Auto-de-fe.”
“Auto-de-fe? What’s an Auto-de-fe?”
“It’s what you oughtn’t to do but you do anyway.”
Will you convert? “No, no, no, no.”
Will you confess? “No, no, no, no.”
Will you revert? “No, no, no, no.”
Will you say yes? “No, no, no, no!”
Now I asked in a nice way, I said, “Pretty please.”
I bent their ears, now I’ll work on their knees!
“Hey Toquemada, walk this way.
We got a little game that you might wanna play,
so pull that handle, try you’re luck.”
“Who knows, Toq, you might win a buck!”

“How we doin’, any converts today?”
“Not a one, nay, nay, nay.”
“We flattened their fingers, we branded their buns!
Nothing is working! Send in the nuns!”

The Inquisition, what a show.
The Inquisition, here we go.
We know you’re wishin’ that we’d go away!
So all you Muslims and you Jews
We got big news for all of yous:
You’d better change your point of views TODAY!
‘Cause the Inquisition’s here and it’s here to stay!”

susan,145:orangejumpsuit, your 109 is bothering me a bit.

Both government and religion ideally need to tend to the needs of their constituency. The constitution guarantees that your church and mine (Buddhism — not really a church) can pursue the welfare of their followers without worrying about being hounded by the government. In order for religions (like yours and mine) to enjoy these protections, we as citizens need to protect the guarantees given to us by the Constitution.

It is all a circle and mutual, meaning there is a lot of common ground between a government that guarantees me religious freedom, and the need for me as a religious follower to protect that. This tells me there is a lot of common ground, not so much a “wall,” between a constitutional government and religions.

What the conservatives want to do is make the guarantee of religious freedom inoperative. Then there is no common ground for religious diversity, only the one “approved” ground. So my comments on common ground imply religious diversity that can be enjoyed “in common” by all religions.

I hope this makes my position clearer.

PWS –

Short Answer — NO.

A Muslim’s religious beliefs does not separate nor exempt them from the law; just as no religion allows anyone to abuse those under their control.

The only exceptions are allowing religious observance that runs afoul of certain laws (i.e., use of peyote by Native Americans). Beyond that — obey the law or suffer the consequence.

Source of the graphic here

was rereading my #86 – the good professor’s name is Neal Katyal.
Arlen Specter with Durban(/) will introduce legislation re tribulals.

Yoo was definitely “grumpy” on Lehrer last night.

Great post Peterr !

orange,156: This tells me there is a lot of common ground, not so much a “wall,” between a constitutional government and religions.

Let me make a correction (problem with blogging is you don’t have much time to edit and proofread):

This tells me there is a lot of common ground, not so much a “wall,” between a constitutional government and religious freedom.

susan, 145: “It was Thomas Jefferson who first used the phrase “wall of separation”. I’d like to sit down with Mr. Jefferson and ask just what he meant.”

Ah yes, Jefferson, my hero. Jefferson was as eloquent a writer as we have in American history. His use of “wall” here is obviously metaphoric as well as rhetorical, and he surely did not mean something made of brick. Notwithstanding, a conversation with our Third President would be quite a deal.

Rep Weldon R-PA revisiting WMD – saying they verified that Iraq had WMD – saying that the UN never said Pre-Gulf war or Post. Or degraded or not. Wanker

What motivates the ‘religious’ right?

Peterr writes: “But for some of a certain age who DID attend such schools, the loss of these prayers and practices felt like having a part of their school heritage cut out. The TheoCon leaders tapped into this pain, turned it into anger, and have used it ever since to fuel a “return to God” movement against the Court and all who agree with these rulings.”

Here’s another possibility. In the mid-sixties ‘liberals’ forced an end to segregation in public facilities and the worst aspects of legal racial discrimination. Then ‘liberals’ made male supremacy, let’s say, somewhat more difficult and much less socially acceptable. The white south was solidly Democrat until the moment that the Democratic leadership pushed through civil rights legislation at which point the Republican Party became the political home of American bigotry (they called it ’state’s rights’ or ‘traditional values’ or whatever but that’s what it was and is).

These folks are not pining for the good ol’ days when their kids could pray in school. They want payback for being stripped of their power. That’s the pain the TheoCon leaders have tapped into. They’re saying ‘these people called us bad and shamed us and forced us into having to pretend to give up our racism and misogyny and now they’re trying to make us accept queers and that’s going way too far’.

Christians who are not particularly racist or misogynist or homophobic don’t seem to be nearly so worried about the so-called unbelieving, selfish, prayer-hating leftists who are out to destroy anyone who believes in God. The left does not conflict with their religious beliefs.

The problem between us and the ‘religious’ right is not misunderstanding of our common values. There is a struggle around values and its real nature has to be taken into account if we are to effectively articulate ours and fight to preserve them.

Ha. Rep. Skelton told story of old prospecter who searched all over for gold and finally found fools gold. BWAHAHAH

I’m sure too that Mr. Jefferson used the word “wall” metaphorically.

I’d still like to sit down (or better spend an afternoon gardening) with Mr. Jefferson.

He might just want to start putting brick to mortar.

thanks orange this -Both government and religion ideally need to tend to the needs of their constituency – cleared it up for me.

And no, I don’t really think Mr. J, would really build a wall atall.

thanks

Which means if they had intended this to be a “Christian nation” they would have BLOODY WELL SAID SO!!! Instead, they did precisely the opposite. The two places in which religion is mentioned in this legal document put it clearly, expressly and unambiguously beyond the purview of the government.

The Founders were not dopes. They knew exactly what they were saying. If they were here today, they would smack us upside our collective head and say, “Schmuck! Can’t you read??? – Roddy McCorley

IIRC, it is established knowledge that the Founding Fathers actually debated whether to invoke God in the Constitution (as a Deistic conception of God, e.g., was invoked in the Declaration of Independence, which leads a lot of fundies to claim this is a Christian nation: wouldn’t the correct claim based on that invocation be that this is a Unitarian-Universalist nation?) and the purposefully decided not to do so. Anybody know about this or have a reference?

But they would not have called us schmucks (well, maybe Haym Solomon would have), but I believe in accordance with the linguistic usage of the time, as was pointed out elsewhere in left blogostan, would be something to the effect of “imbecilic Tory shite-loads”.

*

BTW — how come with the latest Pledge flap (”nobody’s being brainwashed by the pledge”), no-one is pointing out the obvious: some people have religious objections to the pledge? Either due to the “under God” part which, when said by a non-believer, is taking the Lord’s name in vain or due to the notion of pledging allegiance itself?

It isn’t just a matter of “religious people want God everywhere and evil secular folk hate God” — and when the secularists among us say “we aren’t evil” that doesn’t address the framing — there are good religious reasons to be leary of all of this God talk. Does anybody actually read the 10 commandments and what they ask of us rather than merely bandying them about like a weapon or (ironically) worshiping them as an idol?

susan,165: Thanks to you.

Jefferson was an enigma for the ages, and the saint and the human being in him live on to our lasting wonderment, and perhaps, a little regret. Have a good day.

…if Mr. Jefferson had a freezer would he have stashed money in it?

I’d dearly love to ask some of the fundies who say we’re a Christian nation that should have a Christian government a question:

Which version?

There are a large number of Christian groups out there, and each one thinks only it has the right interpretation. So which one do we go by? And how do we decide which one?

After all, the largest doctrinally unified religious group in the US is, I believe, the Catholics. Which one would think would work for guys like Jim Dobson. Top-down, hierarchical organization with draconian rules about abortion and euthenasia.

I doubt they would enjoy the “no death penalty” and “no divorce” rules, though.

DAS @ 11:13 am (#166) – Excellent points. Christianity was founded on the idea that their god did not involve himself in worldly affairs. This view seems to have lasted just long enough for them to become a majority and officially established religion (in the fourth century).

That Congressman who couldn’t name three commandments but was willing to demand that they be displayed in the Capitol was just an extreme example of the hypocrisy. I suspect most of them don’t live by those commandments themselves. Idol worship and bearing false witness seem to be a full time occupation with that crowd.

*ilson, 168: ” — if Mr. Jefferson had a freezer would he have stashed money in it?”

Funny you should say this: Jefferson died penurious and in deep debt. I suspect his creditors wanted to “freeze” his assets.

what was so telling about Congresscritter Westmoreland when quizzed about the 10 Commandments is that he named “dont steal”, “dont lie”, “dont kill” but missed the most important one theologically: the first one about monotheism. He needs more time in church and less time in Congress…

I haven’t had time to read all the comments, so I may be repeating someone. It’s not only secularists who feel that a public school is the wrong place for prayer and Bible reading. I taught high school in a small Ohio town in the late 50s. We had required prayer which I had to lead in my classroom. Have you any idea how rapidly this becomes the equivalent of gobbledy-gook in unison? My brother, a UMC minister, was totally opposed to public school prayer. It degrades religon. It has always seemed to me that those who want to somehow bring this back don’t know what they’re asking for. Required religon is good for neither church or state.

peterr -

sadly epdu’d here, but thanks for your clear and compelling statement.

thanks also for: “I like letting schools be schools, churches be churches, mosques be mosques, holy groves of trees be holy groves of trees, and so forth.”

my inner Druid is smiling…

Robbie,

I think that perhaps the religious right is more heterogeneous than we lefties always realize (and we can use this politically to our advantage to play one group of them against the other).

Some in the religious right are motivated by nostalgia: some explicitly racist, some of it is, shall we say, sublimated racism or even Archie “those were the days” Bunker bigotry (a large part of which is a feeling that in those old religious days “guys like us we had it made” and now their security is slipping away from them — and where do you turn when insecure? to religion which promises the ultimate security!), and some of it is pure nostalgia (which rhymes with arthralgia for a reason!). For some, just as their wishful thinking of being racially superior was all poor white racists of an earlier generation had going for them, some of the religious right are really hurting and religion is their only hope.

Some really are motivated by a certain view of morality which does really differ from ours. And some of the support for the religious right merely comes due to people liking all the talk of morality and not caring about the specifics.

I don’t think we should be trying to pander to the religious right, which would be at best counter-productive. But if they are our political “enemies” we, cf. Sun-tzu, better get to know them better than many on the left do.

OTOH, we can offer things out of our platform that will speak to elements of the religious right (and possibly piss off other elements, which is not a bad thing — remember it’s divide and conquer … hey, it worked for the GOP) — and since we are taking from what we already have, it isn’t pandering and won’t be seen as such. To those who seek solace in religion because of their economic insecurity, we can offer economic security from economic liberalism. To those seeking moral leadership, we can highlight the moral aspects of our platform (note to Sen. Obama — the goal is to highlight how our policies are moral … not to complain about how straw man Democrats are not sufficiently versed at speaking to religious folk) and remind people that the justice of which the Bible speaks is primarily economic.

While I don’t think we should pander to the uglier elements of the religious right (and anyway, pandering will drive away those seeking moral leadership as it shows that we do not believe our stands are moral), we should emphasize those aspects of our liberal tradition that ought to appeal to religious folks across the political spectrum (but not complain about straw man Democrats who are anti-religious … as that only reinforces the stereotype we ought to try to avoid) — and we shouldn’t be worried about saying things that would be divisive for the religious right because we might loose some of them — we don’t have them to begin with, but if we more strongly oppose the death penalty and gain a few Catholics, heck … who cares if we loose the votes of fundamentalist Protestants who aren’t voting for us anyway (we can get the Dobson crowd’s votes when we hint the Catholics want to outlaw masturbation). We Democrats have to learn we cannot please all the people all the time but that we do have to please a majority of likely voters every election cycle. Trying to do the latter sometimes distracts from the former.

We cannot pander to the religious right, but we can get to know them better and gain votes both in our base by speaking out against the uglier (sublimated racism, etc.) aspects of that movement as well as into the right by highlighting the moral aspects of our public policy.

Of course, we also should defend our commitment to secularism as something both good for the secular and for religion!

Nora 173:

And lead us not into Penn Station. But deliver us from evil…

Peterr, thanks for a thought-provoking article.

The interconnections between one’s religious beliefs and one’s politics certainly are important and require discussion with more openness and honesty than one typically encounters when political opponents discuss things. I blogged about one approach that might help the discussion, especially in the run-up to elections. As you can tell, I’m rather fond of the idea and would be interested in reactions…

DAS,

It’s wonderful to “emphasize those aspects of our liberal tradition that ought to appeal to religious folks across the political spectrum”. And we can do better than that. When and where the religious right organizes to take a stand for the environment or against poverty or torture or capital punishment or war for oil or war for pride or for anything else that agrees with our values we can stand right beside them in common effort and respect. Those are the venues that may turn out to nurture the most useful conversations. Count me in. But so far it seems to be more rumor than action. Time will show how heterogeneous the ‘religious’ right really is.

Meanwhile I think we agree that emphasizing those aspects of our tradition that ought to appeal to them ought not mean suggesting to the atheists among us that they not criticize belief or fight to keep the line between church and state clear and in full effect or suggest the GLBTs that they should pipe down about full inclusion in American society while we appeal to the right on our common ground.

You note that “some really are motivated by a certain view of morality which does really differ from ours”. It’s a good and an important point. And unlike the crypto racism, authoritarianism, homophobia and sexism that I think provides much of their energy I do not disrespect them for holding those differences. But I think the answer to the question of how we live together with those differences lies in maintaining secular public decision-making structures and traditions. And there’s no sign that that path is acceptable to those who today speak for the ‘religious’ right.

I’m not a student of Sun-Tzu. And perhaps we don’t need to speak of enemies here. But I can’t imagine in urging understanding our opposition he was counseling underestimating or papering over our differences. Robert Frost offered an observation that also bears some thought in this matter. He said “A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.” Let’s not be that sort of liberals.

Always too slow to stay out of EPUville.

Best,

Robbie

I agree wholeheartedly with your response to me … but this jumped out at me:

Time will show how heterogeneous the ‘religious’ right really is.

We can learn how heterogeneous in beliefs the religious right really is by listening to them: listening to their spokes figures, talking to religious conservatives, etc.

But I suspect you are not referring to beliefs but to practice. Alas, the only real way to tell how heterogeneous they are is to give them power. If they had their own theocracy, we would find out very quickly whether Dobson and Robertson would go to war over the whether the access of married couples to condoms and masturbation by horny, single teens should be outlawed. But of course, that is exactly what we want to avoid.

One way to push the issue is to be, um er, divisive. Whenever the righties start talking about abortion (about which righties agreed), try to switch the subject to access of married couples to birth control, about which they disagree rather vehemently. The problem with this strategy is the very same people who are asking us to reach out to the religious right would balk at offending the Robertson wing of the religious right even if shouting about “first it’s abortion but that’s just a slippery slope for the Robertson wing to outlaw access by married couples to condoms” will give us the “we could, if we wanted to, use a condom, for we are Protestants” wing of the religious right. The GOP did not get the religious right by being inclusive, it got their votes by being divisive. While I don’t want us to sink to the level of the GOP and I do think we should make sure to present the moral roots of Democratic ideology (even as a Jew, I like the Matthew quotation!), people who complain that our party is not inclusive enough toward religious voices should realize that you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet and trying to please everyone will just cause us to please no one … let’s be frank: religious conservatives have a party and that’s the GOP. We won’t get anywhere trying to be the GOP-lite. But we can learn from the way the GOP was successful in gaining the votes of the religious right and instead of complaining about how we don’t respect religious voters (and pandering to them by GOP richers is their showing respect?) we can, while not sinking to the level of the GOP, actually do things that will attract some religious voters even if we alienate others.

Divide and liberate.
Works for me.

“Justice Scalia wrote for a 5-4 majority that the state was within the law when it fired a Native American drug rehabilitation worker for using peyote as part of a Native American religious ritual.”

Interesting. I am older than dirt now, but when I was a kid, the Native Americans in our small Oklahoma town, would use peyote at church. Since the majority in the town were Cherokee Indians, my N/A friends and I would sort of giggle and threaten to join that church. (Contrary to popular opinion, there was only one, or so they said.) The cops didn’t care. Far from it. In fact, in 1969, my Native American’s friend’s mother grew marijuana in her backyard. The chief of police would come and chat with her over the fence, while she was weeding her garden, where it was. They knew.

Why does the white man always seem to mess everything up?

Oh, and another thing, for all you who believe the myth that marijuana is BAD: the same friend I mentioned above, whose mother grew pot in her backyard, went on to get a PhD from the Univ of PA. I smoked pot all through college and got a BA in 4 years, with 198 credits (I took a few extra classes for fun). It is BS that pot ruins your brain, or turns you into a zombie, or does damage, eytc.

Where can I get a copy of that poster?

It’s just great.