From the windmills of my mind…
How is it that prayer in public schools or at any government function constitutes a violation of the “establishment” clause of the Constitution today, when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an “establishment of religion” to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?
It seems incorrect to say that religion is playing a greater role in politics, but rather that religious Americans are becoming more likely to align their electoral choices with their values. This is probably the result of more education and information as well as increasingly feeling that fundamental values are under attack (such as with issues like marriage, the Ten Commandments, abortion, prayer in schools, et cetera). The greater the perception of attacks on their values, the greater their political awareness, and then the more rapid their political realignment becomes.
When did “illegal aliens” become “illegal immigrants”, then morph into “undocumented workers”, then “guest workers” or just plain old "immigrants?" When did the nomenclature change in this debate? And who sent out the memo?
As with most issues, we are lulling ourselves to sleep with language that attempts to gloss over our problems or make them appear more fuzzy and less clear-cut. Sort of like the way the pro-abortion crowd refuses to call an unborn baby anything other than a fetus.
How have we let the immigration problem get to a point in this country where we have foreigners entering our country illegally, then holding mass rallies demanding their “rights,” much less that we are actually considering their demands.
For those who are curious, or happen to be members of Congress, the definition of “amnesty” is: n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people).
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - zingzing
ugh. mhmm. you forgot such things as: christian does not equal american; whatever you call them, immigrants have rights and are humans; it's not "pro-abortion," it's "pro-choice" and there's a woman involved too; and that you have no right to deny anybody the same rights you enjoy.
oh yeah, and you forgot that not everyone agrees with you.
2 - zingzing
and that ann coulter is a fucking lunatic.
3 - JP
Zing, agreed about Coulter.
Interesting topic--many progressives are becoming familiar with George Lakoff who is a noted speaker about linguistics and framing--something the right wing has excelled at of late, while the left has been slow to learn. I'd suggest message crafting and disinformation are more responsible for the Rise of the Zealots we've been watching than 'more education and information.'
For example, I don't feel like my 'fundamental values' are being attacked, despite that Hannity says I should. I also do not agree that 'American consumers have benefited from one de-regulation after another, such as with telephone service, airlines and the banking industry.' I notice that you did not include the Energy industry, where it was the executives at Enron who benefited at the expense of the American consumers in California and elsewhere. Maybe your sentence should read "The key elements of the Republican electoral coalition are religion, GREED and testosterone."
Full privitization and deregulation sometimes leads to chaos. I use the immigration example when it comes to deregulation, as it's failure to enforce existing employment regulations that allows so many illegal aliens to be employed here. That's a supply-side problem, and no wall is going to be tall enough to keep them out if they can still find jobs on this side.
Funny how you observe re: the marriage issue the role of "sympathetic courts in liberal states as a vehicle for this strategy." Yet, you don't bring up the role of what I might call "sympathetic lawmakers in far right states as a vehicle" for challenging abortion rights, as was put into action at practically the moment Alito's confirmation went through.
Everyone plays their strongest hand--it isn't just liberals or "sympathetic courts in liberal states."
4 - Michael J. West
How is it that prayer in public schools or at any government function constitutes a violation of the "establishment" clause of the Constitution today,
It doesn't. Nobody ever said it did. It's INSTITUTIONALIZED prayer in public schools that constitutes a violation of the Establishment clause. If you want to pray quietly to yourselves, or a group of you want to pray together in a self-contained group, feel free.
when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an "establishment of religion" to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?
Which ones? In fact, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was bitterly and very loudly opposed to the practice and wrote several letters and articles DENOUNCING the idea of hiring a Congressional Chaplain. Why? Because it "represented an 'establishment of religion.'"
5 - Mark Schannon
Actually, less of a diatribe than I expected, and I agree with you that nomenclature change is a dangerous practice. But to blame the donkeys without including the elephants is disingenuous. Both sides--hell, everyone does it, which doesn't make it right.
Which, ironically, leads me to your statement:
The current debate over the legal definition of marriage did not come about as the result of legislative action, much less public demand for such changes, but rather due to a series of actions by a handful of liberal activist judges.
Remember "Brown Vs. The Board of Education?" One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the judiciary with real power was to protect Americans against "the tyranny of the majority."
In Jameson Veritas
6 - Bliffle
"The key elements of the Republican electoral coalition are religion, money and testosterone. For the Democrats it is secularism, other people's money and estrogen."
The implied gender disparagement here is quite sexist. Does your wife know what you say when she's not looking?
7 - Bliffle
" ann coulter is a fucking lunatic."
Well, sometimes a lunatic fucker is fun! But not when you get older.
8 - Bliffle
And what's with that 'come hither' look on the cover of the book? I'm definitely getting mixed messages.
9 - zingzing
lunatic or not, i might have sex with her. does she like being beaten (i mean during sex, as, you know... a turn on)? maybe i'll gag her, tie her down, then just... forget about her...
10 - Bliffle
And then there's the plain announcement on the book cover: "Godless"!
11 - JELIEL³
Is the picture of an anorectic suppose to make me want to buy a book? Ann needs a few cheeseburgers.
I hope the CBC interviews her again and takes her to school again... Canadians in Viet-Nam... snicker snicker.
12 - SteveS
Marriage bestows 1,000 federal benefits, rights and privileges and 700 state benefits, rights and privileges. It is not open to a vote as to who gets these benefits. The government has no business rewarding your relationship and condemning mine. Your church can be free to do so, but not the government.
It is not a crime to be gay. And I am a taxpayer. It is inequality to give you and your family all these benefits but deny them to gay and lesbian families and their children.
Equality is not supposed to be open for a vote, I'm not sure when you conservatives decided to rewrite democracy to make it mob rule, but that doesn't follow the principles of liberty.
13 - JELIEL³
Amen SteveS. Absolute Equality for all. That's freedom.
14 - Michael J. West
The ultimate strategy of "gay marriage" advocates is to use the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of marriage and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter.
Watch this. With just a few word changes this will sound awfully close to Jim Crow apologetics, ca. 1957:
The ultimate strategy of "civil rights" advocates is to use the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of citizenship and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter.
15 - SteveS
Regarding the comments of 'God/Godless' and Ann Coulter's picture:
You will never see a liberal woman use her sex to promote her ideological agenda. Has anybody seen the two selling points Republican Katherine Harris is trying to use to get elected? The way she stuck them out on a Fox interview is legendary for it's hysterics. Notice that there are very little comments here on Ann's ideological agenda, but quite a few comments on her potential as a bedpartner. Is that what conservatives are reduced to, to get you to see things their way? Whoring out their ideological agenda?
It's very fitting that the word 'Godless' is emblazoned underneath her.
There is a website called Faith in America, who's primary objective is to show people how religion has been misused in this country. It was used to discriminate against women, against different races, against different religions and is being used to discriminate against gays and lesbians. It adheres to the principles of Jesus far more than the Right does.
Jesus was against the hoarding of wealth. Conservatives are all about corporatism and the hoarding of wealth at the expense of the common man. Like the moneychanger, Jesus would have probably thrown them out of his temple too.
Jesus was about tolerance and compassion, and hung out with lepers, prostitutes and all sorts of social undesirables. You don't have to look far to see what conservatives think of people who don't fit their rigid mold.
Jesus would have been against the Iraq war. Jesus is against the taking of innocent life, of life in general. Ann Coulter is advocating poisoning Supreme Court Justices and Pat Robertson is praying for their demise on national tv.
There should be no way to tell which side of the political spectrum is Godless. And that title is right where it needs to be, plastered across Ann Coulter.
16 - SteveS
last paragraph should read, 'there should be no mistaking which side...'
my mistake!
17 - Arch Conservative
Jesus would also not be for abortion. Jesus would not be for homoisexuality. Jesus would not be for the promiscuous and sexually degenerate lifestyles that many liberals advocate.
As for godless........well most people that claim to go to church or believe in Jesus tend to be conservative and/or republican.
Most people that claim to be atheist or tend to attack religion tend to be liberal and/or democrat.
That's the way it is in America today.
So who is really using Jesus as a political football here?
The only time most liberals want to talk about Jesus is when they are feeling extra uppity and want ot lecture church going conservatives on his teachings.
It would be more offensive if it weren't so damn funny..... watching liberals pull out of their asses the one or two cliched bible quotes that they know only because they have found thier way into pop culture in an attempt to castigate conservatives.
It's ok for John Kerry and Bill Clinton to campaign in churches while running for president but if Bush or Frist or anyone right of center does this or even mentions religion they are labelled as "intolerant religous right nutjobs" by liberals.
As usual the left's approch to religion, as every other issue of the day is accompanied by a heaping helpful of hypocrisy.
Ann Coulter is not a lunatic but Howard Dean is.
18 - chantal stone
Jesus taught love, tolerance, and acceptance... with no exception. Show me in the Bible where Jesus said anything against any of this.
Jesus doesn't care if you are gay or straight or asexual. All Jesus wanted was for people to love one another, without pretense or judgement.
Conservatives are the ones using, manipulating, and misinterpreting the Bible to fit their own agendas.
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
19 - Josh
SteveS:
Jesus was against the hoarding of wealth. Conservatives are all about corporatism and the hoarding of wealth at the expense of the common man. Like the moneychanger, Jesus would have probably thrown them out of his temple too.
That is true, except for one thing -- the American government is a business, not a charity. It's neither its duty nor its responsibility to cater to anyone. This socialist aspect of our government only came about as a temporary solution to the Great Depression under FDR. It was never intended to be permanent, as we can see from the imminent collapse of social security.
Jesus was about tolerance and compassion, and hung out with lepers, prostitutes and all sorts of social undesirables. You don't have to look far to see what conservatives think of people who don't fit their rigid mold.
Liberals always leave out that one little sentence that Jesus said when he was hanging out with them. . . . "Go and sin no more!". Jesus knew that people needed compassion for their rehabilitation. It was not as though he were accepting their lifestyles as either healthy or legitimate.
Jesus would have been against the Iraq war. Jesus is against the taking of innocent life, of life in general. Ann Coulter is advocating poisoning Supreme Court Justices and Pat Robertson is praying for their demise on national tv
You are absolutely right. Jesus was probably 100% against war and violence.
Edited: There should no mistaking which side of the political spectrum is Godless. And that title is right where it needs to be, plastered across Ann Coulter
As long as Democrats are advocating completely unrestricted abortion, then you're right. We know who's godless.
20 - SteveS
As for godless........well most people that claim to go to church or believe in Jesus tend to be conservative and/or republican.
Most people that claim to be atheist or tend to attack religion tend to be liberal and/or democrat.
So who is really using Jesus as a political football here?
The conservatives. Liberals do not put Jesus on their political banner and go foward with ideological agendas under his name. They never claimed that abortion is what Jesus would advocate. Liberals understand the separation of church and state. Conservatives misuse the principles of Jesus to promote unChristian agendas.
21 - SteveS
That is true, except for one thing -- the American government is a business, not a charity. It's neither its duty nor its responsibility to cater to anyone.
well, as you can see, Josh. I said 'conservatives' and 'corporatism'. I wasn't referring to the government but to multi-millionaires like Pat Robertson, Falwell, and mega-evangelists who discriminate while hoarding wealth.
Liberals always leave out that one little sentence that Jesus said when he was hanging out with them. . . . "Go and sin no more!".
Add that sentence in, it doesn't matter. Because, in my inability to get married, gay people and our children are being unduly punished for simply being gay. You have no idea if I am sinning or if I am celibate. You don't care. You simply want to discriminate based on who I am.
As long as Democrats are advocating completely unrestricted abortion, then you're right. We know who's godless.
For the mainstream conservative (not the powermongers), it always comes back to this. They have completely sold out their ideological agenda, and have given power, in the name of Jesus, to people who further anti-Christian principles, simply on ONE ideological belief system. I agree with you, that this is the thorn in the Democrats side.
Of course, what the mainstream conservative doesn't realize is that the Republican party has NO intention of EVER undoing abortion. As long as it is in place, they have a guaranteed political cash cow to generate votes and resources in order to accomplish other objectives. Once abortion is overturned, then conservatives don't have the one guaranteed thing that draws people to their side. Neither side will ever get rid of abortion, that's guaranteed.
22 - Josh
SteveS:
If you're referring to men such as Robertson, then you're right -- they are hypocrites.
Truthfully, as to homosexuality, I don't know if it's right or wrong. On a legal basis, by all means gain equality; it could only benefit the children. What I was responding to was your incomplete account of what Jesus said and did. It was really only a half-truth.
Look at South Dakota. That's an example of a Republican "objective" being accomplished. It's not that there are no attempts to put an end to abortion, it's that such attempts are met with ferocious, vehement opposition from the Left.
They have completely sold out their ideological agenda, and have given power, in the name of Jesus, to people who further anti-Christian principles. It sounds like you imply that Democratic policies (outside of the very un-Christian abortion) are more like Jesus' teachings, and you're right. However, like I said before, a government -- a business -- cannot be run like a charity. Leave charity to the private sector.
23 - SteveS
Look at South Dakota. That's an example of a Republican "objective" being accomplished. It's not that there are no attempts to put an end to abortion,
From what I have read, the Republicans have said themselves, they don't stand a chance with this law. The intent here is to put it before the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v. Wade. Mainstream conservatives want to outlaw all abortion and take away a woman's right of self-determination in regards to her own body. But I have to say that I believe it will never happen. As long as abortion is on the books, there are people who will flock to the anti-abortion party and allow it to accomplish any ideological agenda. Once it's overturned, then these people might actually start thinking about other things like the economy, foreign policy or whatnot. So I think the conservatives in power will never overturn abortion, they will shoot themselves in the foot by doing so. Much better to milk that political cash cow for as long as possible and get the funding to accomplish all sorts of other things that the mainstream conservative doesn't necessarily agree with, like the bloating of the government, etc.
It sounds like you imply that Democratic policies are more like Jesus' teachings, and you're right.
That was my point. Not all policies, but the basic principle of good samaritism and as a general rule, the Democratic party is much closer aligned with the principles of Jesus than conservatism is.
However, like I said before, a government -- a business -- cannot be run like a charity. Leave charity to the private sector.
I agree, I don't want a government run like a charity, that's not what I'm talking about.
Government is too big as is, certainly the Bush administration has made it bloated beyond belief.
My comment here isn't to push FOR a political party, as much as it is to point out that the one who claims to operate under God's banner is actually the one farther from God.
24 - Arch Conservative
Liberals understand the separation of church and state?
Since when?
Liberals purposely misinterpret the establishment cause and completely ignore the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
That's what you call understanding?
With regard to Jesus telling us to love everyone this is true. But he did not teach that we should love everyone's behaviors. Jesus believed in right and wrong and we don't have to love every behavior to love the person. As a aconservative I don't love the homosexaual lifestyle but I don't hate homosexuals either.
25 - SteveS
Liberals purposely misinterpret the establishment cause and completely ignore the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
In what context, AC? In regards to gay marriage, for example, should I be given equality from my government, that in no way prevents you from believing that homosexuality is wrong. It doesn't affect your faith in any way. Since we are both legal taxpayers, it does give me my civil liberties though.
As a aconservative I don't love the homosexaual lifestyle but I don't hate homosexuals either.
That's right, you don't have to love the homosexual lifestyle. I'm a homosexual and my lifestyle is raising kids, cooking, laundry, family values and all that apple pie stuff. You can hate it to your hearts content, I don't care. However, as a taxpayer, I am entitled to equality from the government, and the government should not be advocating YOUR religious values of discriminating against other legal taxpayers. Nobody is seeking to make you warm up to homosexuality in the confines of your own home. YOU are not the government.