April 25, 2005
Christian Conservative Activists Declare Holy War on the Nations' Courts
This week’s Newsweek Magazine has an excellent article on the Christian Conservative Republicans’ Jihad against the third branch of our government. This sort of rhetoric only serves to undermine the judiciary in the eyes and minds of the people. It is not healthy and serves only a portion of the American population.
That portion that would see our freedoms stripped away and replaced by religious inspired laws, limiting abortions, sanctioning discrimination against Homosexuals, introducing biblical verse and doctrine into public school curriculum, hanging the Ten Commandments everywhere, and silencing the Democratic Party, or anyone who dared speak out against their increasingly radical and intolerant views.
It is a sad frightening spectacle unfolding within the Republican controlled halls of Congress and within small-minded conservative organizations across the country. In my mind, they and not the Courts are the real threat to the American way of life and system of governance; they and not the Courts are the activist who would re-write our laws to suit their narrow view of life, and we, the majority must fight back!
There are some conservative Christian Republicans, Tom Delay and Representative Steve King who would fundamentally change the structure of the Court system. King recently stated: "We could reduce the size of the Supreme Court...It doesn't take nine judges, it only takes one. It would just be Chief Justice William Rehnquist with his card table." While it is true that Article Three does not speak to the size of the Supreme Court, any attempt to change the composition of the Court would cause (I would hope) tremendous upheaval in the electorate, because I dare say most Americans look to the Supreme Court as their last bastion best hope for justice. Congress would, at its own peril realign the Court.
It is ironic that while we have American troops dying oversea to secure the blessings of liberty for others, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are under sustained attack by conservatives here in America; that while we fight fundamentalist Islam oversea, fundamentalists Christians are on the march in America and threaten to do what Osama Bin Laden dreams of: bring down the American Republic and replace it with a Theocracy; that while the American government shouts platitudes about the rule of law abroad, the rule of law, and the cause of justice is under seize by religious zealots here at home.
Is this the America we want to live in, one dominated by religious zealotry? Is this the America we want to bequeath to our children, an America where the judiciary is stripped of real power by religious extremists and is but a rubber stamp of the Congress and President? What then of our rights under the Constitution? What institution will protect our fundamental and Civil freedoms? Will we all have to prey before class; will public office holders have to swear allegiance to God before being allowed to take office; will agnostics and atheists be persecuted wholesale? How soon before the U.S. slides into Third World nation status, and the bold experiment ended in failure because the ignorant shouted the loudest?
Posted by V. Edward Martin at April 25, 2005 01:12 PMWell put.
I just wish there were more Republicans like former Senator Danforth who would stand up and regain control of their party. Read the following:
BY a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.
Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.
High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.
In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and juvenile diabetes.
It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.
I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God’s call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.
During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.
This was in the NYT last month. Just shows there is hope.
Posted by: Ahmed A. Abonamah at April 25, 2005 02:00 PMAmericans accept bad government or irresponsible government from the Executive and Congress because they believe in voting and democracy.
But, the judiciary at the federal level is not elected, it is appointed, making it more vulnerable to venom and attack by citizens who believe they had no voice in a person’s assent to the Bench. This is a mistaken notion of course, since we voted or not to elect those who appoint and advise and consent. But, the perception is nonetheless real, and can raise the prospect of violence against the judiciary as high as that defended against by the Executive.
If a few of their nut cases can bomb Abortion clinics in the name of pro-life cause, we will likely see more violence against judges like that seen recently with judges being shot. In the future however, it may be Christian activists going after the judges with their 2nd amendment rights.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 25, 2005 03:28 PMIt is normal for Republicans to attack the Judiciary now. The Right have gotten where they are by attacking their enemies without concern for Fact or Decency. Now that they control both Houses and the Presidentcy, the people are starting to look at them and their Policies. The Judges are now the lastest scapegoat for the Conservatives. Blame them for the Economy, Gays, War on Iraq, Social Security, etc.
I expect some Judges to be murdered in the Name in God. What else do you expect from the holier-than-thou crowd?
Posted by: Aldous at April 25, 2005 04:53 PM“it may be Christian activists going after the judges with their 2nd amendment rights.”
WTF!!! A sample of the latest lib scare tactics. Anyone who believes in Jesus is going to kill judges.
Seems like libs benefit politically every time a baby-killing clinic is blown up.
We got a new homo-union-civil-marriage thingy in CT. Had a big protest from both sides up at the capitol, funny thing, you wouldn’t believe it, but no actually got killed.
Posted by: Peter at April 25, 2005 05:12 PMPeter,
Usually it’s just fun to listen to Aldous’s anger. In this case, however, he has a point. Here are two quotes from leaders in the anti-judge movement:
“I’m a radical! I’m a real extremist. I don’t want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!”
—Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Tom Coburn, Senator from OK
“He had a slogan,” (talking about STALIN) “and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: ‘No man, no problem.’”
—Edwin Vieira, author of “How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” source
Peter,
“Seems like libs benefit politically every time a baby-killing clinic is blown up.”
First off, no one really benefits in such a case. The only thing that happens is that people realize there are nut jobs on the right. I don’t think the left “benefits” per say, but whatever…
Posted by: Zeek at April 25, 2005 06:35 PMAgain, some non-partisan perspective is in order…
Yes, nutjobs bomb abortion clinics, they spike trees to kill loggers, they riot and set fire at concerts, attack fishing ships at sea, etc. All political ideaologies have nutjobs that take it to extremes and give the ideaologies a bad name. It is not just a conservative problem. The Democrats and Greens have been directed by fanatical environmentalists, the Republicans by fanatical christian zealots, the libertarians by anarchists and drug addicts that want a way to continue their destructive behavior.
By pointing to them, much like picking at a scab, you just keep them eating at the political landscape instead of dealing with them as we should and moving on. Instead they are brought up whenever somoene wants to score easy political points against someone they are losing an argument with.
I’ll just sit the rest of this discussion out then…
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 25, 2005 06:55 PMThere’s a big difference between fanatics that simply associate themselves with a particular political party and fanatics that drive a political party. There will always be a minority of fanatics in any political idealogy, as you say, and they can and should be discounted. However, when members of a political party that actually hold some influence (such as the chief of staff of a senator) begin to talk like the fanatics—that’s something to be concerned about. I agee though, it’s a non-partisan issue, and thus such behavior should not be tolerated no matter which party someone belongs to.
Posted by: Charles Wager at April 25, 2005 07:16 PMAnother Great Article, Mr. Martin.
Ahmed, I liked your post, too. It is a hopeful sign — I just wish there were a whole lot more of those real Republican’s speaking out and influencing their party.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 25, 2005 09:29 PMExcellent post Rhinehold. Yes, extremism is extremism. It doesn’t matter what ideology you subscribe to or which country you are from. Hell, you can go off-world and do it.
Posted by: Paul D at April 25, 2005 11:16 PMYou are all overreacting.
The Repubicans wont be any more successful in stacking the court than the Democrats were.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 26, 2005 12:28 AMThis may seem a bit simplistic, but my take is the Christian Right is just going for its pound of flesh. Justice Sunday drives home the point to the Republicans it voted in, it will not be denied or utilized in a a use’em-and-lose’em strategy.The irony is the more these religious extremists insist on having their way, the more others (conservatives and Christians with a degree of common sense and decency) see them for who they are: a dangerous set of zealots with their own self-serving agenda, and little concern for true justice. Maybe that’s what it takes to bring the rest of the electorate to its senses.
Posted by: Tapia at April 26, 2005 02:33 AMChristine Todd Whitman, Bush’s former EPA chief and New Jersey governor, has a really good book about how the “social fundamentalists”, as she calls them, have taken over the Republican Party. She also has a website for Republicans who don’t like what’s happened to their Party and are ready to get back to real conservative issues.
She points out that these radicals will target successful moderate GOP candidates, even if it divides Republican voters and puts the contested seat in danger of being won by a Democrat. They see themselves as revolutionaries who are more interested in “purifying” the party than in winning.
“The Judges are now the lastest scapegoat for the Conservatives.”
Aldous,
I remember billboards that read “Impeach Earl Warren”. It seems that Judges being under fire from the right, isn’t a new phenomena.
Some of this makes the John Birch Society seem tame by comparison.
I agree with Charles, the fanatics are running the funhouse that is the United States Congress and the Office of the President of the United States. Question is will the American electorate wake up in time to stop the razing our constitution by those who would not only advocate, but participate in Stalin type purges of the judiciary?
Rhinehold, you may think this a passing fancy, but I think it this current rush to hand judges is deeper and more sinister then you give it credit for being. The Republican have surely lost their collective minds.
VEM
“The Republican have surely lost their collective minds.”
And the Dems lost theirs in the 90s.
The same things you are creating and saying about this administration was said about clinton (blah) and his ilk.
The left is not in power so they create lies to bitch about while the right just closes their eyes and ignores the problem.
Don’t worry, it will be your turn to close your eyes again. Just give it time.
Christian Conservative Activists Declare Holy War on the Nations’ Courts indeed.
Put this book away and go to the non-fiction section.
kctim,
Please back up what you’re saying with some examples…or else I assume that you’ll be alone in that fiction section.
Posted by: Charles Wager at April 26, 2005 01:42 PMCharles—
Thanks I needed a good laugh!!! Kctim, we’ll be waitning for those examples…
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at April 26, 2005 02:12 PMWhat type of examples would you guys like?
Hypocrisy? clinton (blah) signed no-knock law, clear violation of rights. Bush wants the gay marriage Amendment, clear violation of rights.
Both are wrong but I will bet since it was clinton (blah) that you were less concerned about it.
We had Waco. Innocent men, women and children were murdered, but still, reno and clinton (blah) are still defended.
Bush has had AG where PRISONERS were abused and you want his and rumsfelds head.
On and on and on if we wanted to.
Bitch about one but defend the other.
It doesn’t matter what the offense is anymore. All that matters is who it is and that is wrong.
The right screamed about their 2nd Amendment rights, invasion of privacy and govt abuse of power throughout the 90s and the just sat back and said they were wrong.
Now, the left is screaming and are being told they are wrong.
Please give one instance where our freedoms have been stripped away and replaced by religious inspired laws?
You can’t.
You can come up with “what ifs” and “looks likes” just as the right did in the 90s, but there has not been one law passed that imposes religon onto another.
As I said, soon it will again be your turn to just sit back and make excuses while our rights and freedoms are destroyed even further. To bad you’ll just sit there waiting for the next evil Republican before you will say anything.
Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2005 04:40 PMkctim,
“Innocent men, women and children were murdered, but still, reno and clinton (blah) are still defended.”
How the hell was that Clinton’s fault? Are you telling me that you know of someone who could have better handled the situation?
Posted by: Zeek at April 26, 2005 08:52 PMKcTim—
What no-knock law? Explain the particulars please.
And investigations showed that the wacko from Waco, David Koresh killed those people with guns, while others died of affixation from the fire sect member set themselves; yes innocent men, women, and children were killed but by their leaders hand; revisionist history is not allowed here. PBS’s Frontline did an investigate and her is part of what they found:
Finding: Although several of the surviving Branch Davidians insist that they did not start the fire, a panel of arson investigators concluded that the Davidians were responsible for igniting it, simultaneously, in at least three different areas of the compound. Unless they were deliberatley set, the probability of the three fires starting almost simultaneously was highly unlikely, according to fire experts. Furthermore, the videotapes show the use of accelerants that strongly increased the spread of the fire. Although one Branch Davidian stated that a FBI tank had tipped over a lantern, videotapes show that the tank had struck the building a minute and a half before the fire began. Also some of the surviving Davidians’ clothing showed evidence of lighter fluid and other accelerants. In addition, FBI listening devices seemed to establish that the Davidians were overheard making statements such as, “Spread the fuel,” some six hours before the fires began. (Joint Hearing of the Crime Subcommittee July 1995.)
Finding: Medical examiners, Dr. Nizam Peerwani and Dr. Rodney Crow, have told FRONTLINE that many of them died from asphyxiation when the intense fire raced through the compound. Others, particularly women and children who huddled under wet blankets in a concrete chamber, were fatally injured when debris collapsed on them during the fire, the officials said. Still others were shot to death, suicide or homicide victims in apparent mercy killings, they said. Both the coroners and some FBI sources have told FRONTLINE that the pattern of most of the bodies was not consistent with a theory of mass suicide.
”Please give one instance where our freedoms have been stripped away and replaced by religious inspired laws?”
You’re kidding right? How about the eleven states that added amendments to their constitutions that expressly forbid Gays from marring in clear violation of equal protection clauses already in force at the state and federal levels? Religious motivation!
How about the bill winding its way through the House of Representatives even as I type that would make it a crime to cross state lines to have an abortion, if your home state law forbid it? One Congressman stated that he was filled with “renewed vigor” after having just come back from the Vatican. Religious motivation!
There, you have two instances…
Zeek
“How the hell was that Clinton’s fault?”
I don’t blame clinton for that. It was the agents on the ground that did that. The same with rumsfeld and them at AG. It is not fair to hold one accountable and then turn around and make excuses for another.
VEM
I’ve seen about everything there is about Waco. The frontline show you are quoting from is done quite well. So is Waco: The rules of engagement.
Personally I don’t care too much for what happened to those nuts, but it was wrong and violated their rights. You can only listen to the evidence that makes you feel better if you want, that was not my point.
Orders came from the top and innocent people were murdered in Waco.
Orders came from the top and “prisoners” were abused in AG.
You excuse one but curse the other, all because of who is President. That is not how we protect ALL of our rights.
Abortion is not always about religion. I deplore abortions and I am an atheist. Many people who dislike abortions do so because it is an evil thing to do.
I haven’t seen this bill yet and will try to read it soon, thank you for the heads up. I to believe it would be a violation of someones rights to do that, unless they are talking about parental consent then its a different ballgame.
Everybody who disagrees with war is un-American and everybody who disagrees with abortion is a religious nut. To narrowminded.
“the eleven states that added amendments to their constitutions that expressly forbid Gays from marrying”
And I feel these violate individual rights also.
But, the PEOPLE of those states VOTED to add those amendments with 70-80 percent support from the people in many places and not the “Republican controlled halls of Congress.”
While I agree that the main opposition to gay marriage comes from a religious nature, I also know it is supported by both, dems and reps. You cannot claim some type of right wing, evil republican conspiracy when many on your side vote for the same thing.
Many people also vote against gay marriage because they think it is disgusting.
It is wrong to violate somebody’s rights because of how you feel or think, but heck, thats how a democracy works, majority rules.
Kctim,
Please give one instance where our freedoms have been stripped away and replaced by religious inspired laws?
S. 686 & H.R. 1452, for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Best regards…
Posted by: Genaro Blake at April 27, 2005 11:49 PMNot religous inspired laws. Just a couple of bills that were ignored by an activist judge, again.
But even still, she was allowed to be murdered so I guess the only rights or freedoms that were stripped from anybody was Ms. Schiavo.
Not religous inspired laws. Just a couple of bills…
There’s this really cool cartoon called Schoolhouse Rock. Apparently when the President cuts short his Easter vacation and rushes to the White House to sign a bill, it becomes a law.
As I said, soon it will again be your turn to just sit back and make excuses while our rights and freedoms are destroyed even further. To bad you’ll just sit there waiting for the next evil Republican before you will say anything.
Heh. Good one. Luckily we have people who just sit on the fence and throw rocks at both sides. Unfortunately, fence-sitters don’t really help one way or the other. If the situation is taken to the extreme, it’ll be by one of the two major parties.
Posted by: American Pundit at April 28, 2005 11:17 AMSchoolhouse Rock? Um, ok. I’m not all that bright and I guess I should watch those again then. My bad. I didn’t know they had become law or that a judge was allowed to disregard the law to suit his personal beliefs.
I also wasn’t aware these laws were solely based on religious beliefs and not the simple belief that all Americans are entitled to life and the pursuit of happiness.
Terri is dead and her parents aren’t happy, guess they didn’t deserve those rights, those rights are reserved for serial killers and murders.
I’ll go back and read them again to see what all I missed though.
Sorry to have insulted your intelligence with my stupidity.
“If the situation is taken to the extreme, it’ll be by one of the two major parties.”
But it will be the REAL major party, the average Americans, who will win.
You say fence-sitters.
I say open-minded.
As in not saying a lie is a fact and a fact is a lie, based only on which party they favor.
Kctim you do understand that the judiciary is one of the three co-equal branches of government right? Congress & Jeb Bush were out of their jurisdiction to woo voters with a personal tragedy story.
Posted by: Paul D at April 28, 2005 07:52 PMkctim, all that law did was circumvent state law and mandate that particular case must be heard by a federal court. It didn’t mandate the verdict.
And dude, most “average Americans” belong to one of the two major parties. Despite their disproportionate numbers on the internet, true independents are a tiny minority. But keep it up, I love the cynicism. ;)
Posted by: American Pundit at April 29, 2005 02:33 AMAP
Thx, I’ll read up more on it.
Just have to disagree about the average guy I guess. I do not believe they are either the liberal extremists or conservative extremists.
I think they are either Rep or Dem based on one or two issues.
As far as this topic goes, I still believe the ONLY attempt so far at using religion to legislate was the gay marriage deal and that was supported by the people of BOTH parties.
Posted by: kctim at April 29, 2005 09:24 AMDoes anyone have historical data on the proportionality of registered voters vs. (non)party affiliation?
I used to be (D), then (R), back to (D), now I’m (C)ompletely disgusted. So, I’m curious if the escalating divisiveness of recent politics has created a polarization of registration as well as of Americans.
Posted by: Dave at May 4, 2005 12:31 PMIt must be tough being a Republican these days - you have to believe so many contradictory things:
- Terri Schiavo should have been kept alive by any means possible, but we should pass legislation limiting the types of malpractice settlements that paid to keep her alive.
- Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush I made war on him, a good guy when Dick Cheney and Halliburton did business with him and a bad guy when Bush II went to war when he couldn’t find bin-Laden.
- A good way to fight terrorism is to drive our longtime allies away from us and to alienate Muslims with an unjustified war on Iraq, driving some of them into the waiting arms of al-Qaeda.
- Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution - which include banning gay marriage and censoring the Internet.
- Abortion should be illegal. But capital punishment is a good idea.
- The United States was right to ignore the United Nations and invade Iraq - for ignoring the United Nations.
