Asymmetrical Information

This article on the destructive behavior of Acorn reminds me why decent people must think twice before voting for Democrat candidates. For the most part, the Democrats represent the childishly immature while the Republicans are the party of the adults. The Democrats have done incalculable damage to this great nation in its last forty years of existence. Let the marginalization begin.

What about the idiocy of Liberal Republicans like Richard Nixon? Didn’t he do a lot to further fund the nonsense of the Left? Yup, and that’s why we must also marginalize Liberal Republicans.

And the problem with republicans is that they represent intollerent jesus freaks as opposed to nice normal people who just want to go about their business and not hurt anyone. I love a party which imposses its arbitrary value system on me. Forget about people's civil right and the constitution be damned...oh, but don't touch the guns.

That's why we should only vote for liberal democrats. Republicans are what is ruining this free country.

So you see, it goes both ways when you make dumb, arbitrary statements about political parties.

Sure, Kate. Generalizations are always wrong and anyone who calls other people names is a stupid idiot.

As to "intollerent" Jesus freaks, most of whom have dictionaries, I would love to hear some evidence of the establishment of a particular religion by the federal government because of the faith of some members of this administration. Because that's all the Constitution bars - the establishment of an official religion, not references to religion or failure to hide one's faith as though it's something to be ashamed of. Examined spiritual values are not evil. Knee-jerk anti-deism is.

I thought this sentence from the ACORN article was pretty funny: "...ACORN helped organize Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE), a coalition of city congregations whose spiritual leaders tended to see “social justice” as religion’s central message."

The true acronym for this group should be CLUEJ, which I'm guessing would be pronounced: kludge or kluge.

Robert Speirs:

Strict separation of church and state has been settled constitutional law for 40 years. A number of Bush administration policies and actions, most especially its "faith-based" welfare proposals, seem likely to violate this law. There is plenty of precedent for this in previous Republican administrations. Perhaps the clearest example was James Watt, the Secretary of the Interior in the first Reagan administration, who justified the despoiling of public lands in testimony before congress by asserting that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is imminent, so we don't have to worry about pollution.

And I'm not sure what "knee jerk anti-deism" is supposed to mean, but Christians are certainly not deists.

Don, I'm no legal expert, but how can something be settled constitutional law if Republican administrations keep violating it? If memory serves, the GOP has been in the White House about half of the last 40 years. And why is there argument about things like the Pledge of Allegiance?

I remember Watt dressing up as an Amerindian and doing some sort of dance, which was also probably religious in nature.

I think Robert meant "anti-deism" in a broad sense, for which a better phrase might be "anti-theism". (Theism simply implies a belief in a God, while Deism is more limited, rejecting any divine revelation [as I understand it].)

PJ:

Don, I'm no legal expert, but how can something be settled constitutional law if Republican administrations keep violating it?

I don't really understand the question. Obviously, the fact that a law is settled doesn't mean that it cannot be violated. It is settled law that murder is a crime, but murders still happen.

And why is there argument about things like the Pledge of Allegiance?

Because there are various controveries regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't understand the relevance of the question.

I think Robert meant "anti-deism" in a broad sense, for which a better phrase might be "anti-theism".

Why is "knee-jerk anti-deism" (or "knee-jerk anti-theism") evil? And what is it, exactly, anyway?

I greatly enjoy how often the Bush administration's faith-based initiatives program is misrepresented. Almost as amusing as how often the state of constitutional law with respect to the Establishment clause is misrepresented...

Without a description of these alleged common misrepresentations it's hard to know what you're trying to say.

Don P wrote:

Strict separation of church and state has been settled constitutional law for 40 years.

Does this mean then that it wasn't constitutional law for the first 180+ years?

A number of Bush administration policies and actions, most especially its "faith-based" welfare proposals, seem likely to violate this law.

Really? Well in Mitchell v Helms the SCOTUS ruled that it was perfectly constitutional to have taxpayer funds go to religious organizations for a secular purpose such as for education. In which case Bush's "faith-based" initiatives are probably not going to run afoul of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Although they probably violate the doctrine of enumeration and Tenth Amendment (as do secular federal welfare programs), not that we'll hear too many objections on that front.

The First Amendment objection has always been nonsense anyways but it does provide a much more palatable cover to the Left's real objection to Bush's proposal. Namely they recognize that it's a thinly-veiled attempt at increasing GOP outreach to black churches while bypassing the professional race-baiters who are laughably referred to as "civil rights activists." President Bush and his advisors probably realize that they could make greater headway in getting minority votes by bypassing intellectually and morally bankrupty institutions such as the NAACP and going directly to the local levels. There is also the fear that eventually direct grants to religious and private groups would make the public employees who otherwise run such programs appear obsolete which would threaten a major part of the Dem's political base (government employees).

Thorley W:

Does this mean then that it wasn't constitutional law for the first 180+ years?

No, it doesn’t mean that.

Well in Mitchell v Helms the SCOTUS ruled that it was perfectly constitutional to have taxpayer funds go to religious organizations for a secular purpose such as for education. In which case Bush's "faith-based" initiatives are probably not going to run afoul of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Whether Bush’s “faith-based” proposals fall within the scope of activities permitted under that decision is an open question.

Although they probably violate the doctrine of enumeration and Tenth Amendment (as do secular federal welfare programs), not that we'll hear too many objections on that front.

Secular federal welfare programs are clearly constitutional.

The First Amendment objection has always been nonsense anyways

Yes, that must be why numerous experts in constitutional law oppose Bush’s proposals precisely because they threaten First Amendment protections.

Comments are Closed.