home

The New Theocracy

Time Magazine's cover story trumpets the 25 most influential evangelicals in America....all of them chafing at the bit to push Bush's faith-based initiatives.

Number 5 is the rehabilitated Charles Colson, who is praised by none other than Bush's former Solicitor General and Richard Mellon Scaife crony from American Spectator and Arkansas Project days, Ted Olson. Check out Media Transparency's analysis of religious groups funded largely by the Scaife Foundations.

The United Methodist and other mainline Protestant churches are the targets of a continuing, orchestrated attack by determined right-wing ideologues who use CIA-style propaganda methods to sow dissention and distrust, all in pursuit of a radical political agenda.

The leader of this attack is an organization called the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), a pseudo-religious think-tank that carries out the goals of its secular funders that are opposed to the churches' historic social witness. The IRD works in concert with other self-styled "renewal" groups like Good News and the Confessing Movement. IRD answers only to its own self-perpetuating board of directors, most of whom are embedded in the secular political right (Howell, 1995).

The IRD board members operate and have access to conservative publications and media such as First Things, Good News, Christianity Today, Washington Times, The Weekly Standard and Fox News....A major portion of IRD's funding, from its inception, has come from right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.

IRD began in 1982.

Its early focus was international, supporting U.S. foreign policy in Central America during the Reagan years. Today, IRD publishes Faith and Freedom and monitors "mainliners and other Christian groups that often claim to speak for millions but really represent only an extreme few."

Time's list of evangelicals is not an exclusive one. There are some who keep a low profile like Don Eberly.

An advocate of shrinking government, Don Eberly, the head of the Civil Society Project promotes faith-based organizations, private philanthropic initiatives, traditional families, volunteerism and the building of a 'values' society. Whose 'values' is the question.

You won't find him on many of television's talking head programs, you wouldn't be able to pick him out of a line-up, and his essays aren't sexed-up or buzz-worthy, but for more than 15 years, Don Eberly has been one of the leading advocates of a strain of conservative advocacy known as "civil society."

Although vague and often ambiguous, "civil society" advocates intend to shrink government by handing over responsibility for maintaining and administering what's left of the social safety net to faith-based organizations, corporate and community groups, families and philanthropic initiatives. As neoconservative cultural critic Gertrude Himmelfarb has written, "When we speak of the restoration of civil society it is a moral restoration we should seek." And moral renewal, along with building the conservative century, is what Eberly is seeking.

These groups, working hand in hand with Karl Rove, took our country away from us. Let's hope it is not too late to take it back. These people are like hit men who have put out a Contract On America. They are hijackers of democracy. Read these profiles and you will understand that it has never been more important for the Democrats to take back Congress and the White House. Howard Dean certainly has his work cut out for him.

< Bush Budget Cuts | Profiting Off Inmates >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:09:10 AM EST
    Leave it to the left to coopt "democracy" as being exclusionary to the contributions of evangelicals.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:48:04 AM EST
    Don't you mean "Associate Justice Ted Olson"? Scaife has paid damn good money for that Supreme Court seat, by gum.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#3)
    by theologicus on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:29:18 AM EST
    It is clear that "most highly influential" goes hand in hand with "most heavily bankrolled." If the liberal left does not become more hospitable to religious people, and if religious progressives do not receive greater funding, a revival of the progressive movement in this country is just that much less unlikely to occur. Adam Michnik's "The Church and the Left," about how Solidarity dissidents joined hands in Poland with the Catholic Church, is suggestive of what we will need here in the years ahead as anti-democratic forces tighten their grip.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:29:27 AM EST
    Charles Colson who apologized to John Kerry for lying about his war record - maybe he should be sent out to speak to the dirt barge scow boys Perhaps these guys should be sent to the big banks who own the check cashing services that prey on the military and talk to them about the theology of debt. And what it means to rip off the poor

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:50:58 AM EST
    The delima for liberals is the very principle of "Seperation of Church and State". Any attempt to find a liberal way to include religion will undermine it. The challenge is how to convince the moderates on the right as to the threat of any partnership with the government is in the long run, more a threat to Freedom of religion then it is to secularism! There was real wisdom in the word "Give unto Ceasar".

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#6)
    by theologicus on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:04:56 AM EST
    I certainly think that the separation of church and state can be upheld within "a liberal way" to include religion. If you make a sweeping statement that "any way" makes the separation impossible, you fly in the face of logic and history. For one account of why, see Jeffrey Stout's Democracy and Tradition (Princeton University Press, 2004), which is seminal for the future of religion and politics in America.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:13:31 AM EST
    If the liberal left does not become more hospitable to religious people, and if religious progressives do not receive greater funding, a revival of the progressive movement in this country is just that much less unlikely to occur.
    The liberal left is, in fact made up of a number of religious people. Although I don't presume to speak for the liberal left per se, I can say that "we" are often deeply spiritual and cognizant of our relationship with God. In terms of practicing religious "values" common to most of today's prominent monotheistic religions (i.e. love your neighbor as yourself, compassion for the poor, the suffering, the children, admonition against killing and respecting one's partner in relationships), conservatives,are no better than "us" in terms of how we live our day to day lives.(unless there's an atheist crime wave somewhere I don't know about). Currently in this country, the laws of the government, while based on "Christian" ideals of justice and charity, are not representative of the biblical dictates of any specific religion. There's a very important reason for this. Since the beginning of civilization in many cases the ruling power dictated the religion of the lands he ruled. In ancient Egypt, in Rome, in Europe, The conversion of rulers from one religion to another (or their founding of a completely new one)resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children guilty of nothing other than the refusal "the few" to conform to the religious values of "the many." Jews, who have been particularly able to negotiate the practice of their religion within these societies, lmost always suffer the first and the most upon the rise and or revival of nationalistic religion. (No examples needed here, I'm sure). The pilgrims came here to escape this persecution. Our Founding Fathers, there is no doubt in my mind, intended first and foremost for this country that it NOT be a Theocracy, and they thanked God that there was a place on earth that wasn't. American fundamentalism is not an ancient religion. It is not necessarily as old as this country, and seems to me to have gotten into politics through participation of the pulpit in the civil rights movement and later through opposition to Roe vs. Wade. The troubling aspect of this fundamentalist preaching is that one's mission and duty to Christ is to go out and "spread God's message", which is, for many of them, that one must be "Born Again in Christ" to be saved and that all others will perish on Judgment Day. I strongly feel that this message as interpreted by some preachers, leads American fundamentalists to believe that it is their Christian duty to vote as their preacher tells them to and to become politically active in order to "save" America. Their ultimate goal is to make American law God's law, as they see it. It is their duty as evangelicals and fundamentalists. Most people abhor abortion. Most people despise murder, even in self-defense. Even in wartime. Most people wish that their sexual desires weren't considered deviant by society, whether it's a gay relationship or a trip to the town whorehouse when your wife's visiting her sister. Most people feel compassion for the helpless and sometimes even for the feckless. Most people want to go somewhere nice after they die. But what decisions they make, what religion they practice and what they have to do to earn their eternal bliss is between them and their God. I am progressive and I am liberal. I was raised in a very religious household but consider myself a believer in a greater power and a very spiritual person. If I were to die and face judgment as my parents saw it, I'd be proud to show my life to Jesus. I think he would understand about gays needing love too, or a woman who sent a baby to heaven without letting it ever know it wasn't wanted or welcomed by anybody on this earth. I'm afraid of theocracy. I don't want it and I will fight against it as a progressive. There is no compromise on this issue that I can see. No Fundamentalist Mullahs in America, I say!!

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:15:55 AM EST
    The problem with religion and politics can be best understood by looking at Iran after the Shah. If you like that look, you will love America under the Christian ayatollahs. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's. Jesus signed on rather early to the separation of God and state.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#9)
    by wishful on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:23:22 AM EST
    As always, he who has the gold rules. Scaife will never stop, though I don't get the motivation to destroy the US from within as he and his cohorts are intent on doing.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:23:37 AM EST
    When I hear the arguments against Seperation. I like to propose this possibility. If muslims become a Majority in a town or city would it offensive to evangrlicals if their local realestate taxes went to help local Mosks provide all the poor children of their comunity daycare? This is what can happen when the barrier between Church & State is lowered.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:41:04 AM EST
    eddieb, How would a day care program that does not necessarily attempt to indoctrinate a religious viewpoint be seen as Congress passing a law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof?

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:53:04 AM EST
    Justpaul, My question remains unanswered. How do you think evangelicals would respond to forcing thier children to attend daycare in mosks administered by Muslims?

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:59:04 AM EST
    Currently in this country, the laws of the government, while based on "Christian" ideals of justice and charity, are not representative of the biblical dictates of any specific religion. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are numerous state and local laws, especially in the South, that are written from a Protestant standpoint. I am working, so the post must remain short; but from blue laws to the tax code, Southern law is Protestant. At that, it is specifically Baptist. In some areas, Pentecostal. Speaking nationally, historically business has been heavily influenced by Protestant ethics. This is easily referenced; one can pick up a business text book and read of the American and English Protestant business theoreticians of the 1800s. Our present government is Corporatist; I am less concerned about Theocracy with this Administration than I am Military-Industrial complex. I feel that the Bush Admin throws bones to Social Conservatives when necessary, but that it's primary agenda is not "Evangelical". I am more concerned over Congress and far more concerned about Social Conservatives in the media/media-ownership.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#14)
    by theologicus on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:00:38 AM EST
    Eddieb is right. Faith-based day care centers and other such "faith-based" initiatives funded by the government are a remarkably bad idea -- not only for the government but also for communities of faith.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:02:29 AM EST
    Tampa's got a point, even though it changes the subject.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:07:08 AM EST
    eddieb, I imagine a number of evangelicals would not like the prospect at all, probably because they would be worried about possible indoctrination of their children into islam, but that doesn't make it illegal. You indicated that such an arrangement could happen when the wall between church and state was lowered. Why is it necessary for the wall to be lowered for this to happen? How is such activity, even if funded by tax dollars, equivalent to congress enacting a law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof?

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:30:37 AM EST
    Justpaul In this country we are free to establish any religion we choose and can freely excercise it and our government is prohibited from interfering with these rights in any way or fashion. For the State to give Muslems the ability to affect my childrens right to freely exercise their religion violates the constitution!

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:33:32 AM EST
    tampa student - Emphasis on any specific religion. Your point is well taken but I said specifically as in one uniform doctrine based on one specific interpretation and meant mostly the constitution and bill of rights as opposed to State Laws, which, coming from the "Blue Law" state of Massachusetts, I'm well acquainted with.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 08:45:48 AM EST
    eddieb, The First Amendment says that "Congress shall enact no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof....". It does not say "Local governments shall not provide funding to religious organizations for any purpose whatsoever". Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment says that those powers not granted to the federal government or the states are retained by the states or the people. Since the First Amendment specifically mentions "Congress" and not the states or the people, it would appear that the Tenth Amendment means that the power to enact laws regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof are left to the states or the people. So, in your example, if muslims in control of a town council used local real estate taxes to fund an after school daycare center, they would not be in violation of the First Amendment and it would not be illegal.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:12:06 AM EST
    Hmmm... Then according to your thinking I was wrong about Praying in Schools the Supremes said it was okay to let local schools force kids to pray.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:28:48 AM EST
    eddieb, No, you were not wrong. Most if not all schools receive federal funding, which is how you get back to the issue of Congress doing something. Your example involved a local town council using local real estate tax dollars to enact a local after school day care program. And the First Amendment does not say that a local governing body cannot do this, only that Congress cannot. My point is not that this is desirable, although I'm not so sure it's not, since it depends on which concerns your more, poor children roaming the streets or possible religious indoctrination. My point is simply that the wall between church and state can stay right where it is and you can still have a mosque using local tax dollars to provide after school day care.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:32:17 AM EST
    If memory serves me rightly, Thomas Jefferson assured the Mamelukes of Tripoli (Tunis) that the US was a secular nation not interested in imposing its' religious views on other nations. I am having a hard tiem finding the exact quote, but I am sure the professional historians amongst us could.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:44:18 AM EST
    Nemo's right! This country was founded on SECULAR ideals. Words like Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy are secular ideas and not derived from the bible or the pulpit.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#24)
    by Adept Havelock on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:45:09 AM EST
    Actually, Nemo, I believe that was part of the treaty with the barbary pirates, and done under the Adams administration, though I could be wrong. I do recall however, the preamble of the treaty: "As the United States is NOT a Christian nation"... Fundies have been quibbling about this ever since.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:59:26 AM EST
    I knew somebody here would have an idea of the correct reference. Here is what I was talking about: Treaty with Tripoli (1796). From the article: The Treaty is notable for Article 11, which reads: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." It can't be any plainer than that.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    mfox - I didn't know my town had a whorehouse. Are they common in the Boston/NE area? You protest too much. The constitution is very plain. Only the Left has found naunces to agonize over. nemo - Why does this stated opinion have any particular force that should override the constitution? BTW - Your link doesn't link.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#27)
    by demohypocrates on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    I love this article. Take an amorphic group of 'evangelical Christian leaders', write some scary blurbs about them, inflate their importance, and scare the rest of the country into thinking these guys run the Republican party and control the mind of GWB. Its called a witch hunt. The left has perfected it. But their witches will be ignored as the libs are. Ineffectualness must hurt more than irrelevance. You have perfected both. But, try it in the next election cycle!!! Please.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:23:47 AM EST
    PPJ, the sad fact is treaties do just that. That's why the US Senate of the early 20th century refused to ratify the League of Nations treaty, because of the damage it would do to the Constitution. Once ink is committed to paper, we're bound to honor it...or so I was taught. So long as the nation we signed the treaty with remains, we are bound to abide by it. But as has happened very recently, when the nation no longer exists (The Soviet Union), the treaty signed with it becomes moot (i.e.the ABM treaty). A real connundrum.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    nemo, Interesting argument, but it fails mightily with regard to the specific treaty you mentioned. The phrase concerning the status of this country as regards christianity is not part of the agreement in the treaty. It is a statement about our standing. As long as we abide by the agreement in the treaty, a change in our status to a fully functioning christian theocracy (which I would not support) would not be in violation of that treaty.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:32:23 AM EST
    Poker player It has been strict costruction theorists who constantly want us to interpret the constitution as it was intended. I think the words of Thomas Jefferson do give us some insight as to his "INTENT" since "HE WROTE IT" and the rest of the founding fathers ratifyed it.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    Trying again: Treaty of Tripoli

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:39:30 AM EST
    eddieb, Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:40:47 AM EST
    JusPaul, I can certainly understand your point; change being the only constant in the Universe, for the US to become a theocracy is a real (and frightening) possibility. But my point in rendering an opinion has been to illustrate what the Founders had in mind with regards to the US government being founded on secular principles.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    eddieb, In fact, he didn't even sign it. Would this mean, following your logic, that his thoughts on it are irrelevant?

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    PPJ - did you miss my point?(which was that sexual "deviance" is as prevalent among the church going crowd as among the not so churchgoing. Congrats on living in the only town in the world where you cannot hire a prostitute. I thought of this example from my last drive into Houston where the zoning apparently dictated that churches and strip joints alternate along the road. I don't understand your quote about protesting too much. Is this some kind of MacBeth reference implying my guilt in some sense? Appreciate an explanation if you feel like. Just Paul writes: My point is not that [using local real estate tax dollars to enact a local after school Muslim day care program]is desirable, although I'm not so sure it's not, since it depends on which concerns your more, poor children roaming the streets or possible religious indoctrination. JustPaul, with respect to the fact that you were making a completely different point I want to say that this kind of comment is exactly what pi**es me off. You imply that "poor children roaming the streets" and children who are religiously "indoctrinated" are two opposing choices with the latter being the "better" choice for children. Believe me, I was indoctrinated. And I spent plenty of time wandering the streets to get away from the beatings I was getting at home for being a "sinner". (The more you suffer on earth, you know, the faster you'll go to heaven). While you may not have even thought about your comparison, I'm very sensitive to the fact that church-goers and those that feel they are in God's favor believe they are better than me, and their kids are more moral, better taken care of, and more deserving than mine. I can say this because I grew up with the most hypocritical, judgmental, negative interpretation of this and it exists. I see it especially in the proseletyzing and assumed moral superiority to the other, presumably progressive, God-questioning or God is personal folks.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:47:47 AM EST
    Never mind.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:32:01 AM EST
    "While you may not have even thought about your comparison, I'm very sensitive to the fact that church-goers and those that feel they are in God's favor believe they are better than me, and their kids are more moral, better taken care of, and more deserving than mine." mfox, I can't help the fact this you're pissed off. That is something you will have to work out on your own. I will note, however, that it is your hypersensitivity to this issue, which is made quite clear in your post, that led you to become so. You say that I "imply" that it is better for kids to be in a muslim run daycare center than out roaming the streets. I suggest you go back and read the post again. It says: "My point is NOT [emphasis added] that this is desirable, although I'm not so sure it's not, since it depends on which concerns YOU [emphasis added, with spelling corrected] more, poor children roaming the streets or possible religious indoctrination." There is no implication of one being superior to the other here. In fact, I clearly state that which of the two is better depends on YOUR opinion, not mine, and that I am simply unsure about the issue since it would depend on several variables, among them the level of religious indoctrination we are talking about and the atmosphre of the streets these kids would be roaming. Now clearly, in your view, you would rather have kids roaming the streets than suffering religious indoctrination (and I happen to agree with you on that in general, although not because of an upbringing like yours, I have my own issues with religion in general), but I think we can both agree that a third option that involved neither would be better in general. But if the muslims in eddieb's imaginary town decide that it is better to provide a publically funded day care center than to have poor kids roaming the streets, they are, in my opinion, free to do so in regard to the First Amendment. You can take up the legal issues with them. And remember, it is better to be pi$$ed off than to be pi$$ed on.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    I am pissed off Just Paul and didn't expect you to solve that problem. Hypersensitivity to a subject based on personal experience does not indicate a lack of credibility on the subject. The personal is political, after all. In fact, what I'm hypersensitve to is the hypocrisy of religious conservatives who have deemed themselves the saviours of America. The Moslem example above was a little jolt (probably ignored) to remind those folks who want a Theocracy that their position is not historically unique (the soon to be ex-president of Iraq Allawi may have something to say on this issue). Not to get picky about this and that comment, but the claim of moral superiority by American Fundamentalists (and my parents, for that matter who were strict Catholics) is dangerous for American rights and values. Why would someone who doesn't think I deserve to go to heaven think I deserve anything in this life (which we are supposed to suffer in for later redemption). I did qualify my point to make clear that this was not the jist of your comment, Just Paul, but the statement you made did jump out at me as I believe many people make that same kind of comparison without irony or humor or implied choice.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#39)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:28:11 PM EST
    That Time Magazine feature is a virtual Rogue's Gallery. Commandment number 11: Know thine enemy.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    Challenging a student's religious views is seen as "re-education" by some on the right. Any and all debate about the place of religion in society is derided by the theocons as anti-religious and communist. It's hard to argue with something so absurd, thus the theocons seem to be winning.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 02:00:22 PM EST
    Having had dealings with MANY,its no exaggeration to say that asking evangelicals not to proslytize is like asking them not to breathe. Bushco is trying bribe the churchs into giving them moral lattitude, and screwing the poor-again(its so amusing to see them squirm).

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    nemo - I don't think a treaty can override the Constitution, which was ratified by the states, and which, to change, requires two thirds of the states to agree. And I think that treaties can be broken, quite easily, by notifying the other party that we are no longer bound by them. And obviously, if the other state no longer exists, the treaties is void. How can you have a treaty with something that doesn't exists? As for your concern that the US will turn into a theocracy, I would suggest you are reading too much scifi. Eddieb - I seem to remember something about "...under God...." perhaps I need memory help. In any event, I think the real point that the founders had is that all rights come from God. Are God given. Thus mere man cannot take them away. The other being that men are to be governed by the consent of the goverened. The final one being that the Federal government has only those powers specifically and explicity given to it. All others are given to the states and the citziens. mfox - Actually, I have no whorehouse information about my town, so I will accept your congratulations with reservations. As for Houston, I haven't been there for years, perhaps Glanton can tell us about the strip joints and churches side by side. At least it would be a short walk on Sunday morning for the Saturday night sinners. As for sexual deviance in the general population versus church gowers, again I have no information that would make me think that the distribution would be less than equal for both populations. Why that is important, though, escapes me. And yes, I found your guilt sadly amusing. It appears to be disease concentrated in the Left. As for your fear of a theocracy, as I wrote to nemo, I think you are reading too much scific.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#43)
    by glanton on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:47:16 PM EST
    PPJ: Wish I could help y'all out either in the area of strip joints or churches, but these days I'm about as alien to one as the other. Though your parallel reminds me of the Springsteen line, "from the churches to the jails/ tonight all is silence in the world" Anyway, while you paint a vivid image, I confess I know nothing about Houston a'tall. Anyone who has ever driven I-10 for any reason whatever might know why I avoid that city, exciting as it undoubtedly is. I prefer Dallas. Nicely planned city, traffic wise, and lots to do, when one has time the time.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    glanton - Sorry, I thought you were familar with Houston and might comment on the alternating location of the chuches and strip joints, not the quality, that mfox writes about. ;-) As for Dallas, I wouldn't mind a little Tex Mex right now myself.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#45)
    by glanton on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    Yeah, can't really comment too much on those alternations, don't know much about it, and definitely wanna get all carried away again like I have in the past and start making big generalizations about people of faith. :-) I will say, though, something comparable, which Cliff might recognize. I'm originally from one of the many dry counties in North Carolina, and whenever a referendum comes up to allow alchohol and thus boost the sagging economies in those counties, it's often said that the bootleggers and the preachers get in bed together for a strange alliance, to get the thing shot down. What many don't know is that often, the bootlegger and the preacher in those cases are occasionally the same guy. Ah, synchronicity!

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#46)
    by glanton on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    And in the case of my own native county you can strike the word "occasionally" from that last paragraph.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    You're welcome to your opinions, PPJ, but if you've been reading what I had to say, I mentioned the chance existed. I did not say unequivocally that it would. But not through their lack of trying. The Religious Right has been hankering for decades to sit in the catbird seat, and have made 'deals with the devil' (i.e.with the Rockefeller wing of the Republicans) to get close to it...but have until this Administration never gotten very close. That changed with Ashcroft. IMHO, the Rockefeller Republicans have used the RR's as Machiavellian 'auxilliaries'; politically naive unprofessionals with no experience but plenty of energy and enthusiasm; they make great cannon fodder, but are dangerous to Power because their zealotry is at odds with cynical pragmatism. . As Old Nic himself put it: "These arms may be useful and good in themselves, but for him who calls them in they are always disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their captive." The Religious Right's rank-and-file are largely oblivious to this, but their leaders are well aware of their status, which is why they have been grumbling that Mr. Bush owes them much (true) and that he should deliver more positions of power to them for their support of him (he won't). But one thing cannot be denied: they have made inroads into all levels of government, and have injected their beliefs into policy. Those policies have been allowed to stand so long as they do not interfere with the mercantilist operations of the plutocrats underwriting the Republicans, but the moment they do, they'll be decommissioned. The same pattern will maintain if they become a serious political and social embarassment.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:16:21 PM EST
    nemo - Zealot is as Zealot does. You might want to avoid the mirror.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:28:31 PM EST
    It is always a tactic of political and religious ideologues to produce numerous quotes of historical figures to support their particular viewpoint and neglect the thoughts and writings of these same historical figures that conflict with their espoused veiwpoint. In a letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut who were being persecuted because they were not part of the congregationalist establishment in that state, President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 wrote,
    ......Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state......
    . Of course, Jefferson is quoting the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but this letter is where he introduces the concept of separation of church and state. Among the Founding Fathers, who were of European descent, were many different Christian sects as well as deists, theists, and agnostics as any complete reading of history would reveal. Even so, many of the Founding Fathers were determined that the new nation not duplicate the mistakes of Europe by establishing a repressive theocracy as had happened many times in European history. This caution facilitated the pluralism that has developed through the history and evolution of the United States of America.....
    E Pluribus Unum
    .

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:58:40 AM EST
    KenG, That is all very well, but it still suffers from a few not-so-minor issues. To begin with, Jefferson is offering his own thoughts on the meaning of a document that he wasn't involved in writing. This is not to say he is wrong, and I certainly don't think he is when it comes to his interpretation of the First Amendment, but his statement does not include the signatures of those who did in fact write the document and therefore cannot be taken as clear example of their intent. More serious however, is the fact that the "state" that Jefferson is referring to is the country as a whole. The United States of America may, in Jefferson's words, have created a wall between church and state. But this wall does not necessarily apply to the several states that make up the country, nor to the individual communities within those states. Their freedom to enact laws regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof is protected under the Tenth Amendment. I'm not saying I think we should welcome state or even local theocracies. I certainly don't want to live under one, regardless of which religion would be in control. But the First Amendment as currently written does not necessarily preclude such from happening. Maybe we need to fix that?

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:08:44 AM EST
    DA - And there is no doubt that Congress can disavow them at its pleasure. And certainly a treaty with an entity that does not exist disappeared when the entity disappeared.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    DA - I would guess the President would need to agree. i.e. Someone would introduce a bill, the bill is passed. The President signs. The new law disavows Treaty X. And if treaties are on the same level as laws, laws are changed all the time.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    PPJ, I've made my points very succinctly, and you've responded with an insinuation I'm a zealot. Definition of zealot Please point out to me anywhere in my posts here where I have engaged in zealotry. I suspect that what you term 'zealotry' is my determination to answer logically an emotionally charged question, and such attempts make you uncomfortable for some reason. I'd like to know why, without your resorting to another such insinuation...which answers nothing. Also please note: While I have been here, I have never engaged in a single instance of character defamation towards anyone I even remotely disagreed with. Kindly do me the favor of being as courteous.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:58:55 PM EST
    JustPaul, First of all, I was not insinuating that Jefferson was one of the architects in the drafting of the Constitution. However, he was not alone in his conception of the interpretation of the First Amendment. I also realize that he was speaking of the country as whole in his letter to the Danbury Baptists and not of the state of Connecticut. As you say, their freedom to enact laws regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof is protected under the Tenth Amendment. Maybe we should fix this as you said. The Constitution must be treated with reverence, but at the same time all Americans must also accept that it is not a static document. For instance, how could the founding fathers have foreseen from an agrarian type background, the growth of multinational corporations and cartels with such massive financial and manipulative powers they dwarf many of the world's governments? How does democratic-representative government check and balance this ever-increasing concentration of power? Thanks for your comments JustPaul…I don't have a blog site as yet. KenG

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    KenG, Given that multinationals already existed in the form of the major european powers, many of which operated as both governments and commercial enterprises, I think the founding fathers were a little further alone the curve then you realize. As for the Constitution being a living document or whatever you want to call it, that is incorrect. The Constitution was written to state specific beliefs and to grant specific powers to the government. And the method for changing what it says was written directly into it. It was not left up to future generations to decide that the clear text means something else based on new type of society. This approach has been taken by those who know they cannot get the number of people it would take to change the Constitution to agree with them, so they try to go around it and redefine it.

    Re: The New Theocracy (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:51:01 AM EST
    nemo - Sometimes even your best friends won't tell you. Read some of your comments. BTW - Being a zealot isn't always bad, but many people who do bad things are zealots. I, for example, am a FANatic about collecting scifi and fantasy pulps. One could easily consider me a zealot on the subect.