Thursday, March 25, 2004
The Senate, part 4: the Democratic side of the aisle
More Democrats than Republicans are up for election in the Senate this time. With the ever-so-narrow margin of Democrats over Republicans, 50 to 49 with one seat to spare, it's important that not one of these seats be lost to a Republican challenger for the next six years as the Democrats are the ones who are withstanding the assault of Dominionist thinking on the country.
Here are the Democratic seats up for election, arranged in ascending order of their Christian Coalition approval rating, and the number of Republicans vs. Democrats in their state's House representation (info, as before, from The Almanac of American Politics, 2004 edition):
Evan Bayh, Indiana, CC 0%; House: 6 Republicans, 3 Democrats
Barbara Boxer, California, CC 0%; House: 20 R, 33 D.
Tom Daschle, South Dakota, CC 0%; House: One R. (at-large)
John Edwards, North Carolina, CC 0%; House: 7 R, 6 D.
Bob Graham, Florida, CC 0%; House: 18 R, 7 D.
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii, CC 0%: House: 2 D.
Patrick Leahy, Vermont, CC 0%; House: One Independent.
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland, CC 0%; House: 2 R, 6 D
Patty Murray, Washington, CC 0%; House: 3 R, 6 D
Harry Reid, Nevada, CC 0%; House: 2 R, 1 D
Charles Schumer, New York, CC 0%; House: 10 R, 19 D
Ron Wyden, Oregon, CC 0%; House: 1 R, 4 D.
All the above Senators voted against every major bill that was backed by the Christian Coalition and the Republican Right Wing. Note that in some cases their states have significant Republican populations, but the Senators continued to vote for liberal goals and against the Republican agenda. Will this affect their re-election? That's something to consider in a separate post. For now, I'd like to look at the Democrats who crossed the aisle to vote along with the Religious Right on major issues.
Russell Feingold, Wisconsin, CC 20%; House: 4 R, 4 D.
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas, CC 20%; House: 1 R, 3 D.
Christopher Dodd, Connecticut, CC 20%; House: 3 R, 2 D.
Ms. Lincoln and Dodd voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Feingold and Dodd voted with the Republicans to approve Ashcroft as attorney general, while
Ms. Lincoln voted against Ashcroft and most of the Republican agenda, but caved on approving Bush's tax cuts.
Ernest Hollings, South Carolina, CC 40%; House: 4 R, 2 D.
Byron Dorgan, North Dakota, CC 40%; House: One D, at-large.
Hollings voted to bar homosexuals from the Boy Scouts (by not authorizing funding so that anti-discrimination laws could be enforced against the organization). He also voted for the war in Iraq, to bar the US from cooperating with the international court, and to keep Homeland Security employees from unionizing.
Dorgan voted to confirm Ashcroft, to bar gays from the Boy Scouts, to bar cooperation with the international court, and to bar Homeland Security employees from unionizing.
So, here we have two Democrats who are agreeing with homophobia, who are anti-union and anti-labor for government employees, and who are against international cooperation. Even so, they voted against a good deal of the Republican agenda, and they supported patients' rights, campaign finance reform, prosecution of hate crimes, and the availability of choice for women in service abroad.
This shows why choosing a candidate based on a single issue or vote is a bad idea. Ordinarily, one would expect that someone who would support prosecution of hate crimes would also be in favor of nondiscrimination against a minority -- but they apparently don't consider gay people a distinct minority in terms of the Boy Scouts. If the Boy Scouts had decided that one particular ethnic group shouldn't be members, they would have approved money to bring the organization to court to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
Zell Miller, Georgia, not seeking re-election, CC 60%; House: 8 R, 5 D.
John Breaux, Louisiana, CC 80%; House: 4 R, 3 D.
Miller had nothing to lose by voting with the Republicans. He weighed in with them on approving Bush's tax cuts, allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, confirming Ashcroft, barring gays from the Boy Scouts, barring cooperation with the international court, allowing the president to set trade agreements, and sending troops to Iraq. He remained socially responsible enough to vote for patient rights, campaign finance reform, prosecution of hate crimes, and in favor of allowing Homeland Security employees to have unions.
Breaux differed from the Republican agenda only in voting for patient rights; in other matters he voted with the Right Wing.
Neither of these Senators cast a vote on access to abortions for overseas military and their families. Except for that, in what way are these officially Democratic Senators not acting like Republicans? They have endorsed virtually the entire Right-Wing agenda.
Several other groups have evaluated Senators and Congressmen, and I plan to look at their scores for the Senators up for re-election soon. I want to see what patterns emerge as we look at the candidates from different directions.
The other thing to think about when it comes to Democrats who vote with the Dominionist agenda is this: will their Republican opponents be any more liberal than they are? Is it worth re-electing them as Democrats, regardless of their voting records, in order to get a Democratic majority?
It should be remembered that both these states are in the south, Louisiana in the Deep South, where being a Democrat can be a matter of principle because the Democrats held the South until the carpetbagger Republicans came in during Reconstruction after the Civil War, aka the War Between the States (or, in the South, the War of Northern Aggression.) That war may have taken place in the 1860s, but its effects are still felt to this day in the political arena.
I don't think the challengers for the Senate seats have been named yet; when they have, I hope to be able to look at them also in terms of these issues.
3/25/2004 04:33:00 PM
The Senate, part 3: location, location, location
It's said that in real estate, the three things that matter are location, location, location. The same can be said of elections, in terms of the effect of local attitudes on elected officials at the national level.
In the last post, I listed the votes and issues that gave candidates a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition, which is a major backer of Dominionist or 'Christian Reconstructionist' candidates. This post looks more closely at the Senators whose seats are up for vote, and speculates on some of the reasons that they voted as they did, in particular why Senators dissented from the Christian Coalition view. As before, statistical information is from The Almanac of American Politics and the analysis is my own.
As you may recall, a Christian Coalition rating of 100 percent indicates that this Senate has voted the following way:
For: the Bush budget cuts, Ashcroft as attorney general, discrimination against gays, permitting oil drilling in the Alaskan wildlife reserve (therefore anti-environmental), the war, keeping employees of Homeland Security from joining unions, allowing the President to negotiate trade agreements.
Against: expanding patients' rights, campaign finance reform, prosecuting hate crimes, providing abortion services for US military or their families while stationed overseas, allowing US cooperation with an international court.
This time, we're looking at the CC rating and the party backing of members of the House of Representatives in each state. This is important because House members tend to be in closer contact with the members of their districts, so each reflects his or her own district's value and preferences more closely than a Senator might. Although each Senator was elected at large by a majority in his/her state, there may be significant disagreeing minorities that may be indicated by looking at the number of House members on either side of the aisle dividing Republicans from Democrats.
So, the listings are: Senator, state, number of Republicans vs. Democrats in that state's delegation to the House of Representatives, with each entry ranked according to Christian Coalition vote approval rating.
1. Republican Senators seeking re-election with 100% ratings from the Christian Coalition:
Robert Bennett, Utah; House: 2 R, 1D
Sam Brownback, Kansas; House: 3R, 1D
Jim Bunning, Kentucky; House: 5R, 1D
Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colorado; House: 5R, 2D
Charles Grassley, Iowa; House: 4R, 1D
Judd Gregg, New Hampshire; House: 2R
Don Nickels, Oklahoma; House: 4R, 1D
Richard Shelby, Alabama; House: 5R, 2D
In each case, the Senators come from traditionally conservative states, mainly in the Old South (Kentucky, Alabama), Great Plains and Mountain states (Kansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah.) Conservative, however, tends to mean different things in different regions of the country. In New England, it generally means fiscal responsibility and no-frills government; in the Bible-Belt South and Midwest, it means traditional "family values", and in Utah it also means not going against the versions of both fiscal responsibility and family values held by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons. These states tend to be more rural than urban, big on various kinds of agriculture, and with only small to moderate-sized industrial cities. In general, cities tend to be more liberal than rural areas and more concerned with social policy and public welfare, while the smaller populations of rural areas may have other concerns or may meet those concerns in less-governmental ways.
With the exception of the small amount of Alabama that reaches the Gulf of Mexico and the largely unpopulated New Hampshire-Canada border, none of these states is located on a coast or an international border. Historically, new ideas and more progressive views have originated in coastal cities or on international borders as immigrants brought them in, so it's not surprising that people in these states may appear to be supporting the votes of these Senators. However, the presence of Democratic Representatives in all states but New Hampshire indicates that the grass-roots support for the Christian Coalition view may not be complete.
2. Republican Senators seeking re-election with 80% CC rating:
Christopher (Kit) Bond, Missouri; House: 5R, 2D
Mike Crapo, Idaho; House: 2R
Peter Fitzgerald, Illinois; CC 80%, House: 10R, 9D
George Voinovich, Ohio, CC 80%, 12 R, 6D
Here, we're back in the Midwest and the mountains; however, the higher Democratic representation from Chicago and from the industrial cities in Ohio and Missouri may have had some influence on the Senators' votes.
Bond dissented from the CC view in that he did not vote on the hate-crime legislation. As he comes from a state in which 4.6 million of the 5.5 million population consider themselves ethnicaly white, he may not have thought this issue important enough to avoid offending any of the other .9 million black, Native American, Asian, hispanic or other residents who live mostly in St. Louis or Kansas City.
Crapo comes from a state that is increasingly urbanized; most of the people moving there from other states are coming from California, but the Californians are from Orange County and seeking a traditional lifestyle. Other large groups of immigrants, have come from Mexico, Latin America and Vietnam. As with Bond, Crapo did not vote on the hate-crime legislation.
Fitzgerald, with a large Democratic constituency in Chicago to consider, including a large number of hospitals and medical schools and (IIRC) a powerful branch of the American Medical Association, voted to expand the rights of patients in dealing with insurance companies and HMOs.
Voinovich's Ohio includes international cities on Lake Erie, who deal with the Great Lakes trade from Canada and elsewhere; ships from many countries make the long voyage up the St. Lawrence to unload goods in Cleveland, and there is the inland interstate trade on the Ohio River into the Mississippi to consider. Ohio also has the industrial cities of Akron, Dayton, Columbus and Cincinnati to consider, with a reasonably sizeable Democratic population and a great deal of ethnic and lifestyle diversity. Voinovich went against the Christian Coalition views in voted against the bill that effectively barred gay people from the Boy Scouts, and he voted against the ban on American cooperation with the international court. Thus, he went against two primary Right-Wing precepts: he did not want to discriminate against homosexuals, and he wanted to make sure America was involved in the international court, whose judgments on trade might well affect his state.
3. Republican Senators seeking re-election with 60% CC rating or less:
John McCain, Arizona, CC 60%, House: 6R, 2D
Arlen Spector, Pennsylvania, CC 40%, House: 12 R, 7D
McCain has a history of independence in voting, and he comes from a politically conservative but socially progressive state in which that independence is honored. Here, 88 percent of the state's population lives in cities, including the hundred-mile-wide supercity of Phoenix, and ethnic diversity includes large Hispanic and Native American populations. McCain voted in favor of patient rights and campaign finance reform, but he may also have been thinking of the state's largely defunct mining industry and the ecological problems it caused when he voted against drilling for oil in the ANWR reserve.
Spector's voting record in terms of Conservative values might almost put him into the liberal camp, as far as the Christian Coalition is concerned. His state includes the city of Philadelphia, midway in the urbanized and industrial Rt. 95 eastern corridor between New York and Washington, D.C., and the steel towns of Erie and Pittsburgh in the west. In between these are small cities and farming districts, in a state that placed 2.4 million votes for Al Gore and 2.2 million for Bush in the 2000 election. Spector voted to expand patient rights, to reform campaign finance, against barring gays from the Boy Scouts, and against remaining uninvolved in the international court.
Since Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was appointed to the Senate in December, 2002, she was not rated by the Christian Coalition and any votes she made were not included in the Almanac. Her state has two Republicans in the House, and is traditionally conservative with moderate-sized to small urban areas and a small population that would like nothing more than to have more jobs -- and drilling ANWR would mean jobs for someone. She is a former Representative who, according to the Almanac, has favored increased taxes (alcohol tax), funding for abortions (if the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest), and against partial-birth abortion. She has supported drilling in ANWR, and it's possible that this support is what brought her George Bush's support for the coming election despite her moderate pro-choice position.
Bear in mind, this is a first look at these Senators; I will write more and put more pieces of the puzzle together for you soon.
3/25/2004 04:27:00 PM
The Senate, part 2: you can't tell the players without a scorecard
So, back to the Senators up for election. I'm listing here their names and states, the percentage of the vote they received in the states they represent during the last election, which could be considered a measure of voter confidence in them. I'm also listing how each one was rated by the Christian Coalition on how often they voted in agreement with the Coalition's views. All of this information comes from The Almanac of American Politics, by Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen, 2004 edition. I'll come back to these ratings in more detail in a later post; for now, consider that the ratings are for the voting year of 2001 but may be indicative of general attitudes.
Republicans:
Robert Bennett of Utah, 64% last time, CC rating 100%.
Christopher (Kit) Bond of Missouri, 53%, CC 80%
Sam Brownback of Kansas, 65%, CC 100%
Jim Bunning of Kentucky, 50%, CC100%
Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, 62%, CC 100%
Mike Crapo of Idaho, 70%, CC 80%
Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, 50%, not seeking re-election, CC 80%
Charles Grassley of Iowa, 68%, CC 100%
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, 68%, CC 100%
John McCain of Arizona, 69%, CC 60%
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, appointed Dec. 2002 to fill the remainder of her father's term after he resigned, not rated.
Don Nickels of Oklahoma, 66%, CC 100%
Richard Shelby of Alabama, 63%, CC 100%
Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, 61%, CC 40%
George Voinovich of Ohio, 56%, CC 80%.
Democrats:
Evan Bayh of Indiana, 64% last time, CC 0%
Barbara Boxer of California, 53%, CC 0%
John Breaux of Louisiana, 64%, CC 80%
Tom Daschle of South Dakota, 62%, CC 0%
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, 65%, CC 20%
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, 63%, CC 40%
John Edwards of North Carolina, 51%, CC 0%
Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, 51%, CC 20%
Bob Graham of Florida, 62%, CC 0%
Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, 53%, CC 40%
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, 79%, CC 0%
Patrick Leahy of Vermont, 72%, CC 0%
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, 55%, CC 20%
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, 71%, CC 0%
Zell Miller of Georgia, 58%, not seeking re-election, CC 60%
Patty Murray of Washington, 58%, CC 0%
Harry Reid of Nevada, 48%, CC 0%
Charles Schumer of New York, 55%, CC 0%
Ron Wyden of Oregon, 61%, CC 0%
What does a Christian Coalition rating of 100% mean, in terms of how Senators stood on various issues? Here are the key votes of the 107th Congress, as voted by a Senator who received a 100% CC approval rating:
Yes on approving the Bush budget cuts
No on expanding patient's rights in dealing with insurers and HMOs
No on campaign finance reform to eliminate most uses of 'soft' money, raise contribution limits and limit pre-election advertising targeted at candidates
Yes on permitting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, on the north slope of Alaska
Yes on confirming Ashcroft as Attorney General
Yes on barring funds for the District of Columbia to enforce an anti-discrimination ruling against the Boy Scouts for expelling two gay scouts
No on money for prosecution of hate crimes
No on providing access to abortion services for US military personnel and their dependents stationed overseas
Yes on prohibiting US cooperation with the (planned) International Criminal Court
Yes on extending 'trade promotion authority' for the president to negotiate trade agreements
Yes on authorizing the use of military force against Iraq
Yes on limiting debate and ultimately on denying employees of the Homeland Security Department the right to union membership, for reasons of national security.
In a later post, I'll go into more detail on which Senators whose CC ratings were less than 100% voted in which way, and the probable reasons for this. For now, this should give you something to think about. Any questions?
3/25/2004 04:26:00 PM
The Senate in November, part one in a series on the nuts and bolts of this November's election
This post concerns how the Senate works, according to the Constitution, and why the number of Democrats or Republicans affects how business is done. If you think you've already learned this in high-school civics, feel free to skip; otherwise, read on.
Every two years, about a third of the Senate is elected or re-elected. It's about a third because there are 100 seats, two from each state, and that doesn't divide evenly. This year 15 Republican and 19 Democratic seats are to be filled -- and this year, it will matter far more than usual how many of those seats shift from one party to the other.
After the last election, the Senate stood at 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats: a perfect stand-off. If the Republicans wanted to get a simple majority to pass anything, they would have to convince at least one Democrat that their proposals were valid and good -- and the same for the Democrats. Then one Senator decided to shift allegiance -- he declared himself an Independent, not a Republican, and the Republicans found they had 49 votes, the Democrats still had 50 but the Independent was voting most of the time on the D side of the aisle. This has not stopped the Senate from passing bills on a simple majority, often a tight one, but it has made the daily business much more political, and in some cases much more difficult. For instance, bills may pass on a voice vote, but if 20 Senators (or one-fifth of the Senators) agree on a roll-call vote, each member's vote will be entered in the Senate journal. (That's how we know the way that various elected officials have voted on various issues.) In the past year, the Republicans have gained a seat or two and are back to being a majority, if by one seat.
In order to do business day to day, a simple majority of the Senate must be present: 51 Senators. Since it takes a simple majority for bills, amendments and legislative acts to pass, it's possible that if 26 of those 51 who are present can agree, action can be taken that will be legal because they were there. However, care is generally taken to make sure that doesn't happen, and Senators who are away from the Senate Chamber when matters are proceeding toward a vote are generally called back -- which is to everyone's advantage, not least theirs, as they can then tell their constituents what they are doing with the public business.
Not everything requires a simple majority to pass the Senate. According to Article 1 of the Constitution, the Senate has the sole authority to impeach and requires a two-thirds vote to do so. Two-thirds of the Senators also need to agree in order to expel one of their own members, which doesn't happen often. Two-thirds of the Senate is also required to agree in order to override a Presidential veto on a bill that has already been passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. As you may have noticed, that hasn't happened often, either, particularly this year.
The Senate does not have the power to originate bills that have to do with revenue of any kind; that's reserved for the House, but the Senate can propose amendments, study a bill and send it back if necessary for clarification. It is also the prerogative of the Senate to deal with any matters concerning treaties.
(Historically speaking, it's possible that these duties were allocated because, in the beginning, Senators were generally wealthy land owners chosen by their own state legislatures, who could afford to spend six-year terms doing public business, while members of the House of Representatives were elected at large by the voters of their states and might be assumed to have more of an idea of the effect of monetary matters on ordinary people. Senators are elected by each state's voters now, not by the state legislature; and although some families have provided politicians for several generations to the Senate or House, the amount of funding and backing that it takes to run for these positions means that less-wealthy though equally talented people are not as likely to be able to serve.)
I'm going to quote Article I, Section 7, on the process of passing legislation, because the words of Jefferson and Madison are clearer than any I can come up with, but I'm going to break up the paragraphing to make it easier to sort out the details:
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States;
if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
If after such reconsideration two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.
But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.
If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
As you can see, it's possible for bills to become law that the President doesn't sign, and it's possible for Congress to overrule a veto by a two-thirds vote on each side (the Senate and the House chambers are actually on either side of the great Dome of the Capitol.) And it has to be two-thirds of the Senators and two-thirds of the House members *separately* agreeing to overrule the veto; having three-quarters of the Senate and only a fraction of the House, or vice versa, won't do it.
You may have noticed in this current Administration that a great deal of law has been made by executive order -- these are declarations made by the President without the consent of either the Senate or the House, and with the advice only of his cabinet. The executive orders this term include the Patriot Act, the creation and reorganization of departments into the Homeland Security, and at least one declaration of war -- which properly should have come from the Congress. No other president has taken it upon himself to declare war, even during a national emergency; Franklin Roosevelt went to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941, to ask it to declare war on the day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
The next post will concern the Senators themselves.
3/25/2004 04:24:00 PM
Sunday, March 21, 2004
The Sierra Club at risk
It appears that representatives of outside groups that are anti-immigration are attempting to take over the Sierra Club. But that's not all that's going on.
Information on the candidates and their outside affiliations and positions in those groups is here.
According to this article:
... candidates have won in recent elections who haven't been honest about their reasons for seeking a leadership role inside the Sierra Club. Directors have been elected to the Sierra Club Board who know little and care nothing about the Sierra Club's history or mission, and who want to distract us from what should be our sole mission this coming year: Stopping the Bush administration's attacks on the environment. If this group has its way, there will be new Sierra Club Directors whose first Board meeting will be their first Sierra Club meeting ever.
While these Directors may not be speaking about their ultimate aims inside the Sierra Club, outside the Club they're quite open. Animal rights activist and recently elected Sierra Club Board member Paul Watson boasts openly that he's trying to "take-over" the Sierra Club and its agenda. He told the 2003 Animal Rights convention in Los Angeles: "We're only three directors away from controlling that board [Sierra Club]. We control one-third of it right now." He notes how few Sierra Club members actually vote in the annual elections and that poor voter turn-out makes his take-over efforts easier. "So, you know, a few hundred, or a few thousand people from the animal rights movement joining the Sierra Club -- and making it a point to vote -- will change the entire agenda of that organization," Watson noted. He then explained, "Once we get three more directors elected … we can use the resources of the $95-million-a-year budget to address some of these issues."
Anti-immigration forces also have been targeting the Sierra Club for more than a decade, and they have now joined forces with the animal rights activists. Their unrelenting effort to hijack the Sierra Club prompted the Southern Poverty Law Center, a highly respected nonprofit organization with a long history of public service to the cause of civil rights, to offer this advice to the Club's volunteer leadership: "Without a doubt, the Sierra Club is the subject of a hostile takeover attempt by forces allied with ... a variety of right-wing extremists. By taking advantage of the welcoming grassroots democratic structure of the Sierra Club, they hope to use the credibility of the Club as a cover to advance their own extremist views. ... We think the members of the Sierra Club should be fully alert to the methods and motives of some of those who are trying to shift it from its historic mission."
But there's another reason to distract the Sierra Club from its historic mission of protecting the environment, and that's its challenge to the Bush Administration.
Beyond the Duck Blind: Supreme Court arguments are only six weeks away in the Sierra Club's challenge to the secrecy surrounding Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force and the formulation of the Bush administration's energy policy. And Justice Antonin Scalia, Mr. Cheney's duck-hunting buddy, still stubbornly resists stepping out of the case. To protect the Supreme Court's integrity and legitimacy — and honor the rule of law — the final choice can no longer be left to Justice Scalia alone. Unless he suddenly reverses himself, the Supreme Court as a whole has a duty to intervene, much as it reviews the recusal decisions of lower-court judges.
Shouldn't a justice who will be sitting on the bench during a case involving his good friend and hunting partner recuse himself, if for no other reason than the appearance of impropriety? Isn't that the ethical thing for a justice to do?
3/21/2004 06:12:00 PM
access for the Boy Scouts, or else.
During the 107th Congress (we're in the 108th now) a bill was added to the No Child Left Behind Act that puts local school districts over a barrel: if they choose not to let the Boy Scouts of America use their facilities, they will lose their right to Federal funding. Many districts have chosen to do this in recent years because the Boy Scouts discriminate against homosexuals. After some digging, I have found the discussion that took place in Congress when Rep. Hilleary of Tennessee proposed this act.
To get there, go to this page, Bill Summary and Status for the 107th Congress and read down to H.AMDT.65, and go to the consideration pages at that point here Once you're there, read down the long column of "Gentlemen, I yield the floor to..." until you get to page H2618 (which is the page number from the Federal Register and you're there. The discussion continues on page H2619 under Equal Access for School Facilities (use the arrows at the bottom of the page), but if it takes you a whle the query link will cancel and you'll have to go back to an earlier page to find where you were -- which is why I've put all these links here for you.
Note the objection from Rep. Woolsey of California: Mr. Chairman, my objection is not because I object to the Boy Scouts. My objection is to intolerance. Since the Boy Scouts of America fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to discriminate, school districts, county governments, businesses and charitable groups like the United Way chapters have been breaking their ties with the Boy Scouts of America. This effort to stand up to the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policy is not a fringe movement; it is part of the mainstream belief that intolerance in any form is un-American.
The full discussion takes place in the context of discussing character-building for students in schools, following a discussion of school violence, and occurs in late afternoon.
Notice the way the proposal is framed by Rep. HIlleary -- give the Boy Scouts equal access to public facilities.
And the rebuttal from Woolsey -- but the Boy Scouts are discriminatory AND this goes against local control of local facilities.
Counterattack by Rep. Pence of Indiana -- it's a sad day when this character-building association is denied access to schools" based on its membership or leadership criteria." ... followed by mentions of school shootings and other events that having the BS there would, presumably, ameliorate. High school students in the State of Indiana can be asked to watch MTV programs to fulfill a course requirement, but the prospect of allowing the Boy Scouts of America to meet in the same building is somehow offensive to the Constitution of this great land. The Boy Scouts of America is a model of integrity, strong ethics, devotion to God and the public good. Closing school doors to them is at minimum misguided, and at the most it is extremism.
Additional rhetoric by Pence to place this in the proper churchly sphere: The Founders of this Nation fought for one Nation under God. The phrase ``In God we trust,'' Mr. Chairman, graces the walls of this very Chamber as testimony to this historic truth. Let us in this place by this amendment make it possible for the next generation of Americans to embrace those same timeless values.
[Note: The founders of the nation fought to free the country from Britain, and from the Church of England. They established no religion as the official religion here, and In God We Trust was added to the money later, not then. In fact, the Episcopal Church was created as an American church with Anglican roots that would *not* be the official church of the land -- and would not, therefore, be required to pray for the health of King George... but I digress. Back to Congress.]
Rep. Woolsey returns: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that, if those words are believed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. PENCE) on the other side of the aisle, then it would make sense that all boys, not just some boys can be members of Scouting.
Supporting statement from Rep. Delahunt of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, let us be clear. This amendment does nothing, nothing for the Boy Scouts. They are already well protected, not by some statute, but by the Constitution. That constitutional principle is already well established.
Delahunt continues: Under the first amendment, they cannot be denied for the use of any public forum that is made available to other groups. For example, back in 1968, a Federal Court of Appeals upheld the right of the Ku Klux Klan to use a high school gym for a Klan meeting. In this past March, a Federal District Court applied the same principle to the Boy Scouts when a school board in Florida attempted to deny them the use of school facilities. So my colleagues do not have to worry about the Boy Scouts. They are well protected now.
The reality is that this amendment is not about the Boy Scouts. It is about a conservative social agenda that holds passionate views about sexual orientation. The Boy Scouts' policy on sexual orientation is well known. That is fine. The gentleman is entitled to his views, and the Boy Scouts' are entitled to their views. But they ought not to be entitled to use the Congress of the United States to make a political statement that promotes intolerance and discrimination.
Vote no on the Hilleary amendment.
Rep. Schaffer of Colorado: proposes that since vouchers were defeated that would have allowed public-school students to attend private schools, the 'private institution' of the Boy Scouts should be allowed to come to them.
Rep. Lee of California: Of course the BS represent the standards that we hope for in terms of all young men in the country -- that is why I believe that this amendment would be dangerous in terms of restricting the use of Federal funds from schools and school districts that choose to stand against the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies. Further, this is an intrusion into a local district's ability to set standards for the use of its own facilities. I'm concerned that Congress would eliminate vital funds for children's schools simply because the school system stands up against discrimination. This also gives the BS and other youth groups *unique rights* that aren't available to other student-led groups.
Rep. HIlleary, replies: the BS aren't protected, are the target of many, many votes of harassment (in his view) and they should not have to use their precious resources to claim constitutional rights in court, nor should school systems have to use their precious resources defending against the BS in court. This just sets it right for them, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Rep. Woolsey: submits for the record a letter signed by 22 organizations opposing the proposal, including the National PTA, National School Boards Association, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Rural Education Association. Mr. Chairman, we should vote against this because it is not necessary in the first place, but a vote against this amendment would be a vote telling our children that all children are important, not just some children.
[The full text of the letter is here:
May 22, 2001.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: We are writing today to urge you to reject the ``Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act'' which was offered as an amendment to the Leave No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R. 1). This amendment would deny all Federal education funding to any school district or state education agency that has been found to ``discriminate'' against the Boy Scouts of America, or any other youth group that denies membership to gays and lesbians.
The Hilleary amendment is an unnecessary, unwarranted intrusion into a local school district's ability to set standards for the use of their own facilities, and bestows uopn the Boy Scouts and other youth groups unique rights that are not available to student-led groups.
The amendment is unnecessary because the First Amendment already guarantees the Boy Scouts the right to use public school facilities, to the same extent and in the same manner as any other group allowed to use those facilities.
At the same time, the amendment is an unwarranted intrusion into the decision-making of local school boards because it mandates the creation of an ``open forum'' any time a school lets one community group use their facilities. The Hilleary amendment decrees that such an action transforms the school into an ``open forum,'' therefore requiring the institution to allow the Boy Scouts and any other anti-gay youth group to use school facilities or premises--regardless of the school's intention or the local school board's decisions on the matter.
We, the undersigned organizations, strongly urge you to oppose this amendment. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Nancy Zirkin, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations--American Association of University Women (AAUW) or Jamie Pueschel, Government Relations Manager--AAUW.
Sincerely,
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of University Women
American Counseling Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Council of the Great City Schools
Council of Chief State School Officers
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Myra Sadker Advocates
National Association of Black School Educators
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Girls and Women in Sport
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of La Raza
National Education Association
National Federation of Filipino American Associations
National PTA
National Rural Education Association
[Page: H2620] GPO's PDF
National School Boards Association
National Women's Law Center
New York City Board of Education
New York State Education Department
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
People For the American Way
School Social Work Association of America
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries
Then there was a voice vote -- and the amendment was included in the larger bill, and they went on to consider a bill on learning grants.
***
If you're looking for associations and organizations that are working to defeat the Dominionist agenda, this list isn't a bad place to start. Remember, the right wing would like nothing better than to have their version of Christian prayer in school, no unions, no 40-hour work week, no public education and no recourse to anything but their own ideas. These groups listed don't agree with that.
3/21/2004 06:08:00 PM
who owns who in the news?
I was thinking recently about the politics of news and the various connections among and between news corporations and for-profit entertainment and other companies, and it occurred to me to do a little research. It was difficult to keep advertisers from influencing how the news was covered when I was working at small and moderate-sized newspapers; the pressure must be much more intense higher up -- and even more so from the companies that are co-owned by, partners of or subsidiaries of news corporation owners.
And here's what I found in the labyrinths of business:
I started by looking at the news departments and working backward, asking each time, "Who owns this?" All of the information below is public information, found by searching Google and then searching Hoover's Online: The Business Information Authority, www.hoovers.com, and the Yoh Group website. Much of the information was originally presented in structured hierarchies; I have collapsed them for the sake of space, but anyone who wants to go to Hoover's will find the relationships shown.
ABC News--Owned by Walt Disney, which also owns ABC Internet Ventures, ABC Family, ESPN.com, Disney.com, Family Fun.com, Movies.com. ABC Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, A&E Television, ESPN.inc., ABC Radio Networks, Hyperion, Disney Publishing Worldwide, Eurodisney, Mammoth Records, Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, Walt Disney Internet Group, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Walt Disney Studio Entertainment, including Buena Vista Home Entertainment and Motion Pictures Group and Miramax Films.
(I have to wonder if the old Hyperion Hotel on the series Angel was an in-joke.)
CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (which used to be the Columbia Broadcast System when I was a child) is owned by Viacom, which also owns: Black Entertainment Television, CBS Television Network, Infinity Promotions Group, Paramount Pictures, UPN, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Showtime Networks, Comedy Central, CTN Networks, Paramount Parks, Paramount Television, Simon & Schuster. It also owns a majority share of Blockbuster, and Infinity Broadcasting (radio networks), and National Amusements theatre chain (owned by the CEO), which includes Showcase Cinsemas and Multiplex Cinemas, and partners in Movie Tickets.com
NBC (and PSNBC performance theatre development lab) and Telemundo and CNBC are owned by General Electric. General Electric owns: CFM International, Inc., GE Access, GE Advanced Materials, GE Plastics, GE Structured Products, LNP Engineering Plastics, Inc., GE Aircraft Engines, GE Capital Commercial Finance, Storage USA, Inc., GE Capital Rail Services, GE Capital Small Business Finance Corporation, GE Commercial Finance, Advanced TelCom Group, Inc., GE Real Estate, Regency Centers Corporation, GE Consumer & Industrial, GE Consumer Finance, GE Energy, CONMEC, Inc., GE Aero Energy, GE Engine Services, Inc., Unison Industries Inc., GE Equipment Services, Penske Truck Leasing, GE Equity, GE Fanuc Automation North America, Inc., GE Financial Assurance Holdings, Inc., First Colony Life Insurance Company, GE Franchise Finance Corporation, GE Global Insurance Holding Corp., Coregis Insurance Company, GE Global Research, GE Infrastructure, GE Water Technologies, GE Insurance, GE Interlogix, Inc., GE Medical Systems, GE Imatron Inc., GE Lunar, GE Medical Systems Information Technologies, GE OEC Medical Systems, Inc., GE Mortgage Insurance, GE Osmonics, GE SeaCo SRL, GE Supply, GE Transportation Systems, Instrumentarium Corporation, MRA Systems, Inc., National Broadcasting Company, Inc., A&E Television Networks, Bravo, CNBC, Inc., MSNBC Cable, L.L.C., MSNBC Interactive News, L.L.C., Slate Magazine, Paxson Communications Corporation, Telemundo Communications Group, Inc., Transport International Pool Inc.
MSNBC is a cooperative venture with Microsoft. CNBC is cooperative with Dow Jones. NBC is planning to merge film and TV units with Vivendi Universal.
Vivendi Universal owns Seagram, Universal Music, Universal Studios and European pay-TV provider CANAL+, StudioCanal, StudioExpand SA, Groupe Cegetel, Universal Music Group, Interscope Records, The Island Def Jam Group, Lost Highway Records, Mercury Nashville, Motown Record Company L.P., Roadrunner Records, Inc., Universal Music Publishing Group, The Verve Music Group, Veolia Environnement, Folkestone and Dover Water Services Ltd., Onyx North America Corp., Onyx Environmental Services, L.L.C., Onyx Waste Services, Inc., United States Filter Corporation, Culligan International Company, USFilter Water & Wastewater Systems Group, Veolia Water North America Operating Services, Inc., Vivendi UNIVERSAL Entertainment, Sega GameWorks L.L.C., Universal Parks & Resorts, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, Movielink, LLC, United International Pictures, Working Title Films, Universal Television Group, Vivendi Universal Games Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Vivendi Universal Net S.A., Vivendi Universal Net USA Group, Inc., Viventures Partners SA . It is selling Vivendi Universal Entertainment to NBC.
NBC staffers, however, are hired by the Yoh Company, part of the Yoh Group, a unit of Day & Zimmermann Group, Inc, founded 1901 in Philly. Day & Zimmerman was bought by H.L. Yoh Company in 1961; Yoh was founded in 1940 and provided technical assistance during the war and after to Lockheed, Boeing and NASA. In 1976, Spike Yoh bought Day & Zimmerman from his father, and gets involved in the Postal Service modernization, shipping to support the 1991 Gulf War, staffing a DuPont plant (and an alliance with DuPont). Spike Yoh retired in 1998, was succeeded by his son Hal Yoh. In 1999, they acquired Mason & Hanger, another large old diversified services company, a year later became the largest power maintenance contractor in the US.
CNN -- with CNN International, Headline News, owned by Cable News Network LP, A Time Warner Company, formerly AOL Time Warner. Holdings include: Warner Brothers, Time Warner Cable, Netscape, AOL, Cartoon Network, Courtroom Television Network, HBO, MovieTickets.com Inc., Time Inc, Time Warner Book Group, Turner Broadcasting System, Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. Turner Sports, Inc., DC Comics, The WB Television Network, Warner Bros. Television, Warner Independent Pictures. Under Turner Sports Inc., Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Atlant Thrashers Hockey Club and Hawks Basketball, Inc.
FOX -- Fox Entertainment Group, 82% owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Also owns Fox Broadcasting Company, shares of DIRECTV parent Hughes Electronics, and Fox Cable Networks and Fox Sports Networks.
News Corporation owns: Fox Entertainment Group, Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Filmed Entertainment, Blue Sky Studios, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Fox News Network LLC (British), Fox Sports Network, Madison Square Garden, New York Knickerbockers, New York Rangers, Hughes Electronics Corp, DirecTV Inc, Hughes Network Systems Inc, Hughes Software Systems Limited, PanAmSat Corporation, Twentieth Century Fox Television, Harper Collins Publishers Inc., NDS Group plc, News America Marketing, News International PLC and STATS.Inc.
I'm sure that's just scratching the surface of the interrelationships -- and I haven't a clue what a lot of those companies do -- but there are a lot of interesting names in those holdings. If anyone does further searching on this, I'd be interested to see the results.
3/21/2004 06:01:00 PM
short takes
Data-mining without safewords: Two computer projects designed to preserve the privacy of Americans were quietly killed while Congress was restricting Pentagon data-gathering research in a widely publicized effort to protect citizens from futuristic anti-terrorism tools.
***
This article goes further into explaining the religious-political alliance than I can go, as it's written by a minister. You might want to take a look at his ideas.
***
For your use, the Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame.
This is a way to evaluate whether a group is exhibiting cultlike behavior, and what sort of danger it might pose. Take a look at it and consider the current political situation that I've been writing about, and draw your own conclusions.
***
Sarcasm. Satire. Fact. Reality. And not an exaggeration in any of it, as far as I can tell.
***
Paper trail. Orcinus traces the history of Bush's "complete" military documents.
3/21/2004 05:58:00 PM
playing with fire
From Tompaine.com:
Politicians who spark a culture war for the sake of their own power are playing with fire, and journalists who exploit a culture war for the sake of its unleashed furies are throwing gasoline on the flames. At the beginning of the presidential election contest, that is history's warning to America. Ever since the graphic designers of television networks began splitting the states into blue and red factions on election night, the impression of a radically divided nation has defined the conventional wisdom. Yet the conflicts of the culture war do not concern such essential questions as the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, tax reform, trade policy, deficit spending, jobless recovery, the overburdened health care system or the sorry state of public education. On these complex matters Americans' responses are not readily pigeonholed, and politicians across the political spectrum are no more able to offer easy solutions to such problems than anyone else. The nation is less divided on the momentous issues than it seems. The culture war rages less around policy than "values."
Thus, when George W. Bush advocates a constitutional amendment to prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex, for example, he is not so much seeking to resolve the necessary and normal conflict over the new meaning of sexuality in an age of reproductive revolution as he is identifying himself with an imagined core constituency that is presumed to oppose gay marriage.
3/21/2004 05:53:00 PM
churches aren't supposed to be political, are they?
This is what the Christian Coalition counts as one of its 'victories' in its efforts to get Congress to embrace a totally right-wing agenda.
Here's the full text of HR 235 (the CC mistyped the call numbers), the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (in case there's trouble with the link, as has happened before...)
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 235
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship .
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 8, 2003
Mr. JONES of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. HAYES, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. PENCE, Ms. HART, and Mr. PITTS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act'.
SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS FREE EXERCISE AND FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES, ETC.
Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) and by inserting after subsection (o) the following new subsection:
`(p) An organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A) (relating to churches) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, or to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for purposes of subsection (c)(3), or section 170(c)(2) (relating to charitable contributions), because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.'.
SEC. 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS UNAFFECTED.
Nothing in section 2 permits any disbursements for electioneering communications, or political expenditures, prohibited in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made herein shall be effective as of the date of enactment of this Act.
***
What this would do is to make churches into political halls, where political speeches could be held during services and political fundraising could be done without accountability. Currently, churches lose their tax-exempt status with the IRS if they engage in outright political activity during services, and money contributed to churches cannot be given directly to candidates. This would be changed by this bill.
Historically, I realize, it wasn't unusual for ministers to thunder sermons from the pulpit that endorsed or excoriated various politicians or to urge voters to vote in particular ways. That ended, for the most part, with the establishment of the IRS Code and the church exemption from taxation. Sermons still are preached that concern politics -- how could they not be -- but they are legit as long as they don't endorse a candidate, generally speaking.
Also, in the past, the political machinery in effect didn't have to be accountable to federal laws on how money for political campaigns could be gathered or collected. (IIRC, this changed, in part, because of the FBI managing to track down and imprison Al Capone on tax fraud when they couldn't do it on other things because he owned the city of Chicago including the police. Capone wasn't behindhand on giving to politicians; in his words, "A good politician stays bought.") Current campaign financing laws require a paper trail to connect the money given with the donor, to make sure no one person or group is giving an obscenely large amount in order to bend the candidate to their position.
If this bill is passed, it would be possible for someone like Adolph Coors or other wealthy Right-Wing-Flap donor to avoid accountability completely by simply putting his check for howevermanymillion dollars into the collection basket during a politicized church service, along with whatever other people give. No accountability, no paper trail, no way to officially track who gives how much and to whom.
I have not seen a corresponding bill in the Senate yet; if it exists it may be under a name enough different that Thomas didn't link them.
3/21/2004 05:49:00 PM
Rights in the workplace? what rights?
Gay and lesbians in the entire federal workforce have had their job protections officially removed by the office of Special Counsel. The new Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, says his interpretation of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions is that gay and lesbian workers are not covered.
Quoting the article:
Bloch said gays, lesbians and bisexuals cannot be covered as a protected class because they are not protected under the nation’s civil rights laws.
“When you’re interpreting a statute, you have to be very careful to interpret strictly according to how it’s written and not get into loose interpretations,” Bloch said. “Someone may have jumped to the conclusion that conduct equals sexual orientation, but they are essentially very different. One is a class . . . and one is behavior.”
It is the first time that Bloch has explained his position on the issue of gay workers despite pressure from unions and Federal Globe an organization that represents LGBT government workers after the OSC began removing references to sexual orientation-based discrimination from its complaint form, the OSC basic brochure, training slides and a two-page flier entitled "Your Rights as a Federal Employee."
This story is a sequel to this one from February: An LGBT civil service group says the federal government appears to have dropped its policy of Investigating and prosecuting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Since 1998, when President Bill Clinton issued an executive order prohibiting bias in the civil service, the job of enforcing the rule has fallen to the Office of Special Counsel. But OSC is accused of retreating from the policy.
3/21/2004 05:44:00 PM
short takes
The American Family Association, a right-wing 'Christian' group with Dominionist views, is upset about 'Jesus Dress Up' refrigerator magnets. I'm posting this because I'm amazed that along with their legislative lobbying and pushing elective officials to follow the extreme conservative line, they have time to do this. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised; a previous 'action alert' concerned their objections to McDonald's advertising supporting MTV.
***
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is urging the IRS to investigate Westover Hills Church of Christ in Austin, Texas, which allowed a Republican rally and fund-raiser in its sanctuary.
And, from the Blue Bus site (because the original on the Washington Post site requires registration): Tension between the executive and legislative branches is inevitable, but the Bush administration has tended to treat Congress with an arrogance bordering on contempt. The latest illustration involves the report that the Medicare chief actuary was threatened with firing if he gave lawmakers his analysis of the likely costs of the new prescription drug legislation. The actuary, Richard S. Foster, estimated that the new entitlement would cost far more than predicted by the Congressional Budget Office: $534 billion over the next decade rather than the CBO's $395 billion.
Whose analysis (if either) is right is not the point. Rather than straightforwardly acknowledging the difference and having an honest discussion about which analysis was more accurate, the administration preferred to stifle dissent and muscle the measure through Congress. Indeed, had the administration been more forthcoming, the bill probably would have failed: The House managed to pass it only after leaders delayed gaveling the vote to a close in order to engage in last-minute arm-twisting.
When the administration finally was forced to acknowledge its far-higher estimate in January, officials acted surprised at the new price tag. "This is really the first time that we've come up with a full and precise cost estimate because we were going through our budget processes," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Hogwash. Yes, the measure was still evolving. But Mr. Foster's analyses showed as early as last spring that the cost of the benefit was likely to be between $500 billion and $600 billion -- and the White House now admits that officials were well aware of the higher estimates.
***
Why your vote's not safe with an electronic computerized voting machine -- and why those silly pieces of tape on the outside of the little voting box don't do a thing.
***
Tme-Warner Cable is to 'help police conduct electronic surveillance', to comply with the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act -- which is a wiretapping law.
Quoting the article:
The FBI's proposal would, for the first time, force cable providers that sell broadband to come under the jurisdiction of 1994's CALEA, which further defined the already-existing statutory obligations of telecom carriers to help police conduct electronic surveillance. Telephone companies that use their networks to sell broadband have already been following CALEA rules.
Because the eavesdropping proposal has the support of the Bush administration, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to take it very seriously. Last month, FCC Chairman Michael Powell stressed that "law enforcement access to IP-enabled communications is essential" and that police must have "access to communications infrastructure they need to protect our nation."
***
The Atlantic, on the benefits of state-by-state acceptance of same-sex marriage.
3/21/2004 05:43:00 PM
'First things' from Justice Scalia
This is a speech by Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, on "God's Justice and Ours," that points out several interesting issues in his views.
Bear in mind, first, that he was speaking to Roman Catholic seminarians at the University of Chicago and the speech was printed in First Things, a journal that deals with religion and public life. He's speaking to people trained in theology, who have developed a distinct viewpoint on justice, morality and so on that (usually) accords with the established Roman Catholic view. In other words, this isn't for a general audience.
He starts by saying:
Before proceeding to discuss the morality of capital punishment, I want to make clear that my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court. That statement would not be true if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a “living document”—that is, a text that means from age to age whatever the society (or perhaps the Court) thinks it ought to mean.
What does it mean if a Constitution is not a living document? It means it need not be something that an attorney or jurist pays much attention to. A living document is one whose interpretation may be developed over time to suit the society in which it exists; Scalia is rejecting this. In doing so, he also appears to be rejecting the judgments of the Supreme Court in the last two centuries, including those on civil rights, property rights, women's rights, and slavery. The Supreme Court has interpreted law on all those issues for which precedent in the Consituttion was not explicitly stated, the exception being slavery, which was outlawed with the Thirteenth Amendment. Scalia, however, is saying that the Supreme Court had no right to do any of these.
Scalia proceeds to talk about the death penalty, which he favors because it was mentioned in the Constitution -- but he also favors it because it was mentioned in the Old Testament in the Bible, something the seminarians in his audience have read and studied in detail. He says:
If I subscribed to the proposition that I am authorized (indeed, I suppose compelled) to intuit and impose our “maturing” society’s “evolving standards of decency,” this essay would be a preview of my next vote in a death penalty case. As it is, however, the Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead—or, as I prefer to put it, enduring. It means today not what current society (much less the Court) thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted. For me, therefore, the constitutionality of the death penalty is not a difficult, soul–wrenching question. It was clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment was adopted (not merely for murder, by the way, but for all felonies—including, for example, horse–thieving, as anyone can verify by watching a western movie). And so it is clearly permitted today. There is plenty of room within this system for “evolving standards of decency,” but the instrument of evolution (or, if you are more tolerant of the Court’s approach, the herald that evolution has occurred) is not the nine lawyers who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, but the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the fifty states, who may, within their own jurisdictions, restrict or abolish the death penalty as they wish.
The interpretation of the Constitution that Scalia presents here is so narrow that it is barely wide enough to stand in. Again, he appears to be putting aside more than two centuries of the history of the Court's interpretation of law, and attempting to backtrack the meaning of that law to the era just afer the Revolutionary War. This is an extreme right-wing position, to say the least.
He moves on to consider the death penalty and Roe v. Wade:
Capital cases are much different from the other life–and–death issues that my Court sometimes faces: abortion, for example, or legalized suicide. There it is not the state (of which I am in a sense the last instrument) that is decreeing death, but rather private individuals whom the state has decided not to restrain. One may argue (as many do) that the society has a moral obligation to restrain. That moral obligation may weigh heavily upon the voter, and upon the legislator who enacts the laws; but a judge, I think, bears no moral guilt for the laws society has failed to enact. Thus, my difficulty with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one: I do not believe (and, for two hundred years, no one believed) that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would—and could in good conscience—vote against an attempt to invalidate that law for the same reason that I vote against the invalidation of laws that forbid abortion on demand: because the Constitution gives the federal government (and hence me) no power over the matter.
Here, he's saying he would support what the individual states would choose to do -- states' rights -- over the federal case law developed by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and other cases. Does this mean he would elevate states' rights over federal jurisdiction? It's possible. He's saying this is a matter that should be decided only at the local level, while he's someone who is by virtue of his office empowered to decide it on the national level.
I pause here to emphasize the point that in my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty—and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.
Again, Scalia is saying that he believes the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to interpret or overturn laws made by states. Many of the laws made by the states that have been overturned in the last century included segregation and civil rights, notably in Brown v. Board of Education (1954, I think). According to what Scalia is saying, if he had been on the bench at that time he would have voted against the majority, and American education still be *legally* separate and unequal. (I'm leaving aside the quesiton of whether it's equal now, because currently the issues are economic more than legal.) The point is this: to Scalia, states' rights are more important and receive primacy over the Supreme Court's ability to prescribe justice. If a state's laws are irrational, unjust, prejudicial, and harmful, he would leave them to be irrational, unjust, prejudicial and harmful until the residents of that state might choose to change them, regardless of any inequalities or injustices that might result.
Scalia then presents a theogically biased view of the history of the death penalty in Western society -- biased in that he is referring only to the Roman Catholic Magisterium as theological precedent, and not to the Protestant-based British common law that the United States inherited. (The only state in the country whose legal system is not based on British common law is Louisiana, which still is run according to the French Code Napoleon.) Nowhere in the United States have the legal views prescribed by the Magisterium ever been considered valid precedent. Except for the sake of the audience, they are about as relevant to the US as the laws promulgated by the Buddhist king Asoka in India, and possibly less relevant than that.
So it is no accident, I think, that the modern view that the death penalty is immoral is centered in the West. That has little to do with the fact that the West has a Christian tradition, and everything to do with the fact that the West is the home of democracy. Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post–Christian Europe, and has least support in the church–going United States. I attribute that to the fact that, for the believing Christian, death is no big deal.
Notice that he is divorcing morality from modern thought here, and modern legal developments. He believes, evidently, that modern views on the morality of the death penalty are immoral, and, by extension, that modern democracy itself is immoral because it is post-Christian, and does not take only his particular view of Christianity as its rationale. Please note, I'm not saying his view of Christianity is either the majority or the only one; indeed, his views on Christianity appear to be as narrow and rightist as his views on the Constitution -- and that may be the clue here.
As he continues,
The mistaken tendency to believe that a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals has adverse effects in other areas as well. It fosters civil disobedience, for example, which proceeds on the assumption that what the individual citizen considers an unjust law—even if it does not compel him to act unjustly—need not be obeyed. St. Paul would not agree. “Ye must needs be subject,” he said, “not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” For conscience sake. The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible. We have done that in this country (and continental Europe has not) by preserving in our public life many visible reminders that—in the words of a Supreme Court opinion from the 1940s—“we are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” These reminders include: “In God we trust” on our coins, “one nation, under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, the opening of sessions of our legislatures with a prayer, the opening of sessions of my Court with “God save the United States and this Honorable Court,” annual Thanksgiving proclamations issued by our President at the direction of Congress, and constant invocations of divine support in the speeches of our political leaders, which often conclude, “God bless America.” All this, as I say, is most un–European, and helps explain why our people are more inclined to understand, as St. Paul did, that government carries the sword as “the minister of God,” to “execute wrath” upon the evildoer.
Note Scalia's assertion of "the divine authority behind government." Although this is a nice pious thought to say to an audience of seminarians, it is not a Constitutional idea or a particularly American one in a country that supposedly enshrines not deity but separation of church and state. We fought a war from 1776-1783 to free ourselves from Britain, and that included freeing ourselves from the legal and societal entanglements of an established religion, Anglican Christianity. The United States specifically does not have an established religion -- no one reliigion is legally given precedent over every other in the Constitution or set up as the official state religion. The First Amendment states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances The right of people peaceably to assemble includes the performance of civilly disobedient acts, the sort of thing Scalia objects to, above, as being improper. It should be noted, also, that the motto, 'In God We Trust,' was added to American coinage and paper money some time since the beginning of the country; it was not, as far as I know, part of the original design.
Anyone who reads the early history of Colonial America finds repeated accounts of religious intolerance, of Puritans (themselves persecutied as Nonconformists by the Anglican Church, for which reason they left England) outlawing, whipping, killing or banishing others who did not agree with them, including Quakers, Catholics and other Protestants. (In some ways, their relations with the Indians were at times kinder than those with other Christians, not that those were always exemplary either.) These events were less than two centuries old when the Constitution was written; the Constituional Convention was well aware of the difficulties that arise from allowing any one religion the primacy and the legitimacy of being established in the government. Instead, the Convention chose to set the common law as the rule of the land, not the Bible. Many members of the Constitutional Convention were believers; some were members of the new Episcopal Church that broke away from the Church of England so that Americans would not be required to pray for the health of the king; some were deists who believed in a god who set the world going, like a clock, and then stepped back metaphorically and did not interfere further, and some were Congregationalists who held no hierarchical religious beliefs above the local assembly and minister. The closest they came to discussing the hypothetical existence of God in government had come earlier, when at the end of the Declaration of Independence, they said they relied on divine prividence in pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the new cause of freedom. They could as easily have relied on chance, the weather, or Discordia; the point was that they were placing their trust in themselves and hoping for the best. They did not expect the Monty Python Hand of God to burst through the clouds and zap King George with a pink thunderbolt, which is a good thing because that did not happen.
In the United States, the authority for the government arises from the people. This is not to say that the light of goodness, Deity, morality cannot also arise from the people -- in fact, I think that the only way that Deity can act in this world is through the hearts and minds and hands of individual people. But it does not mean that the federal government or any of its members in any branch are specifically and unequivocally Chosen And Anointed By God To Rule *unless the same God who has made the choice has simultaneously revealed it to every person in the country* -- not to some, not to one or two denominations, but to everyone of whatever faith or doubt. And, although I must concede that I am not deity and that anything is theoretically possible, I don't think it's likely that the nation's Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Wiccans, Pagans, Druids, Sikhs, Freethinkers, Ethical Humanists, nonsectarians, agnostics, atheists, and anyone else I've left out of this list are going to agree on much of anything other than separation of church and state. If this happened, and they did all simultaneously become Enlightened and agree to vote for the same person -- that would be following the Constitutional process, and would be legal and proper, whereas divining, out of the blue, a religious background for American government is not. But even if they did do that, they would still probably not agree on what was meant by 'chosen', 'God', or 'rule'.
Scalia ends his speech by disputing recent encyclicals from the Vatican that limit the death sentence to use to protect the population rather than for revenge or retribution. He makes it clear that he rejects modern rulings of the Vatican that disagree with his stance on the morality of the death penalty, although earlier in the speech he cited the Magisterium as precedent for his views. It would not be out of line to conclude that his version of the faith leans heavily toward the traditionalist views from before the Second Vatican Council, negating the last nearly 50 years of changes, theology and writings. The reason this is important in terms of judicial views is that the First Vatican Council, in the mid-1800s, was interrupted by war so seriously that the Pope of the time was forced to flee the Vatican to save his life. The only section of the agenda that the First Council was able to complete was that of canon law; as a result, for most of the following century many if not most matters in the church were treated with a great deal of legalism. This was, of course, the era in which Scalia grew up.
I am glad to find out that this speech was probably given as part of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public LIfe's discussion on the death penalty and not to a group of young attorneys in law school. The seminarians in the audience here, however they may take his views in private life, are not likely to argue cases before the bench based on his ideas ot the deadness of the Constitution and the invalidation of judicial review.
One last thing: I have read in several places, including at www.theocracywatch.com, that Scalia is being considered to become the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after the retirement of Justice Rehnquist. If this is so, and if he persists in his beliefs, I sincerely hope that more justices of centerist views will be installed on the court (several other retirements may occur soon, including Sandra Day O'Connor, who is a centerist). If this is not so, and Scalia is in charge, the cost to the country may be incalculable.
3/21/2004 05:10:00 PM
A tour of Theocracywatch.org
I've mentioned in past articles how valuable I have found Theocracywatch.org as a resource for information on the alliance of the Christian Reconstructionists (Dominionists) with the Republican Party members now in the goverment. However, as should be obvious to anyone who has gone there, the site is *enormous* and thoroughly linked and footnoted. It can be hard to find what you're looking for, and the site is updated fairly frequently with later news on various issues.
To make things easier for you, I'm listing out some of the major topics on each page, with links. You should be aware that every page has internal links to other sites, sources and resources that substantiate what is written here.
This is the home page. It provides an overview of the issues, and an introduction to some of the names and faces. At the bottom of this page are links to websites of organizations that oppose the Religious Right: Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Political Research Associates, the Interfaith Alliance, People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice and the Institute for Democratic Studies.
The Introduction page covers: the Religious Right's war on secular society, the Dominion Mandate, defines the Religious Right and estimates its political strength: 15 to 19 million people in a country of 200 million.
Taking over the Republican Party gives a timeline of how the Dominionist viewpoint gained precedence and who was involved, with some detail on Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition and a coda on the media's mistakenly neglecting to cover this matter.
Biblical law discusses the difference between Constitutional law and Biblical law, what changes would result in American life if Biblical law were to be installed (by amendment or by replacing the Constitution), including an examination of how Bill Clinton was impeached by use of Biblical law (adultery not being a Constitutional offense.) At the bottom of the page are links to sites of organizations that fight in favor of the constitution: the American Constitution Society, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Government describes the tactics used to promote a legislative agenda that is pro-discrimination, anti-labor, against gun control, and against social justice. It discusses how redistricting and control of voting machines have gotten more Republicans into power.
Bush discusses the influence of Dominionism and the Religious Right on George W. Bush's White House, and the result interms of appointments, anti-internationalism, foreign policy, tax cuts and the environment, among other things.
Faith-based Initiative goes into detail on how government could be changed from secular to 'faith-based' to support Dominionist views, including details on everything from parks and sex education to civil rights, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Religious Institutions and Beliefs discusses the ways in which fundamentalist organizations have sought to subvert mainline American Christian denominations and move them closer to the Dominionist view, the global spread of evangelical Christianity and the theological basis behind Reconstructionist Christianity, aka Dominionism.
The Middle East and Biblical Prophecy assesses the differences between the neoconservative social values that shape America's current foreign policy and the Religious Right's anti-international views.
The Environment compares the priorities of the Religious Right with those of environmentalists, including scorecards from the Christian Coalition on major issues, and the loss of environmental protections during the current Bush administration, and also provides a profile of Senator James Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. It also covers the movement's anti-scientific bias and discusses states rights in terms of the environment.
Women, which could also be called 'the war against women,' explores the Dominionist fight against women's rights including
the areas of family planning, the global gag rule, partial birth abortion, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, anti-choice legislation, sex education and Title IX.
Economics from the Religious Right "compares the teachings of an influential Christian textbook, America's Providential History by Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, with the Texas 2002 Republican Party Platform and Bush Administration policies. It suggests a relationship between the "dominion mandate" as described in the textbook, and Bush's economic, social, and environmental programs." This includes a four-step plan:
A. Starve the Federal Government through Tax Cuts
B. Shift Education and Welfare to Churches
C. End Government Regulation
D. Increase Material Wealth, Plunder Natural Resources
Schools: how a purposeful assault on public education, including home-schooling, is designed to combat 'secular humanism', science education, and health education as a way to enforce supposedly Christian values on secular society.
Homophobia is seen as a tremendous threat to the Dominionist plan for the country, in particular gay marriage. This page is updated as events occur. This page also discusses the "explicit political agenda that seeks to criminalize gay relationships and deny basic rights to gays and lesbians in a range of critical areas: employment, housing, and families."
States Rights examines the inconsistency between Dominionist views on the absolutism of states rights and the drive to control every aspect of the country, including a report on Attorney General John Ashcroft's defense of the Patriot Act and the interference of the Religious Right in state affairs when it benefits them most.
Separation of Church and State in a Dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist government, would no longer exist. This page details the battle over this issue, including the Supreme Court Case Locke v. Davey over whether states may be required to give scholarships to students studying to become clergy, and the legal precendent of the Treaty of Tripoli in showing that America is not officially a Christian nation.
The Media surveys the role the media do or don't play in furthering the Dominionist agenda, including the history of Christian broadcasting.
The Appeal of the Religious Right: A Sense of BelongingThe goal of dominion is alien to moderate Republicans and may not be shared by many members of fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches. These church members should be made aware of how they are being politically manipulated by their leadership.
Satan evaluates the role of evil in Reconstructionist/Dominionist thought, and how that affects views on 'righteous wrath against unbelievers.'
The 2002 Texas Republican Party Platform explicitly outlines the views and aims of the Dominionst agenda. Highlights include:
--"We reclaim freedom of religious expression in public on government property, and freedom from government interference."freedom from government interference."
--Support for government display of Ten Commandments.
-- Dispelling the "myth" of the separation of church and state.
-- "A strong and vibrant private sector [should be] unencumbered by excessive government regulation"
-- Opposition to Campaign Finance Reform and any form of gun control
Plans to abolish:
* Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms;
* position of Surgeon General;
* EPA;
* Department of Energy;
* Department of Housing and Urban Development;
* Department of Education;
* Department of Commerce and Labor;
* National Endowment for the Arts;
* IRS
and much more.
Background: TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. CRESP is a nonsectarian, action-based educational organization with its roots in religious dialogue, human rights advocacy, and ethical thought
3/21/2004 04:53:00 PM
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
get scared. get mad. take action while you still can.
Not one, but 10 bills dealing with 'judicial activism' are introduced. This article is in Human Events, the National Conservative Weekly, so they're in favor of them, of course. However, the article does give us the summaries and the call numbers of the bills. (This article has links to the Thomas legislative site for all the bills.)
I shouldn't need to point out that many of these are blinds, power grabs in disguise, as the arguments on which their 'merits' are based aren't reflected in the wording, which is vague and could be used to mean anything, none of it beneficial to anyone other than the Dominionist Republicans.
Herewith, call numbers and summaries without the conservative jargon (but with commentary by me):
H. Res. 446
Title: Constitutional Preservation Resolution
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Summary: Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Supreme Court should base its decisions on the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and not on the law of any foreign country or international law or agreement not made under the authority of the United States.
(Oh? What about treaties the US has signed and backed out of? What about historical treaties? What about case law? What about the Treaty of Tripoli, which the US signed two centuries ago and which states that we are not a Christian nation?)
S. Res. 275
Title: A Resolution to Affirm the Defense of Marriage Act
CRS Summary: Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) Congress should take whatever steps necessary to affirm the fact that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman; (2) same-sex marriage is not a right, fundamental or otherwise, recognized in this country; (3) neither the U.S. Constitution nor any Federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups; (4) the Defense of Marriage Act is a proper and constitutional exercise of Congress's powers under the effects clause of section 1 of Article IV; and (5) that no State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such entities, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
(Oh, please. I understand why this is being done. The Religious Right feels genuinely threatened by the concept of homosexuality, and thus feels it has to be battled in the streets and in the home. I get that, I really do. But construing the law to remove domestic partners of either sex from benefits afforded to domestic partners by state law, employers or other sources is just mean-spirited. The rationale for that from the RR is that it 'takes money unlawfully from the rich to support people who don't deserve it,' which is also the rationale against taxation and against a lot of other things. There's more here also, concerned with states not respecting each other's laws -- an effectual return of the Confederacy, perhaps to placate the Old South.)
H. Res. 468
Title & Summary: Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.
(Since when does the House have the right to determine how the Court arrives at its verdicts? And what about the historical inheritance of English common law? Are we to disregard that now, also? And what about the dangerous precedent of dictating to judges how they are to decide cases?)
H.R. 1547
Title: Religious Freedom Restoration Act
CRS Summary: Amends the Federal judicial code to deny the district courts of the United States, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear or determine any case in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedom that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.
(Here we are neck-deep with the sharks circling. This would keep any territorial court from dealing with religious-based law emanating from the Congress. What religious-based laws? How about the Old Testament-based laws that the Dominionists are interested in, such as reinstituting stoning and burning at the stake under the rationale that if they were good enough for Moses they're good enough for now? And no, I'm not out of my mind. Read the legal sections of the first five books of the Bible if you want a closer look at what people would be burned or stoned for: disobedience to parents, homosexuality, adultery, for example.)
H.R. 3893
Title: We the People Act
From the bill: ". . . Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [...]
"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation . . ."
(This would remove from the courts the power to declare unconstitutional any laws concerning religion -- hence any 'faith-based' laws, any Biblical judgment laws -- as well as eliminating the right to privacy, equal protection of the law, and civil rights. Oh, and it invalidates the separation of church and state, also.)
H.R. 3799
Title: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004
CRS Summary: Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government or officer of such government by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law.
Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.
Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.
(Since when does the Constitution need restoration? What this law would do would be to enable the government to 'restore' Old Testament law, and remove the ability of the courts to declare it unconstitutional. This would remove the balance of powers between the judiciary and the legislative branch. It would remove the civil rights inherent in being able to sue the bastards who did you wrong when those bastards are government officials. It would again restrict the law that could be cited as precedent to the laws of the Religious Right, eliminate the priority of the Federal courts over state courts in terms of precedent, and provide grounds for removing justices -- who are appointed for life -- from their offices for doing their jobs. This one would make a travesty of the Constitution and everything concerned with it -- which is everything.)
S. 2082
Title: Constitution Restoration Act (Related bill for H.R. 3799)
Summary: According to its official title, the bill will "limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism." It has three major parts designed to accomplish this.
1. Jurisdiction: Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will not have jurisdiction to review any case in which a plaintiff is seeking relief against the government -- Federal, State, or local -- or a government officer for the "acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
2. Interpretation: "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law."
3. Enforcement: First, the bill will make any Federal court decision, which, by the enactment of this legislation, would be considered outside that court's jurisdiction, non-binding precedent for any State court.
The bill also provides for the impeachment, conviction, and removal of any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who engages in activity exceeding that court's jurisdiction, as outlined by this bill.
(This is even more particular in restricting what law could be used to justify decisions in court, exempting executive orders, administrative rules, and the Constitution itself. This is prima facie unconstitutional. It also exempts from judicial authority any government official whose excuse for his actions is "God told me to do it.")
H.R. 3920
Title: Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004
From the bill: ". . . The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
(This is the one I wrote about earlier today. This removes the Judiciary's ability to review laws by giving Congress the ability to overrule them.)
H.R. 3190
Title: Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act
CRS Summary: Declares that among those powers reserved to the States and their political subdivisions are the powers to display the Ten Commandments, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by them.
Declares that: (1) the Pledge of Allegiance shall be, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all."; and (2) the national motto shall be, "In God we trust."
Excepts from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court the display of the Ten Commandments and the use of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(This eliminates the separation of church and state, and attempts to create a public civil Christian-based religion. Since when are the Pledge and the motto 'religious'?)
S. 1558
Title: Religious Liberties Restoration Act
Summary: This bill will reserve to the States (a) the power to display the Ten Commandments on or within State property; (b) the power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within State property (noting that the official Pledge will remain as it currently reads, including those two words that have been such anathema to the Left -- "under God"); and (c) the power to recite the national motto -- "In God we trust" -- on or within State property.
Most importantly, this bill will keep these powers out of the jurisdiction of Federal courts other than the Supreme Court.
(See above. Also, note that federal district courts would have no jurisdiction to review these matters. Customarily, when a case proceeds from court to court, it goes through the Circuit Courts of Appeals, which are federal district courts. This would hamstring the appeals process.)
***
Every one of these bills is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen for civil rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and separation of powers. By all means, contact your Congressman and Senators on these. And it wouldn't hurt to write a few letters to newspapers as well. This was NOT covered in the headlines on Google, though it should have been; I had to dig down and research to find it.
The only thing that is going to keep these bills from becoming law are our Democratic Senators and Congressional representatives. If you love the Constitution, if you love your rights and freedoms, treasure your Democratic Congresspeople and elect more of them.
Also -- some articles on judicial activism:
Brown vs Board of Education was good judicial activism, from Working Assets. (progressive.)
Judicial activism, jobs topics in election. From Agape Press, a right-wing Christian outlet of the American Family Association.
An editorial on judicial activism from the Indianapolis Star, and they're against it.
Read these carefully, and you'll have a very good idea of the arguments the Right will be making in the next few months.
3/17/2004 12:27:00 AM
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
A House bill to reverse Supreme Court judgments, now being discussed. Does your Congressional representative know your views on this?
HR 3920, the Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004, has been introduced in the House "To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court. " (verbatim from the Thomas Library of Congress listing).
It was introduced by Rep. Ron Lewis of Kentucky, and is co-sponsored by the following:
Rep Coble, Howard - 3/9/2004 [NC-6]
Rep Collins, Mac - 3/9/2004 [GA-8]
Rep DeMint, Jim - 3/9/2004 [SC-4]
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 3/9/2004 [CA-4]
Rep Everett, Terry - 3/9/2004 [AL-2]
Rep Franks, Trent - 3/9/2004 [AZ-2]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 3/9/2004 [VA-5]
Rep Hefley, Joel - 3/9/2004 [CO-5]
Rep Kingston, Jack - 3/9/2004 [GA-1]
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 3/9/2004 [PA-16]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 3/9/2004 [CA-11]
Currently, it is in the House Judiciary and House Rules committees.
The bill summary and status page is here.
(The full text of the bill can be found by going to http://thomas.loc.gov and searching on HR 3920.)
Comments by Rep. Lewis on introducing the bill:
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about judicial activism, a grave and growing problem in our current national discourse that is threatening our democratic principles, eroding the consent of the governed, and radically altering the social fabric of our American society.
It should be of little surprise that the impetus of this debate, and the modest solutions I intend to set forth, stem from the November ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriages and the subsequent rulings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act that have followed.
I am a strong supporter of numerous legislative measures currently being considered by this Congress, aiming to define marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman. However, I believe a more comprehensive solution is necessary to address the broader, troubling trend toward judicial activism, a development with definitive implications beyond just the issue of marriage.
America's judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans, many of whom I represent in the Second District of Kentucky. The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate. I believe these actions usurp the will of the governed, circumvent representative government by allowing tribunals of a select few, not elected or otherwise politically responsible, to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping the societal traditions of our great Nation.
Clearly, this issue is one about power, not in the raw political sense but in terms of the allocation of government authority between each branch of government, specifically between Congress and the Judiciary, in a federal system that relies on checks and balances to protect our liberty. This is a debate that has been taking place since our founding.
At no point is the tension between Congress and the courts greater than in the realm of constitutional interpretation. The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review. Instead, the right of judicial review is a practice with origins from the bench
itself, established in 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled, ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Branch to say what the law is.''
The Marbury v. Madison case decision provides an extraordinary recognition of judicial power in a constitutional form of government. The exercise of such broad authority, expanded over time through political tradition, clearly has a growing adverse effect on the relationship between coequal arms of our national government. As judicial power expands, congressional power contracts. This is especially true when the power to interpret the Constitution rests in the hands of activist judges anxious to find the latest ``right'' hiding between the lines of our founding document.
Our Founding Fathers created three separate branches of government, each with equal checks and balances on the other. Our founders also ensured that each branch, including Congress, play a role in constitutional interpretation, requiring officials in each branch to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
The framers did not give authority to one branch over the other. Certainly each branch has its separate functions, but debating, defending, and upholding the tenets of the Constitution involve the decision and duties of each branch. As a Congress, we must change our thinking and reaffirm our authority to interpret constitutional issues in concert with, and independent from, the courts.
The framers of the Constitution were advocates of serious debate who believed that the deliberation of the political process should always be open to the people. If the courts continue their dramatic move toward self-proclaimed interpretive power, I believe Congress, as the people's branch of representative government, should take steps to ensure equal balance and authority to check the final results.
I am introducing legislation today to address these serious, pressing issues in a direct and forceful manner. The bill that I have authored, if enacted, will allow Congress, by a two-thirds majority of each House, to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court. This additional check may only be enforced on rulings concerning the constitutionality of an act of Congress following the enactment of this bill.
In his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln warned, ``The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.''
It is my hope that the people and the courts will see my position and recognize the serious problems arising from this growing imbalance of constitutional authority. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to redress judicial activism, protect the equal dignity of this governing body, and preserve the majority will of the governed by supporting this legislation.
Here is the full text of the bill:
A BILL
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.
The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--
(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.
The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.
SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.
This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
***
Article III, Section 2, United States Constitution:
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
-- from the National Archives site, http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_transcript.html
3/16/2004 11:51:00 AM
Monday, March 15, 2004
A theological glossary, part 2
I'm going to spend this section in discussing various terms and ideas in fundamentalist and Dominionist theology. A disclaimer: I am not a professional theologian. I have been involved in/part of/studied/explored many faiths in the past 30 years, and have learned a lot about most of them, but I'm not an expert. I don't want to mislead anyone, and I'm not out to convert anyone to anything here, just to try to explain the ideas behind some of the politics. Anyone who understands this better than I do is welcome to write me with comments.
The first three times I tried to write this, I quoted large sections of linked pages. This time, for the sake of brevity and (I hope) understanding, I'm going to summarize the meanings of the terms as much as possible and provide the links so you can read further if you want. They may come in handy when reading some of the links written by Dominionists and other fundamentalists.
***
First, something leftover from the last post: there are distinct differences between general Fundamentalist theology and the Reconstructionist theology I detailed in part 1.
(Remember, 'Theonomic' means God makes the laws, and 'Reconstructionism' is the idea that 'the chosen' Christians have to 'reconstruct' the world as a whole to make it line up with Old Testament Biblical standards.)
Again from the Religious Tolerance site:
Theonomic Reconstructionism differs from more common forms of Fundamentalism in a number of key areas.
Reconstructionists:
--Emphasize the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures vs. the Christian Scriptures.
--Believe that all Christians must attempt to reconstruct society along Biblical lines.
--Believe that, once they attain power, they will suppress other religions through genocide and mass murder, rather than through proselytizing.
--Would require all religious groups to strictly follow the Mosaic law.
--Believe that Jesus' second coming is in the far future.
These are not beliefs held by the vast majority of fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentacostalists or Charismatics, or by mainstream churches. Most Christians emphasize the New Testament (Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, letters of Paul and other apostles, and Book of Revelation/Apocalypse) over the Old Testament (Pentateuch, historical books, wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs) and prophetic books). Mainstream Christianity does not believe in genocide or mass murder and doesn't require everyone to follow the law of Moses, but the Sermon on the Mount and the other teachings of Jesus.
I hope that makes things at least a little clearer. Now, on with the discussion of millennial theory.
A little basic Christian background review, from the New Testament: Jesus died. (The movie on that is out there now.) After three days, he was resurrected, alive again in a new body. He visited with the apostles and his mother and his friends, then ascended "into the clouds" 40 days later. (Pentecostals also often make a point of celebrating Pentecost, the 50th day after Easter (resurrection day),the anniversary of when Jesus' remaining followers were assembled in hiding and the Spirit came upon them in flames, as mentioned in Glossary Part 1.)
Around the time of his death, Jesus said various things about the end of the world coming, and described a number of signs that might occur. He also said he would return and be with believers. Liberal Christians and some mainline Christians take these as referring to events happening within the next generation or so, in part because it was believed that the youngest apostle, John, would still be alive when they happened. (John did live to be nearly 100, surviving all the rest of the apostles while living on the island of Patmos, and writing the Book of Revelations as well as his Gospel and three epistles.) Fundamentalists, for some reason, choose to interpret these descriptions *symbolically* rather than literally, and some have constructed enormous rationales for why it's all supposed to be happening now, rather than then or any time in between. (People have been mis-guessing the End of the World since well before the year 1000, so there are a lot of precedents, and I'll spare you the details on those for now.)
(A side note: Jesus is the man's name, Jesus son of Joseph, or Yehoshua Bar-Yosef, or something like that. Christ is a modernization of a Greek term, christos, which means messiah, liberator/king/ultimate leader. It's a title, not a last name. When it's used in fundamentalist writings, it may indicate that the author is referring only to the Messiah/king/absolute ruler archetype or view of Jesus, rather than the suffering servant (traditionalist Catholic), liberator (liberation theology), good shepherd (mainstream) or other theological views.)
In mainstream theology, Jesus is expected to return "at the end of time." (Whatever that means, and in whatever form, and when, it's not specified and nobody knows.) Depending on which version of things is believed, this may happen before or after (depends on denomination/belief) a thousand-year period, and there are various descriptions of what happens during that thousand years. And that thousand years, or so, is the Millennium, after which the dead are supposed to be raised, Christ would come again and the last judgment would occur. (The classic painting of this is the one that Michelangelo did in the Sistine Chapel, which is a fairly literal rendering of the text.)
The standard millennium reference in the Bible is in Revelation 20:
"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were ended. After that he must be loosed for a little while. . . . And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be loosed from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth." from this Catholic site.
So, there's a thousand year or longer period, and Jesus is supposed to return sometime before or after it.
In Premillennialism, it's believed that the Millennium is a "golden age" on earth, during which the earth will be thoroughly evangelized and everyone will become the right kind of Christian, and that this will happen after the Second Coming, so that Christ already would be physically present on earth at the time -- he comes back, everyone gets converted, and then there's the Final Judgment happening after that. This is the viewpoint found in books like Hal Lindsey's The Late, Great Planet Earth,which took a literalist view of the Book of Revelations, recast it in modern garb and served it up. Premillennialists also tend to believe that all the conditions for the Second Coming have been met and therefore Jesus should arrive very soon. The conditions include the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, various wars and plagues (I believe both Ebola and AIDS have been cited at one point or another), the rise of one world government (sometimes cited as the UN, sometimes as the EEC, sometimes as the US), and the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which hasn't happened yet because that site is shared with the Dome of the Rock, which is sacred to Islam.
In Postmillennialism, it's believed that Christ will not return until *after* the world has been converted through the efforts of the 'right kind' of Christians, it won't happen for a long time, and it won't be painless. (This is not the general Evangelical view.) Some believe Christians have to work and make it happen in order for Christ to return, other believe that it will happen as it happens through evangelism.
In Amillennialism, neither of them is believed, and the whole question of the thousand years is not generally considered relevant. This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, as I understand it.
Links on this:
the Religious Tolerance site.
History of Millennialism, from an Evangelical viewpoint
More or less mainstream definitions and discussion from a Roman Catholic perspective,
This site gives some early historical perspective on millennialism, also called chiliasm, from a Protestant and probably evangelical perspective.
A page of links from The Public Eye website, run by Political Research Associates, which does critical research on "the full spectrum of the political Right.... to facilitate public understanding of the threat posed to democratic values and principles by the Right in the United States"
A page on eschatology (study of the end of the world), end times and millennialism, from the Religious Tolerance website
Quoting from a draft of an article on Millennialism for the Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of World Religions, 1999:
Apocalyptic millennialism, for all its dangers, offers immense rewards: believers find themselves at the center of the ultimate universal drama and their every act has cosmic significance. Apocalyptic believers become semiotically aroused (if not semiotically promiscuous), finding cosmic messages in the smallest incident, in every coincidence. Moreover, they can almost taste the fulfillment of their burning desire to see justice done — the good lavishly rewarded, the evil savagely punished. Finally the approach of the endtimes and the promise of a new world liberates believers from all earthly inhibitions: the fear of future punishment by those who now hold power vanishes, and a wide range of repressed feelings — sexual, emotional, violent — burst forth. Such a combination proves irresistible to many: millennial hope possesses believers.
From its earliest manifestations, millennial beliefs bifurcated between imperial, hierarchical visions of the world to come, a kingdom ruled over by a just if authoritarian imperial figure who would conquer the forces of chaos and establish the true order of society (Cohn, 1993) and a demotic vision of a world of holy anarchy, where dominion of man over man ceased from the world. Many world conquerors used millennial "savior" imagery to bolster their rule (Cyrus, Alexander, Augustus, Constantine), and especially in the Muslim and Christian Middle Ages these imperial uses of millennial imagery proliferated. The contrary millennial tendency, however, was marked by a profoundly anti-imperial, even anti-authoritarian thrust. Indeed, one of the major strains of Hebrew messianic imagery foresaw a time when men shall beat the instruments of war and domination into instruments of peace and prosperity; each one sitting under his own tree, enjoying the fruits of honest labor undisturbed (Isaiah 2:1-3, Micah 4:1-4). This millennialism foresees the end of the rapacious aristocracy (lion and wolf will lie down with the lamb) and the peace of the commoner, the manual laborer (lamb gets up the next morning). Perhaps no idea in the ancient world, where the dominion of aristocratic empires spread to almost every area of cultivated land, held more subversive connotations (Baumgarten).
Apostolic Christianity demonstrates many of the key traits of apocalyptic millenarian groups of this second, demotic, type:
* the rhetoric of the meek overcoming the powerful and arrogant,
* the imminence of the Lord's Day of wrath and the coming Kingdom of Heaven,
* a leader and a following among common, working people,
* rituals of initiation into a group preparing for and awaiting the End,
* fervent spirituality and radical restructuring of community bonds,
* large, enthusiastic crowds
* prominence of women visionaries.
* the shift from a disappointed messianic hope (Crucifixion) to a revised expectation (Second Coming or Parousia),
The only missing element, at that time prominent in several other strains of Jewish millennialism (the Zealots), is violence, subsumed, apparently, in the passion for martyrdom (Gager, Collins). Not for centuries would violence became a notable part of Christian millennialism (e.g., the Circumcelliones of 4th century North Africa).
The fundamental problem for early Christianity, as for all apocalyptic movements, was the passage of time, which brought with it profound disappointment and humiliation (II Peter). Those who did not abandon the movement (e.g. by returning to observant Judaism), handled the delay of the Parousia by organizing communities and rituals which brought, proleptically, a foretaste of the coming world — the eucharist, the reading of Revelation. But above all, the passing of time called for a new temporal horizon. The End would come, but not now, not even soon, rather in the fullness of time, once the tasks assigned by God — especially the spreading of the Gospels to the four corners of the world — were completed.
As Christianity evolved from a charismatic cult on the fringes of the society into a self-perpetuating institution eager to live in harmony with Rome, the hopes of apocalyptic millenarianism embarrassed Church leaders who emphasized to Roman authorities that Jesus' kingdom was "not of this world." Whereas almost every prominent Christian writer from the movement’s first century assumed a literal millennialism, by the later second century ecclesiastical writers, striving to eliminate subversive millennialism from Church doctrine, began an assault on millenarian texts (especially Revelation, the only text in the New Testament to explicitly speak of an earthly kingdom). Origen, an early 3rd century theologian, argued the millennium was to be interpreted allegorically, not carnally; others attempted (successfully in the Eastern Church) to eliminate Revelation from the canon altogether. With the advent of imperial Christianity, millenarianism was pushed to the very margins of acceptable Christian thought.
Despite these efforts by the Church hierarchy to remove millennialism from formal theology, apocalyptic fears and millennial hopes remained powerful among Christians high and low. Indeed, the very texts that anti-millenarian writers like Jerome wrote, served as the basis for new forms of millennialism such as the "Refreshment of Saints" (Lerner). Above all, charismatic prophets using apocalyptic calculations drawn from Daniel and Revelation continued to excite the faithful. Perhaps in recognition of this perennial appeal, Church leaders compromised when dealing with the simpler faithful who remained deeply attached to hopes for a real millennium. As a result, as early as the 2nd century, two of the principle themes of medieval millennialism emerged: 1) the use of an anti-apocalyptic chronology to postpone the End, thus encouraging patience; and 2) the transformation of the Roman Empire into a positive eschatological force.
To delay the end and reap the calming benefits of non-apocalyptic millennialism, theologians placed great weight on the idea of a sabbatical millennium. This idea combined Genesis 1 (six days of travail, sabbath rest), with Psalm 90 (1000 years is a day in the sight of the Lord), promised the thousand-year kingdom after 6000 years. About 200 CE the first Christian chronology placed the Incarnation in 5500 Annus Mundi, thus marking the year 500 CE as the year 6000, and providing a buffer of some 300 years from the present. Thus when apocalyptic prophets announced the imminent End, conservative clerics could counter with the argument that centuries yet remained until the millennium. Documentary evidence for this chronological argument provides an indicator of the presence of popular apocalyptic rumors, countered by theologians trying to calm the enthused panics such rumors incited. From our modern perspective, of course, such chronological temporizing merely postponed, indeed aggravated, apocalyptic millennialism. From the early 3rd century, another 300 years probably seemed like an immensely long time, but eventually the 6000 years would be fulfilled....
A few more terms:
Dispensationalism -- This is the idea that God's plan of redemption for humanity is divided into different time periods or 'dispensations', during which people are tested in various ways on their obedience to God's will. The History of MIllennialism site above has more on this. Dispensational Premillennialism is another term for Premillennialism, and this dates from approximately the 1870s.
Rapture -- The idea, from a literalist interpretation of the Book of Revelations, that at some point in time Jesus will "shout", and all the 'true believers' on earth will be taken bodily into heaven *right then* without dying. This is one of the basic scenarios for Tim La Haye's Left Behind series, which takes a fundamentalist/ Dominionist view of Revelations and turns it into novels. There are several critiques of these books and ideas on the Public Eye site. Here's another article on the Rapture, from the Economist.
According to various views, the Rapture could occur before, during or after the Millennium, and the holders of these views do not agree.
The Bible citations most often used in reference to the Rapture are from I Thessalonians 4:15-18:
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Therefore comfort one another with these words.
Also, I Corinthians 15:51-55:
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Preterism -- Preterism disagrees with both of the above ideas. In Preterism, it's believed that Jesus did return, in 70 AD, during the fall of the city of Jerusalem to the Roman troops led by Titus, and that all the events described in the Book of Revelation occurred at that time. This also denies a resurrection of the body (as having occurredi n 70 AD), the creation of new heavens and earth ( a standard fundamentalist belief), and a general and universal judgment. Since 70 AD, then, the new creation has already taken place and we're living in it and have to *make* it conform to what the Bible says.
This site describes the theology of preterism.
This link to the Planet Preterist site provides an exhaustive exegesis of Scriptural passages concerning all of these matters from a Preterist viewpoint.
Dominionist theory holds the Preterist view.
This page of the Theocracy Watch site goes into detail about Biblical prophecy, the relevance of the existence of Israel, and Bush's views. Quoting from that page:
What Does Bush Believe?
While Bush shares many of the beliefs, and supports most of the political agenda of the Religious Right, his road map for the Middle East is not consistent with an expansionist Israel. In addition, the presence of Colin Powell, Secretary of State, at the Geneva Accords -- a new plan for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine -- more -- signals a willingness to encourage the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank and Gaza.
Bush's policies are more in line with core values of the Christian Reconstruction movement, a subgroup of the Religious Right that believes the Second Coming is not imminent. Reconstructionists believe that the return of Jesus Christ will come after "bible-believing" Christians have turned the United States into a Christian nation that follows the call of Saint Paul to "make disciples of all nations."
Some core values of the Christian Reconstruction movement reflected in Bush administration policies are: the federal government should recede into the background through massive tax cuts, and then churches should assume responsibility for welfare and education. Bush's signature issues such as tax cuts, faith base initiative and school vouchers fit the Reconstructionist model.
Whatever Bush believes, his environmental policies are accelerating the destruction of the natural world, and his nuclear policies increase the risk that nuclear weapons will proliferate and be used. His administration has declared war on the environment since the day he took office, and he doesn't seem concerned about radioactive fallout from nuclear war.
Whether or not President Bush is actively seeking a fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy, his carelessness about the fate of the earth has the same kind of naive magic one finds in pictures of the new Millennium. Following the Great Tribulation, the Lord returns to an earth with clear blue skies and lush green meadows. After the final battle at Armageddon, Christ will come back to a pristine planet.
3/15/2004 08:10:00 PM
A theological glossary, part 1
I've decided to try to sort out the theological concepts before proceeding any further with the political analysis, because it helps me to know who's planning what when I have some idea of where their ideas are coming from. It's easy, too easy, to just dismiss all of this as unimportant, but if it's important to people who are trying to gain power, it's important to all of us. So... here we go:
Let's start with some terms that are often confused. Some of this is abstracted from this Theocracy Watch page I already posted, but I'm going to summarize and expand and try to make things clearer.
Evangelical -- Wide range of denominations, many of them small and independent (no hierarchy or bishops, so the individual theology of each church may be *very* individual). In general, members have experienced being 'born again,' -- which is a definite religious experience and not just a phrase. Evangelicals don't all share the same political beliefs; the one thing that tends to be shared is that their religion requires them to evangelize -- talk to people who don't believe as they do and attempt to convert them. Beliefs range from the Religious Right, which is socially and politically reactionary, to the progressive views of Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine, who believes that faith means taking care of the poor and oppressed as opposed to exploiting or ignoring them, and working for justice for all.
Fundamentalist -- On the link above, it says that fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicals, but I've found a few of them in mainline and even Catholic congregations as well. It's a theology more than it is a denominational indicator. These are people who believe that the Bible is both inerrant and infallible.
To quote Religious Tolerance.org,
Inerrancy refers to text considered accurate, truthful, reliable, totally free of error, without mistake and absolutely authoritative. Some Christians apply the term to all statements of fact in the Bible, including those referring to "scientific, historical, or geographical" topics.... Other Christians restrict the term only to refer only to moral, spiritual and religious truth in the Bible. Generally, "inerrancy" refers only to the original handwritten (a.k.a. autograph) copy of each of the books of the Bible. Subsequent copies may contain copyist errors or additions/deletions by forgers.
(Note: I have personally met people who believe that only the King James Version is inerrant, because its translators were absolutely inspired by God and could not err, but that later translations, even from earlier and better Hebrew and Greek sources, were full of errors and not to be used.)
--Inerrancy Quoting from "Why I Believe in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures, by Dave Miller": "Inerrant" means "wholly true" or "without mistake" and refers to the fact that the biblical writers were absolutely errorless, truthful, and trustworthy in all of their affirmations. The doctrine of inerrancy does not confine itself to moral and religious truth alone. Inerrancy extends to statements of fact, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. The biblical writers were preserved from the errors that appear in all other books.
The original Hebrew and Greek autograph copies of the Bible were inerrant. Certainly the copies of copies which have come down to us contain errors common to the craft of the copyist as do all English versions. However, with diligent study, we can ascertain the original words of the inspired writers. Consequently, the doctrine of inerrancy applies to the biblical text in our day as well--insofar as the Bible has been accurately translated.
Inerrancy is fundamental to the doctrine of biblical authority. Packer wrote, "Only truth can be authoritative; only an inerrant Bible can be used... in the way that God means Scripture to be used."1 If the Bible contains mistakes, then it is unreliable as a true guide to matters of salvation. If mistakes exist in one part, mistakes may just as easily exist in another part. If the Bible is a mixture of truth and error, then it is like any other book and simply not deserving of any special attention. If the doctrine of inerrancy is not true, then the Bible lacks the very criteria and credentials necessary for authenticating its divine origin. Human beings would be incapable of distinguishing between it and all other religious books which seek acceptance by men (e.g. the Koran, Book of Mormon, the Vedas). If the biblical writers demonstrate incompetency and fallibility in matters of ordinary knowledge where uninspired humans can check their credibility, then their infallibility in all other areas is discredited. As Archer noted, "If that revelation is to come in a usable and reliable form... it must come in an inerrant form."
Inerrancy is generally 'proven' by selectively quoting Bible verses that talk about the book being true and accurate (sometimes called "proof-texting.") Although fundamentalists do not accept this, it is generally accepted by mainline churches that these claims may have been meant to apply by the authors only to the immediate section they were writing or to another section that might have been quoted at the time.
Infallibility means that the Bible is true and will not deceive the reader into following the wrong path for his life. Quoting again from the Religious Tolerance site: Infallible, when applied to the Bible, means that it is fully trustworthy. Its text does not deceive the reader. "Traditionally, [conservative] Protestants have reserved the term [infallible]...to refer to the Bible as the only true source of faith and doctrine." However, it does not necessarily imply that every verse in the Bible is infallible. Some wiggle room is possible. During the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in 2001-JUN, officials from the PC (USA) stated: "Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail."
The problem with the concept of inerrancy arises when fundamentalists apply it not only to the Bible's views on matters of faith but to science, geography, history and government as well. This is the source for creationism., the belief that the universe, the world, and everything in it were created in six literal 24-hour days, with a rest on the seventh, regardless of the fossil record, geology, astronomy or genetics (or evolution -- which makes me wonder how they explain the variety of breeds in the Westminster Dog Show, but I digress...)
Pentecostal -- Pentecostals believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (to various degrees), but also in the personal inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They believe that at Pentecost, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, when his followers were gathered in an upper room, the Holy Spirit came upon them in the form of flames, giving each of them gifts -- new abilities -- and that these gifts are still available to them for use within worship and in private life. The most common list of the gifts of the Spirit is taken from I Corinthians 12, verses 4-11 (King James Version):
4: Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5: And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6: And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7: But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8: For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9: To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10: To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
In other words, anything that was done by the historical apostles in the Acts of the Apostles is believed to be possible now as well, including physical healing, prophecy and exorcism. "Tongues", above, refers to speaking languages that may be unknown to the speaker, and interpretation is having someone else interpret these languages for the benefit of the rest of the congregation. Speaking in tongues is also called glossalalia, and the gifts of the Spirit as a whole are sometimes called charisma, hence charismatic (more below.)
Classic Pentacostalism arose at the end of the 19th Century in the US, in the form we now have it, but speaking in tongues and many of the other practices associated with pentacostal worship have been evident in small splinter Christian religious groups for centuries, some of which became mainstream denominations such as Methodism. However, it's not unlikely for some Baptist congregations to be Pentecostal in outlook and practice, as much as the Assemblies of God churches. In terms of theology, Pentacostals tend to be conservative and some are very fundamentalist.
Charismatic -- At first glance, this would seem to be almost identical to Pentecostal, as people who are Charismatic also speak in tongues, believe that God can act through them to heal one another by laying on of hands (generally on the shoulders or head), and in prophecy and miracles. However, the modern Charismatic movement started in about 1967 on a Roman Catholic retreat in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where a small group of students prayed to know the Holy Spirit better and began speaking in tongues. It spread from there, as they went back to university and home and prayed with other people in mainline Christian denominations -- not classic Pentacostal ones, which were somewhat startled by the whole thing.
By the mid-1970s, Charismatics seemed to be everywhere in the mainstream churches; the 1977 Eastern Regional Catholic Charismatic Convention in Atlantic City had 40,000 people attending for three days of talks, workshops, prayer services and a four-hour Mass in the arena that featured singing, dancing, prophecy and miracles. (I can speak to that because I was there, dancing with everyone else at the top of the arena.) Back in daily life, there were charismatic prayer meetings in church basements, where anyone was welcome; it was an ecumenical celebration of enthusiasm and joy that made the movie "Hair" look glum. As time went on, some denominations accepted the newly enthusiastic belief that people of all ages had received, helped them learn more about their denominational theology and find places within the churches; others refused to accept them and forced them out, creating splinter churches whose theology was still mainline but which featured charismatic/pentecostal practices. Within the Catholic Church, some charismatics formed small 'house churches' or 'covenant churches' with more restrictive theology that, in some cases, bordered on the kind of Biblical literalism found within Protestant fundamentalist groups. The more liberal went underground, so to speak, or left the church, or moved to the Episcopal church, and elsewhere, including various forms of neopaganism that are less restrained in terms of emotion in worship.
It's not likely that most Catholics who are or were charismatic would be drawn to Protestant fundamentalism, but some of the strains within the Catholic church that are most 'fundamentalist' in their own way include the secretive group Opus Dei and some of groups around Mother Angelica on EWTN (IMO, based on what I've heard of her/their theology.) The traditionalist groups, such as the Tridentine group that Mel Gibson belongs to, also lean toward fundamentalist thinking -- however, they also tend to believe that everyone not of their group is headaing for hellfire with the Protestants and Evangelicals up near the front of the line, so an alliance between them and the Dominionists is unlikely, though theoretically possible if they were just sharing their conservative politics.
Dominionism is a form of Christian Reconstructionism, which doesn't come from any one denomination. I'm going to quote wholesale from this page on the Religious Tolerance site (the numbers at the ends of sentences are for footnotes on the site):
Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology and Theonomy are not denominations or faith groups. Rather, they are interrelated beliefs which are followed by members of a wide range of Christian denominations. They have no connection at all to Reconstructionist Judaism, which is a liberal group within Judaism.
Generally speaking:
Christian Reconstructionism arose out of conservative Presbyterianism in the early 1970's. Followers believe "that every area dominated by sin must be 'reconstructed' in terms of the Bible." 1
Dominion Theology is derived from Genesis 1:26 of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament): "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (New International Version)
Most Christians interpret this verse as meaning that God gave mankind dominion over the animal kingdom. Dominion theologians believe that that this verse commands Christians to bring all societies, around the world, under the rule of the Word of God.
Theonomy (Greek for "God's Law") includes the concept that "God’s revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being nonarbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations)." 6,7 Thus, each of the 613 laws given to Moses and recorded in the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures) are binding on people of all nations, cultures, and religions forever, except for those laws which have been rescinded or modified by further revelation.
The term Reconstructionism has been used to refer to various combinations of the preceding three terms. This type of confusion is common in the field of religion. Many words such as Christian, Fundamentalist, Occult, New Age, Reconstructionism, Unitarian etc. have been assigned so many different interpretations by different groups in different eras that they are almost meaningless.
Its most common form, Theonomic Reconstructionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. The followers are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those in the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it if it is properly presented to them.
All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than Christian would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. At that time that this essay was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion. Since then, we have learned of two conservative Christian pastors in Texas who have advocated the execution of all Wiccans.
The Dominionists are the ones I've been writing about, the last day or so. The page I've been quoting from, Religious Tolerance. org, is a Canadian attempt to clarify the religious/political muddle (mostly) south of the border in the US. I'd recommend reading everything on that site.
Continuing with quotes from that page -- which, in the original, have links to source material -- here's a section on beliefs of Theonomic Reconstructionists. I'll add comments in parentheses:
According to Gary DeMar, a popular Reconstructionist author, the foundation of Reconstructionism is a unique combination of three Biblical doctrines:
1. Regeneration of the individual, through an intimate relationship with Christ (being born again, convinced that this is the only truth, and accepted into a 'believing' church)
2. Individuals guiding their lives closely by following a specified subset of Biblical laws
3. Promoting of the world-wide Kingdom of God.
Specific beliefs include:
A rejection of Antinomianism: the belief that salvation is obtained totally through faith and not through performing good works and living a moral life (This is a departure from some Protestant traditions that specify that one is saved by faith alone. It comes from a specific way of reading the letters of Paul in the New Testament.)
Presuppositionalism: the acceptance on faith that the Bible is true. They do not attempt to prove that God exists or that the Bible is true.
Inerrancy: the belief that the Bible, as originally written, is totally free of error.
Postmillennialism: the belief that Christ will not return to earth until much of the world has converted to Christianity. This will not take place for some considerable time; it will not be a painless transition. Most Fundamentalists and other Evangelists hold to a different view. They are Premillenialists and believe that all (or almost all) of the preconditions of Christ's return have been met. They expect Jesus' second coming to occur soon. (In part 2 of this theological glossary I will attempt to sort out the various millennialist theories, as they are many and confusing.)
The laws contained in the Hebrew Scriptures can be divided into two classes: moral and ceremonial. Christians are not required to follow the ceremonial laws, because Jesus has liberated them from that responsibility. However, all persons must follow those moral laws which were not specifically modified or cancelled by further revelation --generally in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). (Non-reconstructionist Christians generally divide these laws into three classes: moral, civil and ceremonial law, and generally believe that most Old Testament laws are no longer binding on Christians.)
The moral laws given by God to the ancient Israelites reflect of God's character, which is unchangeable. Most of the laws are intended for all nations, cultures, societies, religions and all eras, including the present time. However, there are a few laws, in such areas as personal safety and sanitation, which are no longer applicable because of changes in architecture and sewage disposal. These do not need to be obeyed.
The primacy of the Hebrew Scriptures, relative to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). All of the Hebrew Scriptures' non-ceremonial laws are still in force, unless they have been specifically rescinded or modified by verses in the Christian Scriptures. "Only if we find an explicit abandonment of an Old Testament law in the New Testament, because of the historic fulfillment of the Old Testament shadow, can we legitimately abandon a detail of the Mosaic law." This is largely supported by their interpretation of Matthew 5:17:
"Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (NIV)
Civil laws must match the Bible's moral rules. That is, anything that is immoral (by their standards) is also to be criminalized.
The only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs, economic theory are those derived from the Bible.
In every aspect of life, there are only two options: God-centered or man-centered; Theonomy or autonomy. Their political goal is to ban the latter, everywhere. Each individual, family, church, government and society must be reconstructed to eliminate sin. Each Christian has the responsibility to contribute to this conversion.
They oppose mixed marriages. R.J. Rushdoony (one of the earliest Dominionist theorists) wrote about opposition to:
"inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish."
Rushdoony's condemnation of inter-racial marriage appears to have been his own and unrelated to the biblical text. It was not shared by other Reconstructionists.
Reconstructionists regard the Gods and Goddesses of all other religions to be "the devil," and their teachings to be false. They would attempt to replace all religions with their version of Christianity. For example, David Chilton wrote about Judaism:
"The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers--the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel."
Of course, there exists diversity of opinion within the Reconstructionist movement. Not all followers will necessarily agree with all the above statements of the movement's leaders
What does this mean in practical terms? Religious Tolerance.org believes the following are possible changes that might result from a Dominionist/Theonomic Reconstructionist takeover of the US or Canadian government:
The use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures' laws are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. The Bible requires those found guilty of these "crimes" to be either stoned to death or burned alive. Reconstructionists are divided on the execution method to be used.
A church or congregation which does not accept the Mosaic Law has another god before them, and is thus guilty of idolatry. That would be punishable by death. That would include all non-Christian religious organizations. At the present time, non-Christians total two-thirds of the human race.
The status of women would be reduced to almost that of a slave as described in the Hebrew Scriptures. A woman would initially be considered the property of her father; after marriage, she would be considered the property of her husband.
It would be logical to assume that the institution of slavery would be reintroduced, and regulated according to Biblical laws. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery. Female slaves would retain that status for life. People who owned slaves would be allowed to physically abuse them, as long as they did not beat them so severely that they died within three days.
Polygamy and the keeping of concubines were permitted in the Old Testament. However, Reconstructionists generally believe in marriage between one man and one woman only. Any other sexual expression would be a capital crime. Those found guilty of engaging in same-sex, pre-marital or extra-marital sex would be executed.
The Old Testament "Jubilee Year" system would be celebrated once more. Every 50 years, the control of all land reverted to its original owners. This would require every part of North American land to be returned to the original Aboriginal owners (or perhaps to those persons of Aboriginal descent who are now Christians). Hawaii would be given back to the native Hawaiians.
Governments would all have balanced budgets.
Income taxes would be eliminated.
The prison system would be eliminated. A system of just restitution would be established for some crimes. The death penalty would be practiced for many other crimes. There would be little need for warehousing of convicted criminals.
Legal abortions would be banished; those found to be responsible for illegal abortions would be executed.
***
Okay. You've made it this far and you're still breathing -- good. What I'd like you to do is just treat this as concepts for now. Put it in the back of your head and keep it there for reference. It's important to know the terms that are used, and the ways they're used, and the goals of the Dominionists -- but don't give up yet. We're just getting started, and it's not time to be depressed *as long as this is still theoretical and hasn't been put into practice.*
At the moment, there are just enough Democrats in the Senate and House to slow things down; just because bills that support the Religious Right agenda are proposed doesn't mean they're going to be passed, especially if we make enough fuss about them to our Congresscritters. However, it does mean that we will have to get more Democrats into the House and Senate *regardless of whether Bush wins or loses in November*. In fact, at this point, I would suggest that it might be a good idea to consider almost any Democratic candidate for House or Senate as someone to get your vote in November, if only because there's an extremely slim chance that they would be involved with this, far less than the random Republican. I'm not saying that all Republicans are Dominionists or fundamentalists, not at all -- but within a political party there are always power games going on, and parties can exert much fiercer strong-arm pressure on a dissenting member than might be expected. They can isolate and undermine someone who doesn't go along with the majority and make that person's life hell -- which means that it's better all around to get someone in who's less likely to be a victim of the Republican strong-arming.
So -- look at the next election in terms of your own electoral district and your state. Who's running? Who's going to represent you in the federal government? Very few people actually vote for their representatives, compared to those who vote for president; it kind of gets forgotten on the ballot. But we can't afford to forget this year. If your Senators or your Rep are Democrats and running for re-election, vote for them. If they're Republicans, take a long hard look at their voting records (available to you online -- if you can't figure out how to find it, comment to me and I'll get you the links) and consider whether you want them or their opponents in office. Some Republicans are conscientious, hard-working, good on environmental and civil rights and health care and education , and I wouldn't want one of those to be lost unless the Democratic challenger is better.
3/15/2004 07:35:00 PM
Fundamentalisms.
I've tried at times to define 'fundamentalist'. This link, The Fundamentalist Agenda, from the Unitarian Universalist World publication, does an excellent job of this, pointing out that the fundamentalists here don't appear to be that much different from the Wahhabists of Al Qaeda in terms of certain principles and views.
Quoting from the article:
From 1988 to 1993, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences sponsored an interdisciplinary study known as The Fundamentalism Project, the largest such study ever done. More than 100 scholars from all over the world took part, reporting on every imaginable kind of fundamentalism. And what they discovered was that the agenda of all fundamentalist movements in the world is virtually identical, regardless of religion or culture.
They identified five characteristics shared by virtually all fundamentalisms. The fundamentalists' agenda starts with insistence that their rules must be made to apply to all people, and to all areas of life. There can be no separation of church and state, or of public and private areas of life. The rigid rules of God—and they never doubt that they and only they have got these right—must become the law of the land. Pat Robertson, again, has said that just as Supreme Court justices place a hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, so they should also place a hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible. In Khomeini's Iran, and in the recent Taliban rule of Afghanistan, we saw how brutal and bloody this looks in real time.
The second agenda item is really at the top of the list, and it's vulgarly simple: Men are on top. Men are bigger and stronger, and they rule not only through physical strength but also and more importantly through their influence on the laws and rules of the land. Men set the boundaries. Men define the norms, and men enforce them. They also define women, and they define them through narrowly conceived biological functions. Women are to be supportive wives, mothers, and homemakers.
A third item follows from the others. (Indeed each part of the fundamentalist agenda is necessarily interlocked, and needs every other part to survive.) Since there is only one right picture of the world, one right set of beliefs, and one right set of roles for men, women, and children, it is imperative that this picture and these rules be communicated precisely to the next generation. Therefore, fundamentalists must control education by controlling textbooks and teaching styles, deciding what may and may not be taught.
Fourth, fundamentalists spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed. Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase “overcoming the modern” is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.
The fifth point is the most abstract, though it's foundational. Fundamentalists deny history in a radical and idiosyncratic way. Fundamentalists know as well or better than anybody that culture shapes everything it touches: The times we live in color how we think, what we value, and the kind of people we become. Fundamentalists agree on the perverseness of modern American society: the air of permissiveness and narcissism, individual rights unbalanced by responsibilities, sex divorced from commitment, and so on. What they don't want to see is the way culture colored the era when their scriptures were created.
***
From The Nation: Bush's version of religion: Manichaean dualism, Messianism, manipulation of prayer.
A quote:
True prayer does not pretend to tell God what we want Him to do but rather asks that God tell us what He wishes us to do. We do not pray in order to enlist God in our ranks but to examine ourselves, to change and to do God's will. Therefore, the confession of sin and repentance are crucial moments in prayer and worship. Prayer has played a role without precedent in the Bush presidency and in the propaganda of the evangelicals who support him. Photos of Bush at prayer are common. Great publicity was given to the fact that during a prime-time news conference shortly before his speech giving the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, Bush asked his advisers to leave him alone for ten minutes. In evangelical symbolism, that meant that a man of prayer was going to commune with God, somewhat like Moses on Mount Sinai.
It is remarkable how closely Bush's discourse coincides with that of the false prophets of the Old Testament. While the true prophets proclaimed the sovereignty of Yahweh, the God of justice and love who judges nations and persons, the false prophets served Baal, who could be manipulated by the powerful. Karl Marx concluded that religion is "the opium of the people." But Marx never knew committed Christians like Camilo Torres of Colombia, Oscar Arnulfo Romero of El Salvador, Frank Pais of Cuba, Ernesto Cardenal of Nicaragua, Dietrich Bonhoeffer of Germany or Martin Luther King Jr. of the United States. How paradoxical, and how sad, that the President of the United States, with his heretical manipulation of religious language, insists on proving Karl Marx right.
***
John Ashcroft: An Asset of the Far Right A Brief Overview of Key Political Relationships and Strategic Networking Resources. This was written before his confirmation as Attorney General, but it gives a good overview of his alliances. With footnotes.
***
This page of TheocracyWatch includes mainline Christian churches and religious organizations that *oppose* Dominionist thinking, and how they're being pressured to change. Something to keep in mind: the Dominionists don't consider mainline Christianity as 'Christian enough'; in this situation, mainline Christian churches are in the same boat as Wiccans, Jewis, Muslims and Buddhists.
3/15/2004 07:24:00 PM
The Constitution doesn't need this.
This article concerns the proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, which includes the following text:
(a) IN GENERAL-
(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable
`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'
What does this mean? If approved by Congress, it means that the Supreme Court would be unable to hear appeals in cases in lower courts where judges decided to levy Biblical penalties on people. How? If the judge's decision reflects an expression of relgious faith in God as the highest judge, the Supreme Court would be unable to overrule God, so to speak.
I know this sounds crazy, but I am not making it up. It is HR 3799 and S.2082.
How is this relevant to what I was writing earlier? Dominionist theory recognizes the Old Testament as the law of God, not the New Testament. Anything that Jesus didn't specifically exempt his followers from is fair game. This includes a great deal, most of which doesn't belong in the laws of this country.
Need I even say that writing your Congressman and Senator on this is a very good idea?
3/15/2004 06:59:00 PM
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Dissenting from the Dominionist agenda
Here are some organizations that are working *against* the Dominionist agenda. I'm including links to their own webpages and their own summary statements of goals and values, when those are provided. Each group has a lot of information; some have action links as well.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State: Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Issues they cover include:
Religion in the Public Schools
Religious Symbols on Public Property
Vouchers / Religious School Funding
Judicial Nominations
'Faith-Based' Initiatives / Taxpayer Funded Religious Discrimination
Church Electioneering
Free Exercise of Religion
Marriage & Family Life
Religion in Public Life
The Public Eye, website of Political Research Associates.: Political Research Associates is an independent, nonprofit research center that studies antidemocratic, authoritarian, and other oppressive movements, institutions, and trends. PRA is based on progressive values, and is committed to advancing an open, democratic, and pluralistic society. PRA provides accurate, reliable research and analysis to activists, journalists, educators, policy makers, and the public at large.
The sister site to The Public Eye is BuildingEquality.us.
The Interfaith Alliance: We are The Interfaith Alliance and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation. Founded in 1994 by an interfaith group of religious leaders, we work to promote interfaith cooperation around shared religious values to strengthen the public?s commitment to the American values of civic participation, freedom of religion, diversity, and civility in public discourse and to encourage the active involvement of people of faith in the nation?s political life. We are local religious leaders and activists, some with years of political experience, some just starting out. We work in our communities, in state capitals, in Washington, DC and wherever else our voice is needed.
Alliance for Justice: The Alliance for Justice has been working since its inception in 1979 to promote a fair and independent judiciary and strengthen public interest advocacy.
People for the American Way Taking action to defend Democracy: safeguarding public election, protecting religious freedom, maintaining an independent judiciary, promoting civil rights and equal rights, defending constitutional liberties, promoting civic participation.
Institute for Democracy Studies: The Institute for Democracy Studies is a nonprofit research and educational center devoted to defending mainstream democratic values such as an independent judiciary, the separation of church and state, and reproductive freedom. (Note: the typeface on this site goes a bit wonky if you need to enlarge it, but the site has good information.)
I will add more information to the blog on dissenting sites as I find them. Dissent is a vital civil liberty that we must not lose.
3/11/2004 06:15:00 PM
The United States of Jesus?
That's the title of this article in the Broward County, FL, New Times, about the Rev. D. James Kennedy's views on what should be going on in government.
Quoting the article:
American government must operate through the tenets of fundamental Christianity, loyalists to the cause insist. The core value system seems to break down something like this: George Bush, good; Democrats and gays, bad. Prayer in school and at government functions, good; Roe v. Wade, bad. Living by the principles of Christianity, good; going for the jugular in a political campaign, also good.
Kennedy has been at the helm of this Christian army since 1994, when the first Reclaiming America conference featured Vice President Dan Quayle. A year later, Kennedy opened the Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington, D.C., and in 1996 founded the Center for Reclaiming America in Fort Lauderdale.
Judging by the rhetoric flying around his church recently, Christian Utopia shapes up as a Taliban-like society in which gays and lesbians are driven underground or even forced into "treatment" for their "illness" by commandment-spouting judges; capital punishment is routine and speedy (some hardliners even take the position that, not to worry, God will sort out possible innocents from the guilty in the hereafter); pregnant women have little autonomy over their own bodies -- and Scripture, brothers and sisters, is the immutable authority on everything from zoning laws to foreign policy.
"The amazing thing about Kennedy is that he teaches a theology of hate and fear," contends Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "He's one of the premier gay bashers on the Christian right today. His theology, when taken to the extreme, divides families. He would like to see his version of Christianity favored by the government and be the basis on which the law is built.
"The problem with our side, the progressives, is that we've gotten lazy. We're used to letting these crazy ideas get passed and then letting them go to court and get struck down. In five or six years, if things keep going the way that they are, we're not going to have that trump card anymore. People need to understand that this is serious."
Indeed, the fundamentalist faithful are no longer political outsiders. Take Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and a speaker at the Reclaiming America conference. In 2001, Bush appointed Land to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, of which he is now chairman. Land has the ear of Karl Rove, the president's closest adviser. In other words, he's essentially part of the administration.
It's a long article but well worth a look, especially if you think that all this right-wing stuff is just a bunch of flakes and crackpots over *there* somewhere. They're not over there, they're here.
3/11/2004 05:39:00 PM
Some background on Dominionist theory and its recent applications
"On a Mission from God: The Religious Right and the Emerging American Theocracy.
From Theocracy Watch: The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party.
The National Reform Association's Purpose and MIssion Statement. This is the Dominionist 'public arm'.
Explicitly Christian Politics. The front page of the National Reform Association site. Note the article on 'Stoning disobedient children revisited.' Notice the other articles. (None are written by women.)
3/11/2004 10:41:00 AM
This is a horror story. This is your life in America. This is not a joke.
One of the things I've been trying to do while reading political articles this season is to find the pattern behind what's going on in the federal government. There's too much happening, too many changes being made, for it to happen without a pattern. This isn't random.
Orcinus is getting close to the point when he notes that the Culture War and the Class War are tools and strategies of the Right Wing. Frank Furedi, of the University of Kent (UK) misses the point in his article on politics as style and protest as inadequate self-expression, though his observations on the managerial style in politics are interesting.
On BlueEar.com I found information on Katherine Yurica, who has studied the Christian Right and its involvement in politics by recording and transcribing Pat Robertson's "700 Club" show from the 1980s and forward and comparing what was said then with what is going on now. She ended up with 1300 pages of verbatin transcription. In 1987 she conducted a study for the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee on whether tv and radio ministries were violating tax-exempt status by conducting grass-roots political appeals, endorsing candidates and doing fundraising.
What she has found since then is chilling.
The Despoiling of America is an examination of a fundamentalist political theory, Dominionism, that interprets the Constitution in the light of an extreme literalist "Christian" theology. I'm putting "Christian" in quotes here for good reason. A small section of this article:
Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is frequently called “Christian Reconstructionism.” Its doctrines are shocking to ordinary Christian believers and to most Americans. Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’” He described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate “…labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools.” Clarkson then describes the creation of new classes of citizens:
“Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment [to] blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.”[10]
Today, Dominionists hide their agenda and have resorted to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, “They cut and run if I mention the word ‘Dominionism.’”[11] Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, “In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, “How to Participate in a Political Party.” It read:
“Rule the world for God.
“Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
“Hide your strength.
“Don’t flaunt your Christianity.
“Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.”[12]
And further on:
Dominionism started with the Gospels and turned the concept of the invisible and spiritual “Kingdom of God” into a literal political empire that could be taken by force, starting with the United States of America. Discarding the original message of Jesus and forgetting that Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” the framers of Dominionism boldly presented a Gospel whose purpose was to inspire Christians to enter politics and execute world domination so that Jesus could return to an earth prepared for his earthly rule by his faithful “regents.”
This isn't a fantasy and this isn't a fairy tale. Look around you. It's happening.
The philosophical underpinnings of the political philosophy being used to further Dominionism come from Michael Ledeen, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, formerly a counsellor to the National Security Council and the Secretary of State, Quoting here:
Ledeen made a number of appearances on the 700 Club show during the 1980’s. Always presented as a distinguished guest, Robertson interviewed him on April 30, 1985 and asked him on this occasion: “What would you recommend if you were going to advise the President [Ronald Reagan] as to foreign policy?”
Ledeen responded:
“The United States has to make clear to the world and above all to its own citizens, what our vital interests are. And then we must make it clear to everyone that we are prepared to fight and fight fiercely to defend those interests, so that people will not cross the lines that are likely to kick off a trip wire.” (Emphasis added.)
If Ledeen’s advice sounds ruthless and Machiavellian—it may be because it is Machiavellian. (By definition his statement presupposes the existence of something or several things that are life threatening to the nation by the use of the word “vital.” Yet Ledeen asserts that which is life threatening must be made manifest or defined. If an interest must be defined, then it is not apparent; yet the nation will nevertheless ask its sons and daughters to fight and die for something that is not apparent. Therefore, whatever “interests” Ledeen wanted to be defined, cannot have been vital interests, which are apparent—so in reality he advised the President to call discretionary interests vital—which is a lie.)
Be aware that Ledeen is in complete accord with Machiavellian thinking. And so is Pat Robertson.[30] Robertson agreed to virtually every nuance Ledeen presented. In fact, it’s not clear which of the two first proposed invading Syria, Iran and Iraq back in the 1980’s,[31] a refrain that also echoed in the reports of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), one of the major homes for neo-conservatives in 2000. Both Ledeen and Robertson targeted the same nations that PNAC lists as America’s greatest enemies in its paper, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (published in September 2000.)[32]
In 1999, Ledeen published his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago. (Truman Talley Books, St. Martin’s Griffin, N.Y. 1999.) Here is a sample of how Ledeen smoothes rough edges and presents a modern Machiavelli:
“In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging. It is why we are drawn to him still…” (p. 91)
Again, Ledeen writes:
“Just as the quest for peace at any price invites war and, worse than war, defeat and domination, so good acts sometimes advance the triumph of evil, as there are circumstances when only doing evil ensures the victory of a good cause.” (p. 93)
Ledeen clearly believes “the end justifies the means,” but not all the time. He writes “Lying is evil,” but then contradictorily argues that it produced
“a magnificent result,” and “is essential to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises.” (p. 95)
Ledeen adds this tidbit:
“All’s fair in war . . . and in love. Practicing deceit to fulfill your heart’s desire might be not only legitimate, but delicious!” (p. 95)
William O. Beeman tells us about Michael Ledeen’s influence. Writing for the Pacific News Service he says:
“Ledeen’s ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz…He basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America’s manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.”[33]
In fact, Ledeen’s influence goes even further. The BBC, the Washington Post and Jim Lobe writing for the Asia Times report that Michael Ledeen is the only full-time international affairs analyst consulted by Karl Rove.[34] Ledeen has regular conversations with Rove. The Washington Post said, “More than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas faxed to Rove, become official policy or rhetoric.”[35]
The political philosophy of Dominionism extends to the Supreme Court, and here's where judicial nominations become crucial. Since the courts interpret the law, all they have to do is change a little and democracy as we know it will end.
Quoting here, from the viewpoint of the author of the article, Katherine Yurica::
When I first read articles by authors who were exposing the Dominionists’ intention to extend the death penalty to cover “crimes” like adultery, rebelliousness, homosexuality, witchcraft or effeminateness, I found the death penalty extension goal to be laughable. It couldn’t be done in America.
I was wrong. I now realize that we are very close to seeing the Dominionists achieve their goal. All they need to do is to appoint a majority of judges who will adhere to the “dead Constitution” construction rule of Scalia (or what Harry Jaffa called “the original intent” construction rule). At the point when the Dominionist’s control the judiciary—that judiciary can roll back America’s body of legal jurisprudence to a century or more ago as Law Professor Patricia J. Williams pointed out.[55]
Scalia spilled the beans in his article, “God’s Justice and Ours” when he explained how he would determine whether the death penalty is constitutional or not. His reasoning goes like this: since the death penalty was “clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment [which prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishments’] was adopted,” and at that time the death penalty was applied for all felonies—including, for example, the felony of horse-thieving, “so it is clearly permitted today.”[56] Justice Scalia left no doubt that if the crime of horse stealing carried a death penalty today in the United States—he would find that law constitutional.
All a willing Dominionist Republican controlled congress need do to extend the death penalty to those people who practice witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, heresy, etcetera, is to find those particular death penalty laws existing as of November 3, 1791, and re-instate them. No revolution is required. That’s why the battle over Bush’s judicial appointments is so crucial to the future of the America we know and love. And that’s why the clock is running out on freedom loving Americans.
Scalia himself appears to be a Dominionist, for he believes that Romans 13 represents the correct view— that government authority is derived from God and not from the people; he asserts his view was the consensus of Western thought until recent times. Like Pat Robertson, he laments that the biblical perspective was upset by “the emergence of democracy.”[57] Taking his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia argued, “a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals.” Democracy, according to Scalia, creates problems, “It fosters civil disobedience.”[58]
Believe me, this is scarier than anything I'd invent. This is real.
The Dominionist line is Social Dawrinism: God favors the rich, God hates the poor. (See why I put "Christian" in quote marks as debatable?) Dominionist theory holds that Medicare and Medicaid are stealing from the rich to reward the poor, and therefore should be eliminated. They're ignoring, of course, the fact that we pay for Medicare and Medicaid in our taxes, all of us, not just the rich (who, per dollar of income, pay far lower taxes than anyone else.)
The end of Yurica's article:
When we look for help—for the wealthy leaders with the means to help rescue America, we find they have all defected to the Dominionists. They do not realize that if the middle class of America is wiped out—there will be no one to buy their cars, their computers or their products. Only one or two brave souls like George Soros have made massive contributions to combat the think tanks and the organized political machine of the Dominionists. The corporate press lies sleeping, not realizing they will be allowed to report only what they are instructed to report.
Freedom is under siege. There is only one free major political party still left in America. I know the Democrats look chaotic, unfocused and generally unsmooth and thank God, unprogramed. Make no mistake, these plain ordinary citizens are holding the candles that together form the great torch of liberty. For all their faults, they love America and they love freedom and they love the Bill of Rights. America’s independents, its true Conservatives, its sensible Republicans, and its Libertarians must join hands together with the homely Democrats and take back America for all Americans.
The livelihood of the working people of America is at stake. The Dominionists have lost more American jobs in the last three years than since the days of Herbert Hoover. And now they want to eliminate the minimum wage laws too. America’s unions have helped to create a better life for millions of workers. The Dominionists want to break all unions apart (especially the teacher’s union). As Americans, we love our schools and are proud of our educational system. The Dominionists want to destroy all public education in America and force Americans to be educated in their religious schools. Americans love our culture and the arts. The Dominionists want to destroy that culture.
The election of 2004 is not just another election. It is the battle of the century. It is the gravest political war since the Civil War, which if lost, spells the end of Independence Day and every right in the Bill of Rights that we have fought so hard to preserve. Is there an American, regardless of his or her party, who would not fight for our Democracy? It’s in jeopardy now. Our friends and cousins in Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand and scores of other nations have seen our jeopardy and have been crying out for months and days and years to wake up America!
Let me see your face and look into your eyes. Let me hear you say, “There is no difference between the two parties.” May God help us and grant us discernment when we vote.
This puts an interesting spin on Nader's running for the White House *with the assistance of a far-Right support group*, doesn't it? Nader's just being used as a tool, and even more so than he can imagine.
Katherine Yurica has written another article, on the Dominionist influence on education: Why the Education Secretary Should Be Fired. A quote from this article:
Keep in mind, George Bush said he wanted to be called the “Education President.” His “No Child Left Behind” initiative, however, has only been partially funded, and appears to be a cruel hoax on those parents who believed him.
Consider that Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition and other groups targeted positions in Boards of Education in an all out effort to take over every school district in America. They have succeeded remarkably well. Gary North, a leading biblical economist and Dominionist recently wrote this:
“The goal of controlling the local public school board is not to make the public schools a good place for Christian students. Christian students should not be in tax-supported schools. The goal is to say ‘no’ to every request by every teachers union, to say ‘no’ to every liberal humanist textbook salesman, and to stop floating school bond proposals. The school board’s job is to cut back on spending in every area, but especially the salaries of school administrators. It is also important to expel every delinquent on campus, including faculty members.” (“Replacing Evil With Good” by Gary North, Institute for Christian Economics (ICE) )
In other words, the goal has been to slowly strangle public education in America by cutting off education funds. The target is to close down our public schools one by one until no schools are left but the religionist’s schools.
Think about this. Think about the bills in the Senate and House (links in earlier posts) proposing a reinstatement of the draft, with no college deferments allowed, only high school deferments. What will that do to higher education in this country? To supposedly 'liberal' education? To academic freedom?
What does it say for the future of this country?
I am starting to think that the election in November may be the last one we have as a country under the Constitution, possibly the last real election with a choice between the current regime and a change back toward a more liberal and secular administration.
For this reason, I'm linking to this site, Show George the Door, which is run by TrueMajorityAction, a group founded by Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's. The point is to get the vote out -- but to do it in a way that can't be tampered with: absentee ballots. If as many people as possible file for absentee ballots and use them, that circumvents the electronic machines. Absentee ballots must be counted by hand, and they are a paper trail, physical evidence of the vote.
Note: Katherine Yurica's articles linked above and more can be read at this link.
3/11/2004 10:07:00 AM
|
|
