galiel

You have a legitimate point. That is precisely the kind of unfair tactics that creationists use, and I certainly do not intend to ask you to do that.

I can't compete with you citing court decisions. I would only note that I did NOT criticize his judicial record to date, nor his generally public persona, and I emphasized that I did not prejudge him when he was first appointed. I DID refer to his very recent speeches to religious political groups as being alarming. You are right to insist that I cite evidence, not just accusations, and I will do so in a separate post later, when I have time to find the references. Until then, let's suspend the discussion about Scalia. And please accept that I am not an ideologue or conspiracist and, in this case in particular, would love to be proven wrong.

Incidentally, what is your position on O'Connor's recent comments about the inevitability of restricions on personal freedoms post 9/11, which were unprecedented because they commented on issues that would certainly be before her in the near future? I have read many critiques of her choice to express her opinion, even by people who agree 100% with her, because of its break with tradition (of voicing an opinion on an issue upon which she will soon rule (I forget the legal term), not the opinion itself).

By convenient confirmation conversion I meant falsely saying what the Senate wants to hear in order to win confirmation, even though it does not honestly represent one's positions. I did not mean the responsible position people like Kennedy or indeed most any justice in recent memory has taken, of honestly upholding settled law and respecting precedence and the right of the people to act through their elected representatives, even when it conflicts with the justices' deepest convictions.

This, of course, is always a matter of interpretation, but I think history will show that Ashcroft, for example, deliberately lied about his intention to enforce laws with which he disagreed. I am deeply suspicious of McConnell because I think he, like Ashcroft, is zealous to the extent that he would violate the laws of man in order to obey what he believes are the laws of god, that his commitment to fulfill biblical prophesy trumps his commitment to democracy or the Constitution, and that he believes the ends justify the means. That is fine for a layperson who wishes to engage in civil disobedience and face the consequences, or even an elected official, but it seems outside the norm for a Justice of the Supreme Court or the Attorney General of the United States or other appointed public servant.

As with Scalia, you are right to insist on evidence for McConnell, and I will provide it in that same post.

Only if it is true. Now, you will counter that I have no practical evidence that it isn't, since McConnell comes from academia. I am not willing to take the risk. The Supreme Court is to damn important to play these kind of games, where we end up with either unqualified people like Thomas, just to get someone ideologically palatable in the chair, or, in this case, we may end up with someone who will subvert his position to achieve undemocratic aims.

You claim he merely wants to return to original intent, which the liberals have subverted, but he goes well beyond what previous conservative justices have stated as goals. He doesn't seem to really consider the founder's intent the real issue, nor precedent important, nor the will of the people as expressed by the laws passed by their elected officials. Instead, he seems to consider Christian theological concepts of right and wrong to be the ultimate test, just as Ashcroft does. Just as I would have rejected Carter if I had thought he would promote a theocratic agenda, just as I DO reject Liberman for precisely the same reason, I also do not think people like Ashcroft or McConnell should serve in appointed positions. Let him run for office and see if his positions represent a sufficient proportion of the American public (of course, Ashcroft lost to a dead man, yet he now is the keeper of the keys...)
[quote]<strong>
You have a point, and deserve the evidence. I hope you are as open to the possibility that you are wrong as I am.

Secular Elation

Like Stephen Carter's, The Culture of Disbelief. A very thoughtful work by a black liberal law professor on the left's unreasonable hostility towards religion.

Not quite correct. If you read the introduction to the book, Carter explicitly states that he does not mean to say there is hositility to religion. He uses the term 'trivialize,' but that is a different word than hostility.

Layman

Well, the appropriateness of commenting on issues likely to be raised before you depends on the specificity of the comments and the imminence of hte case. Liberal justices like Brennan, Douglas, and Black had big mouths and spouted off against political topics on numerous occasions.

Besides, I thought you were concenred about a big fact conspiracy of people hiding their true intentions? Sounds like you are complaining about O'Conner -- not really a "radical right" card-carrying member -- being candid about her beliefs.

As for the rest of your post, I didn't see anything new to respond to. Just more claims that -- shockingly -- some religious people should not hold appointed office because they take their religion too seriously.

galiel

Irrelevant. If its wrong for her, its wrong for them. If its right for her, its right for them. Do you believe in principle, or only expediency? Do you universally abhor extremism, corruption and hate no matter where it comes from, or only if it is targeted at your side of the table? Can a religious conservative ever be wrong? Can you cite an example?

Sounds like you are still trying to shoehorn me neatly into your bogeyman liberal left.

Are these conditioned responses, or do you truly see everything in the world as a binary fork? Must make it hell to navigate a rotary.

No, clearly my claim is that it is in our collective self-interest that people who do not believe in democracy should not hold appointed office in a democracy, and that lying about it in order to get in is wrong. Do you disagree?

I clearly specified not religious people in general, nor conservatives in general, nor Republicans in general. I specified people who are so zealous that they put their ideology (I don't care whether their god is Jesus or Marx or Mammon) ahead of their oath of office. People who believe that their version of Divine law (as they chose to ideosyncratically interpret it, one of the thousands of different ways various religious groups do and can never agree on) supercedes the Constitution and the laws passed by elected officials. Who believe that they have the right to forcefully impose their beliefs on all citizens of this country, including those who do not believe in any gods.

It so happens that today's covert revolutionaries come from the far, far, extreme religious right. They could just as easily come from the far, far, extreme communist left. Or it could be fascists, or Scientologists, or whoever. They all basically come from far, far out, and they believe that the end justifies the means. In this case, they are "muscular" Christians who actually believe it is their role to literally prepare for the Rapture, and who believe that anything they do to stop the forces of Satan and hasten the process is a-okay, including trampling on the Bill of Rights.

I believe that one of the moral principles of this Country is that the means themselves *are* the end - that the *pursuit* of happiness, freedom, self-determination, equal treatment, equal opportunity--not outcome, but *opportunity*, is the thing that makes America America. The *means* mean something. That is the common thread of morality that unites both theistic and nontheistic Americans and is enshrined in the Constitution. That is what is at stake here.

We should argue about whether or not there are actually people like that who have systematically worked their way into our democratic system in a deliberate attempt to subvert it. If there are, I assume you are enough of a patriot that you will defend our country from all enemies, no matter which side of the aisle they claim to come from.

Stop pulling out the tired old "religion-hating lefty pinko commie atheist" crap. That died with McCarthy. That is not the issue here. There are plenty of deeply devout people on the left, the upper right hand corner, the lower left, the lobby, the roof and all the way in between, and there are nonbelievers spread across the political spectrum as well, which is one of the reasons this is not a left-right issue at all.

Secular Elation

and there are nonbelievers spread across the political spectrum as well, which is one of the reasons this is not a left-right issue at all.

Quite true.

It seems, at least by my experience on this board, that an overwhelming majority of atheists are left-leaning. However, I consider myself libertarian.

Layman

What I disagree with is your subjective assesments of what it means to "believe in democracy" and who you conclude does not believe in it and how you determine who is "lying about it." All I've seen from you is shrill rhetoric and conclusory allegations.

Did the Roe v. Wade court "beleive in democracy" when they struck down democratically enacted anti-abortion laws across the country? Did the Supreme Court that struck down the anti-flag burning statutes "believe in democracy"? Those statutes were very popular, but the Supremes struck them down anyway. Was it correct? I think so, even though they weren't acting democractically.

Actually, the only "specifics" you have given have been religious conservatives. You broaden the rhetoric to sound more inclusive than that, but when you rave on about Scalia's speech about religion, or Ashcroft and his noted religious beliefs, or McConnell's views on religion and government, your "specifics" make it pretty clear who you are targetting.

Since the "rapture" is not really a noted part of Catholic theology (they are generally amillenialists) what makes you think that Catholics like Thomas and Scalia "believe it is their role to literally prepare for the Rapture"?

I agree that process oriented Justice is generally the best kind. Which means that if conservatives or liberals or religious or atheists use the process to make political gains, there is nothing invalid per se about such victories. Niether Ashcroft, McConnell, Scalia, Thomas, or even GWB have made any "secret" about their religous beliefs. They have actually been quite upfront about them.

I'm enough of a patriot not to join you in a witch -hunt against religious believers.

Funny you should raise McCarthy, since you are emulating his tactics to nicely. You have admitted that your fears are against the religious right -- Ashcroft, Scalia, Thomas, and co. -- so simply asserting that you would be just as worried about those who do not "believe in democracy" on the left is of small comfort.

galiel

So, I take it that your argument, Layman, is that Scalia, McConnell, Ashcroft, and others presenting similar views represent the mainstream of conservatism, not some extreme radical agenda as I claim?

4th Generation Atheist

Also depends how you define left-leaning. Views like mine, for instance, used to be considered kind of "middle"; a few years ago I might have been a "live-and-let-live Republican". But since the political process started to be between the religious conservatives and most of everyone else, I'm now considered "left" (not that the names matter, but I dislike tofu-dogs so I can't really join the "crunchy left". )My secularist views are now often considered "left" all on their own, b/c of the modern expectation that conservatives will be socially conservative (ie. anti-gay, anti-porn and so on) and usually religious.

Had it happened another way, with say "liberation theologists" or Jesse Jackson or somebody like that taking over, "secularism" might have become a "brand" of the right. Then you'd see people saying they saw atheists as usually right-wing. Also, right-wing atheists would feel more of a need to speak up about other issues; these days it takes a little courage for a Republican or other conservative to admit atheism. You might well see the same spectrum among atheists as you do IRL, but it would look a lot different.

ybnormal

Since the "rapture" is not really a noted part of Catholic theology (they are generally amillenialists) what makes you think that Catholics like Thomas and Scalia "believe it is their role to literally prepare for the Rapture"?

You guys can argue about particular political events and conflicting ideologies in detail while consistently proving your respective points till the cows come home, and still miss the big picture as to what is actually going on.

Various organized religions can and do argue and profess that their own belief is the true way to go, but in general, when it comes the politics of "community" and "family" and "morality" and "children" and "rights" and "sex" and "religious freedom" and so forth, they are all so closely related politically, that it's hard to tell them apart...

The glue that generally holds most all of them together morally, is that anyone who does not believe in a God, just like anyone who does not align with them regarding the above mentioned issues, is considered a dangerous threat to all things they hold dear. They can all pretty much agree there, regarding a Common Good, then agree to disagree on details of their particular faith. On many, if not most moral and political issues, they can and do often march to the same tune.

What is going on is simply that a huge percentage of the population is totally convinced that God is on their side, totally convinced that they must control morality, and worst of all, totally convinced that they are right.

It's all about their "Common Good." The "way things used to be." The "way things should be." It's all about the simple plea, "there ought to be a law against it", for the "Common Good", that all these religions subscribe to, over and above the Constitution. They in general don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution. It's in their way, just like the ACLU and "liberal" judges are in their way.

Listen to the xian leaders and the common xian folks, instead of dismissing their ignorance of the Constitution and their ignorance of the law as being stupid... it is NOT stupid... these folks are NOT "nuts".

The Constitution is the ONLY obstacle standing in their way. Why is that simple fact so difficult for so many to understand?

Any xian judge or politician who wants to do something for that "Common Good" does have to make it appear that they are abiding by the Constitution, while they search for some way to get around it. But they do want to change it... they must change it... and they will change it or die trying... they have God on their side and they are right. Nothing else really matters.

Is it really all that difficult to see that the common political thread running thru all this is simply that it's all for the "Common Good"? Name most any issue... abortion, Hollywood, Rap music, anything sexual, family, school prayer, crime, gun control, war with anyone, the pledge, In God We Trust stamped everywhere, tax relief, religious freedom, the definition of "marriage", drugs, alcohol and whatever else, as far as I'm concerned...

Layman

My argument is my argument. I'm not going to restate it everytime you try and change the subject. If you want to respond to specifics, please do so.