Originally posted by L.A. Times (reg req'd)WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
Frist and DeLay have not publicly endorsed the evangelical groups' proposed actions. But the taped discussion among evangelical leaders provides a glimpse of the road map they are drafting as they work with congressional Republicans to achieve a judiciary that sides with them on abortion, same-sex marriage and other elements of their agenda.
Between this and "Justice Sunday", I don't know what to call it other than the religious right gone out of control.
Originally posted by It's FalseA very disturbing discovery from the Los Angeles Times.
Originally posted by L.A. Times Between this and "Justice Sunday", I don't know what to call it other than the religious right gone out of control.
I don't understand - can't people who are religious have political views and plan to have their agendas fulfilled? Left-leaning people do. They have parades. They have political rallies. They court the Hillaries and Barabaras of the world. They get the actors and entertainers to spount their stuff on stage. But a person who believes that traditional values should be upheld - NO! That's Out of Control.
The Left Angeles times, anyway. I expect stories damning anyone skewing to the right in this leftist rag.
(edited by AWArulz on 23.4.05 2120) Now, just wait a minute!
Shouldn't groups as morally driven as the Church shy away from such behaviour? You don't think such underhanded tactics are the least bit hypocritical?
Oh, and...
"The Left Angeles times, anyway. I expect stories damning anyone skewing to the right in this leftist rag."
Spouting crap like that only makes it sounds like the story hit a nerve.
Originally posted by oldschoolheroShouldn't groups as morally driven as the Church shy away from such behaviour? You don't think such underhanded tactics are the least bit hypocritical?
Is it any more or less hypocritical than the folks fighting to get big money out of politics(George Soros, John McCain, etc) taking millions of dollars in contributions to do so?
I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt. - Pat Sajak
"Is it any more or less hypocritical than the folks fighting to get big money out of politics(George Soros, John McCain, etc) taking millions of dollars in contributions to do so?"
It's hypocrisy of a different bent. Hypocrisy comes with the territory for politicians and the politically-connected; for the church and those close to it, however, they're supposed to be of higher standard. The church's driving force is its morality, you could even push the envelope and say it's its reason for being. Put it this way: No-one's surprised when a politician and his crew try underhanded tactics to push their agenda. The church is supposed to know better, and they advertise that fact. They are morally superior. But they ain't here.
Originally posted by It's FalseA very disturbing discovery from the Los Angeles Times.
Originally posted by L.A. Times (reg req'd)WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
Frist and DeLay have not publicly endorsed the evangelical groups' proposed actions. But the taped discussion among evangelical leaders provides a glimpse of the road map they are drafting as they work with congressional Republicans to achieve a judiciary that sides with them on abortion, same-sex marriage and other elements of their agenda.
Between this and "Justice Sunday", I don't know what to call it other than the religious right gone out of control.
Am I missing something? "Stripping funding from their courts"? I wasn't aware that evangelical leaders were responsible for court funding. Since I assume that it is actually legislators who would have to do the stripping of funding, aren't they the ones who would be responsible. And since this would have to be done in a public forum, is there really anything underhanded about it?
The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
Originally posted by It's FalseA very disturbing discovery from the Los Angeles Times.
Originally posted by L.A. Times (reg req'd)WASHINGTON — Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation's most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
Frist and DeLay have not publicly endorsed the evangelical groups' proposed actions. But the taped discussion among evangelical leaders provides a glimpse of the road map they are drafting as they work with congressional Republicans to achieve a judiciary that sides with them on abortion, same-sex marriage and other elements of their agenda.
Between this and "Justice Sunday", I don't know what to call it other than the religious right gone out of control.
Am I missing something? "Stripping funding from their courts"? I wasn't aware that evangelical leaders were responsible for court funding. Since I assume that it is actually legislators who would have to do the stripping of funding, aren't they the ones who would be responsible. And since this would have to be done in a public forum, is there really anything underhanded about it?
Underhanded? Kind of. Really fucking contrary to the whole concept of democracy? Quite. (Maybe some of these blowhards would like that, but who the hell am I to speculate.) And is it even possible to de-fund the courts? Methinks these leaders could use a civics course or two.
You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.
"Jeez, some people seem to think anything short of Vince bending over and spreading his asscheeks is a slap in the face." (Hogan's My Dad)
Originally posted by ges7184Am I missing something? "Stripping funding from their courts"? I wasn't aware that evangelical leaders were responsible for court funding. Since I assume that it is actually legislators who would have to do the stripping of funding, aren't they the ones who would be responsible. And since this would have to be done in a public forum, is there really anything underhanded about it?
In a nutshell, evangelical leaders who have the ear and support of Tom DeLay have a lot more say into court funding than they realistically should. Nobody voted for James Dobson last November when they pulled the Dubya lever, yet that's exactly how many in the religious right interpret the results; they fancy themselves the real power behind the Republican Party, and now that the Republicans control Washington, they want radical changes in their favor.
Frankly, if churches want to be actively involved in politics and hold rallies like this one, they should have their tax-exempt status revoked immediately. If you want to play in politics, pay your entrance fee like everyone else.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Ray Mummert, pastor, creationism-in-schools proponent
Funny y'all should mention this, because speaking of Focus on the Family, I actually got called by an FotF automated "push poll" yesterday.
After the recording told me about congressional filibusters against Bush's judicial nominees, it asked me, "Do you believe House Democrats should be allowed to reject President Bush's qualified judicial candidates?"
I didn't give 'em the answer they wanted. "Bloody straight," I replied. It then asked me a few more questions.
"Do you believe marriage should be limited to just one man and one woman?" "No." "Do you consider yourself a Republican?" "No." "Do you consider yourself a Democrat?" "Yes." "Do you consider yourself pro-life?" "Yes."
I like to think the thing exploded trying to figure me out, even though I was beign absolutely honest with my opinions.
(edited by ekedolphin on 26.4.05 1028) “Hi, Haley. Look, I found all these free swords. They were in my spleen.” --Elan, The Order of the Stick
Four-Time Wiener of the Day (5/27/02; 7/3/02; 7/30/04; 8/28/04)
The Only Five-Time (and Last) N.E.W. World Heavyweight Champion
Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!
Originally posted by drjayphd Really fucking contrary to the whole concept of democracy? Quite. And is it even possible to de-fund the courts? Methinks these leaders could use a civics course or two.
Wow. Talk about overreaction. How is it contrary to try to change a system that has absolutely nothing to do with democracy in this fashion? The judges they are going after aren't elected...they are appointed. How is that democratic? And how else do you change a system built that way?
If one were to replace the words "evangelical leaders" with "gay rights activists" or "environmentalists" not only would liberals be all for the idea, but Hollywood nitwits would be shoveling money into it hand over fist.
I don't support the concept either way, but someone needs some reality pills here.
Originally posted by vspevangelical leaders who have the ear and support of Tom DeLay have a lot more say into court funding than they realistically should. Nobody voted for James Dobson last November when they pulled the Dubya lever, yet that's exactly how many in the religious right interpret the results; they fancy themselves the real power behind the Republican Party, and now that the Republicans control Washington, they want radical changes in their favor.
People who participate in the system voting for a representative government want their candidate to represent their views. You want to change that, then vote in a different candidate. There's a civics lesson both sides need to take. Lord knows Midwesterners have been saddled with crap legislation and riders pushed by idiots like Kennedy and Helms over the years...liberals need to get their act together and take back the House and Senate next time, so the conservatives can whine for a few years.
Originally posted by vspFrankly, if churches want to be actively involved in politics and hold rallies like this one, they should have their tax-exempt status revoked immediately. If you want to play in politics, pay your entrance fee like everyone else.
You really want that? Every tax-exempt organization should give up the right to express a collective view about the government? Right and left? Or is it just the conservatives that should have to pay money to express their orinions?
As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004 OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005 As of 4/18/05: 125 pounds "I've lost a featherweight"
Originally posted by Eddie FamousYou really want that? Every tax-exempt organization should give up the right to express a collective view about the government? Right and left? Or is it just the conservatives that should have to pay money to express their orinions?
If they're explicitly delivering political opinions and endorsements from the pulpit, then yes, every tax-exempt RELIGIOUS organization should give up that tax-exempt status. If they want to be a political force, they play by the same rules, which happen to be federal law. If they want to stay within those rules and politicize only in general terms if at all, they keep their exemption.
If you can look at "Justice Sunday" and describe it as an expression of Christian faith rather than as an explicitly partisan political rally, you're either blind or a very poor liar.
As for "EVERY tax-free organization," I am not opposed to that in theory. Groups such as the Sierra Club have lost their status when they've crossed the line of partisan politics, and I absolutely refuse to give James Dobson et al. a pass simply because they hide behind a cross.
Originally posted by Eddie FamousPeople who participate in the system voting for a representative government want their candidate to represent their views.
But of course -- as far as those views can be implemented under our current system of government. Gay rights activists want legislation that will give them the same rights as heterosexuals, environmentalists want legislation that will limit pollution and other such things, dominionists want legislation that will tilt the country towards an explicitly Biblical state, or allow states to become little Biblical fiefdoms without federal interference.
The catch is that nothing's currently STOPPING those who desire to live a Biblical lifestyle. Those self-imposed religious restrictions on behavior are over and above what the law can or should regulate. If such people want representatives who will protect their right to live according to Biblical principles on an individual basis, that's fine. If they want representatives who will seek to endorse and impose those principles on EVERYONE as law, in whole or in part, _that_ will not stand.
A representative can BELIEVE that everyone should live their lives according to the higher religious standard in which he personally believes. He is expected to set those beliefs aside when judging or making law that respects the rights of all, however, including those of differing or no religious beliefs. If he cannot do so, Roy Moore being the poster child for that category, he needs to find another profession, because there are MANY, MANY judges and legislators and elected representatives who CAN separate their personal beliefs from their job functions.
The Justice Sunday crowd is screaming that judges aren't allowed to be Christians, in so many words. That's nonsense; they're simply not allowed to apply Christian belief in lieu of applying the law when doing their jobs. If Dobson and his flock believe that judges _should_ explicitly evangelize, that's a view that their representatives simply cannot represent, or those representatives are disqualifying themselves from their positions by doing so.
(edited by vsp on 26.4.05 1419) "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Ray Mummert, pastor, creationism-in-schools proponent
"If one were to replace the words "evangelical leaders" with "gay rights activists" or "environmentalists" not only would liberals be all for the idea, but Hollywood nitwits would be shoveling money into it hand over fist."
That's bullcrap and you know it. This kind of behaviour isn't altered by republican/democrat lines, it's conniving and underhanded no matter who tries it.
Originally posted by vspIf you can look at "Justice Sunday" and describe it as an expression of Christian faith rather than as an explicitly partisan political rally, you're either blind or a very poor liar.
I didn't and don't. I think it's silly.
Originally posted by vsp Gay rights activists want legislation that will give them the same rights as heterosexuals, environmentalists want legislation that will limit pollution and other such things, dominionists want legislation that will tilt the country towards an explicitly Biblical state, or allow states to become little Biblical fiefdoms without federal interference.
And which of those, right or wrong, is currently under attack? If the gays or environmentalists were to use the same tactic, they'd be hailed as heroes by the left.
Originally posted by vsp If Dobson and his flock believe that judges _should_ explicitly evangelize, that's a view that their representatives simply cannot represent, or those representatives are disqualifying themselves from their positions by doing so.
No, they are not. There is nothing legally that disqualifies elected representatives to do that. They CAN be voted out, which judges at that level cannot. Dobson is a drip.
Originally posted by oldschoolhero "If one were to replace the words "evangelical leaders" with "gay rights activists" or "environmentalists" not only would liberals be all for the idea, but Hollywood nitwits would be shoveling money into it hand over fist."
That's bullcrap and you know it. This kind of behaviour isn't altered by republican/democrat lines, it's conniving and underhanded no matter who tries it.
Whether or not the action is "bullcrap" and underhanded is beside the point. As you alluded to, somewhat, it happens and will happen on both sides of the fence. So why only attack the religious?
As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004 OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005 As of 4/18/05: 125 pounds "I've lost a featherweight"
I think that many members of the religious right might think that they have more political capital then they really do. I also think that many members of the secular left vastly overemphasize the real effect that this particular interest group has on America.
"It's easy to justify. There is nothing fair about taxing people at a higher tax rate because they make more money. Pure and simple" Refer to Godking's response. But also, it isn't purely a question of fairness. Life isn't fair.