Thursday, April 14, 2005


Delay Hates The Constitution...

apologist/Moonie Paper (the Times) interviews Delay

Just what does the GOP stand for anymore? Fiscal restraint? HA!, Limited Government? HA! HA!....I'm just not so sure anymore. Oh, I'm not rushing out to mixers mind you, but rather slowly drifting away from this bunch of power hungry, civic values hating bunch of radicals that are attempting to undermine some of our most important institutions and traditions in our federal government.

This little quote from Tom Delay in today's Washington Times (Owned by the Rev. Moon) clinches it for me.

Mr. Dinan: You've been talking about going after activist judges since at least 1997. The [Terri] Schiavo case gives you a chance to do that, but you've recently said you blame Congress for not being zealous in oversight?

Mr. DeLay: Not zealous. I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them. (Emphasis added)

OMG! This is Eric Rudolph/Randall Terry kind of stuff. First off, the Establishment Clause is found in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which was ratified on December 15, 1791. It reads:

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of peech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The nick-name of this clause is the separation of church and state. That 'wall of separation gets its name from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of ministers who were concerned that the government's support for a particular form of Christianity would be detrimental of a thriving and diverse community of Christian churches. The language of the letter follows:

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to
restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in {opposition to his social duties.]

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas JeffersonJan.1.1802.

A more modern, and eloquent rationale for the purpose of the establishment clause can be found in the words of Justice Harry Blackmun...who said:

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

That's it, right there people. It's not that the founding fathers didn't want religion as part of civic life, they didn't what the government to say that "Snake Handling" is the official religion. It's counter to the all men are created equal. So when Mr. Delay talks about putting God back into government, it begs the question of which God? The evangelicals? The Lutherans? The Unitarians? The Moonies?

And just what does "Establish" mean for purposes of the First Amendment? Reasonable people can have different interpretations of that. It's the role of the courts to hash that out and that's what they've been doing for the last two hundred or so years. It's not always pretty, but as we debate things like prayer in school, manger displays and so forth, we're really trying to define what "Establish" means.

Mr. Delay's "Know-nothing" attitude about the Constitution is alarming, but sadly part of the dangerous rhetoric the GOP has adopted. If they succeed, America will more closely resemble China, or more appropriately Iran than it does the land of the Free.

Again I ask, who really hates America?

Tomorrow...Why Does the GOP Hate Privacy?

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?