For some deny that a state is well constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses, and is governed by the common laws of nations. The dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will be sufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish. -- John Calvin
Living in a country where 34 percent of the population believes in UFOs and ghosts, I shouldn’t be surprised to find that Americans will believe just about anything. Still, it is rather disconcerting to discover so many people think that our nation is turning into a “theocracy.”
“Bush gets mandate for theocracy,” cries the Village Voice’s James Ridgeway. “[T]he right-wing cabal,” warns Dr. Bruce Prescott, Director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, “is methodically pushing our nation toward theocracy.” And writing in The Nation, Barbara Ehrenreich claims that Bush’s faith-based welfare strategy “accelerates the downward spiral toward theocracy.” There’s even a project called “TheocracyWatch” at Cornell University that focuses not on existing theocracies throughout the world but on “the pervasive role of the Religious Right in the U.S. government.”
When those of us on the “religious right” hear such paranoid ranting it naturally elicits a chuckle. After all, more than half of American evangelicals are either Baptists or non-denominational. We don’t even want a centralized church government much less a central government controlled by the church. So where does this silly canard come from?
Since even the most pernicious lie (“Jews eat gentile children.”) contains some grain of truth (“Jews eat.”), we can’t dismiss the idea completely. After all, it is true that some conservative Christians in our country do want to establish a theocracy. Their actual numbers, however, are rather negligible and their political influence almost non-existence. As a group they likely outnumber black separatists, though they are dwarfed by the number of liberal secessionists. Their association with the election of President Bush is also rather dubious since they voted for Michael Peroutka.
But I suspect that most people who use the word simply have no understanding of its meaning. Theocracy, which literally means "rule by the deity," is the name given to political regimes that claim to represent God on earth both directly and immediately. The role of the theocratic leader is to play the role of both priest and king, implementing and enforcing divine laws.
The term was first used by the Jewish historian Josephus to describe the way the Jews were under the direct government of God himself. In ancient Israel everyone was a direct subject of Jehovah, who ruled over all and communicated through the prophets. This arrangement was short-lived, though, and the Jews eventually rejected theocratic rule in favor of an earthly king. While the sovereign did not always enforce all of the laws of the former theocracy, he retained the authority given to him “by God.” During the medieval era, a version of this concept was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of the divine right of kings combined the secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian Church to form caesaropapism.
Yet even though the concept of theocracy has its roots in Jewish, Catholic, and even Islamic history, the term has somehow become associated with conservative Protestant Christianity. Part of it can be explained as a result of common ignorance. But enough reasonably intelligent people have been misusing the word that it can only be intentional. I suspect that “theocracy” has become a code word for what Eugene Volokh refers to as “"trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system."
I like to ask these critics: What do you think about the abolitionist movement of the 1800s? As I understand it, many -- perhaps most or nearly all -- of its members were deeply religious people, who were trying to impose their religious dogma of liberty on the legal system that at the time legally protected slavery.
Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God's will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.
Or how about religious opponents of the draft, opponents of the death penalty, supporters of labor unions, supporters of welfare programs, who were motivated by their religious beliefs -- because deeply religious people's moral beliefs are generally motivated by their religious beliefs -- in trying to repeal the draft, abolish the death penalty, protect labor, or better the lot of the poor? Perhaps their actions were wrong on the merits; for instance, maybe some anti-poverty problems caused more problems than they solved, or wrongly took money from some to give to others. But would you condemn these people on the grounds that it was simply wrong for them to try to impose their religious beliefs on the legal system?
My sense is that the critics of the Religious Right would very rarely levy the same charges at the Religious Left. Rather, they'd acknowledge that religious people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their religious views) into law, just as secular people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their secular, but generally equally unprovable, moral axioms) into law.
This double standard is embarrassingly obvious. When the Religious Left supports abortion and gay marriage they are praised as compassionate and progressive. When the Religious Right opposes these same issues they are denounced as religious zealots who want to impose their morality on others. There’s a sense that these critics believe that the right to vote and influence legislation should be limited to the people who have politically correct religious views. The enthusiastic applause that followed Garrison Keillor’s plan to “pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians” is a shocking reminder of the bias against religiously orthodox Americans.
Apparantly, everyone has a right to be heard – until they start listening to God.
1
Well it's good to know that a lot of evangelicals see some of the more extreme rhetoric as just rhetoric. I doubt we're heading for any kind of full blown theocracy any time soon. There is occasionally some kind of rant out there attributed to a 'fundie' which sounds pretty extreme, and those of us outside of the reigious community really have no way to judge how widespread such views are. Some of these folks at least claim to want to erode some of the sep of C & S. Maybe they're just trying to pump up their popularity among readers or fire up subscriptions to their Blogs or other publications.
posted on 11.17.2004 12:40 AM2
The bigoed perspective of the left is very true and the left believes their bigorty is self evident truth. When I was in graduate school in education, I decided to hide my Christianity one semester. I played a little experiment. I wrote my papers well and impressed the teacher. She often read my papers in front of class and gave me very high marks. One time, she told me she even called a fellow teacher to share my paper with her over the phone. So at the end of the semester, I went up to the teacher. I asked her if she could guess my stance. Stance in this environment is like saying "which post-modern tribe am I from". She said, "Well, I know you are bright. I know you gradutated from Stanford. Hmm. I do not know." So I said, "Who are the most ignorant and backward minded people in our society." To this she responded, and I am not lying, "YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN ARE YOU." To this I said, "The only one you have ever met. I am here to expose your bigorty." After some discussion, she confessed she had never actually had a conversation with a born-again Christian before. I told her my entire intention of coming to speak with her is to help her realize that her bigorty against Christians is as real as a KKK person's bigorty against blacks.
She was stunned, and I must admit moved.
Yes, indeed, there is real bigotry out there, but we can win them over one by one.
brad
3
i will readily admit, that i'm as guilty as the next guy for thinking that my secularist views are serlf evident truths.
now, it's 4:30 in the morning so forgive me if i say anything too extreme--don't worry, i promise not to destroy civilization by being gay anytime between now and morning.
secular vision has essentially one central idea about government: it provides/protects essential freedoms (rights), and public utilities (things we wanna buy as a collective, like roads and war planes).
all of our various communities of faith are able to exist because collectively, society as a whole, has opted for politicolegal structures which rigorously defend free space for voice and action (this very forum would be considered problematic by the chinese information ministers--still.)
sometimes, the communities of faith reach out and do things that limit liberties of everybody.
we secularists tend to view this as poisoning the drinking water.
for example, take the A,B,C's idea on sex. i believe that people who believe this is reasonable are welcome to encourage their friends, familys, mothers, daughters, brothers sisters, wives, to use the A,B,C's.
however, when public figures try to give governmental force to these principles (either by passing law, or making policy program choices), i believe that goes to far.
it seems to me that it should be obvious to people in the religious communities that their existence (freedom to associate and speak) is a function of the civil liberties they enjoy by being in a liberty oriented state.
the rule of law in european states is a good counter foil. much more restrictive law exist about what constitutes acceptable intervention of church into secular space.
france leads the charge by banning religious icons in public schools (two countries now have this law in place--france and turkey).
proponents argue that secular space needs to be defended in order to produce essential freedom for everybody to be whoever they are. france imagines they make a safer more comfortable pluralistic society this way.
so, anytime a religious group, en bloc, makes efforts to implement an agenda which limits essential liberties of other people, yes, i view that as inherently and obviously wrong.
i agree with the concern about poor treatment of fundies in the academy. i've seen quite common and quite nasty attacks. i'm not sure what to do about it. there was a fundy guy in school with me who interviewed in our dept last year. i didn't have any direct influence over the decision, but the dept did wanna know (since they knew i knew him) if he was "normal". what they meant by this was is he basically "reasoned and logical" and "not religious".
posted on 11.17.2004 3:59 AM4
I'll read the rest of the column, but . . .
I believe that some flying objects are unidentified. Does that make me gullible? OTOH, I don't believe that just 'cuz I can't identify it proves it had little green men with peurile abduction fantasies aboard . . .
Slightly more seriously, why should Christians actively disbelieve in ghosts? Obviously, we needn't believe everything that every spiritualist claims about 'em, and we can toss John Edwards (not the lawyer, the prime-time necromancer) on the dungheap where he belongs, but I'd say the episode of the Witch at Endor is a prima facie case for the *possibility* of a dead person appearing on earth without resurrection. Scripture is silent on the what and how, and is also otherwise completely silent on the possibility of earthly appearances (though I might note that Abraham tells the rich man that he *won't* send his brothers back, not that he *can't*).
Anyway, just a thought. I'd say the right attitude to things outside our age's habitual materialist/scientist expectations is not skepticism, but discernment governed by a confidence that God's Spirit is "not . . . of fear, but of power and of love and a sound mind" and "greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world."
Then our worlds won't be rocked by the unexpected, nor our perspective corroded by skepticism and other shabby mental habits.
posted on 11.17.2004 4:03 AM5
secular vision has essentially one central idea about government: it provides/protects essential freedoms (rights), and public utilities (things we wanna buy as a collective, like roads and war planes).
Really, do all secularists believe this? I would argue that Communism and Nazism were as much secular visions as the current theocracy in Iraq and the Spanish Inquisition were religious.
sometimes, the communities of faith reach out and do things that limit liberties of everybody...we secularists tend to view this as poisoning the drinking water.
Like when communities of faith reached out to abolish slavery or road "freedom buses" to fight race based segragation?
posted on 11.17.2004 7:10 AM7
Hi Joe--
I put forward arguments similar to yours as to how politics and public policy would be impoverished by the absence of religious reasons from public discourse -- see my:
http://burkeancanuck.blogspot.com/2004/11/doing-politics-and-public-policy.html
8
This double standard is embarrassingly obvious. When the Religious Left supports abortion and gay marriage they are praised as compassionate and progressive.
I was a bit surprised with Volokh's seeming unfamiliarity with all the scholarship and thought that's devolved upon this very question. Starting primarily with the exchanges between Rawls and Habermas, there's always been a lot of interest in the use of religious reasoning, when it's legitimate, etc. I think it's fair to criticize the left for not being more explicit on this point, but for the interested, there's really no shortage of writing on the topic.
posted on 11.17.2004 8:11 AM9
When the Religious Left supports abortion and gay marriage they are praised as compassionate and progressive. When the Religious Right opposes these same issues they are denounced as religious zealots who want to impose their morality on others.
Similarly, the role of the Religious Left in presidential politics is given a virtual pass. For the five or six weeks leading up to the election, John Kerry was the guest "preacher" in a church every Sunday morning. The worship services often seemed to resemble campaign rallies. To their credit, Americans United for Separation of Church and State complained. But the practice continued through Election Day. It will be interesting to see if these churches face the same kind of harassment from the IRS as conservative churches have faced for political behavior.
posted on 11.17.2004 8:20 AM10
But the practice continued through Election Day. It will be interesting to see if these churches face the same kind of harassment from the IRS as conservative churches have faced for political behavior.
Source on IRS harassment of conservative churches? I missed that somehow.
posted on 11.17.2004 8:42 AM11
Your article contains a grain of truth, but jumps to the wrong conclusion.
The grain of truth is that, yes, we are not heading towards a "theocracy" in the traditional sense of the word. The United States will never become ruled by religious zealots as depicted in the fiction novel "The Handmaid's Tale."
But the wrong conclusion is that the influence of religion in government is harmless. The truth is that the Religious Right is trying to impose laws - and even constitutional amendments - whose only foundation is an attempt to legislate God's will.
The United States is home to people of many different religious (and nonreligious) stripes, many of them outside the realm of Judeo-Christianity. Its government is meant to represent all without exclusion. Take the Christian ideas of God and sin out of the pro-life movement, and it loses a lot of its oomph. Take Christianity out of the fight against gay marriage, and there's no longer any strong reason to oppose it. No one's forcing anyone into having an abortion or a same-sex marriage, but when there's a group who's trying to force its religious code on people who may not have any moral problem with the things that are being denied them, that's a problem.
Yes, there are religious liberals who use their faith as inspiration in the fight for certain issues - but in my experience they've been better able to find secular and societal reasons for their positions than the Religious Right has been.
posted on 11.17.2004 8:58 AM12
Go ahead, Rob Smith, give Christians the credit for ending slavery and segregation. What a load of crap. Liberals ended these atrocities, like they will end the discrimination against homosexuals one day. And every step of the way, they will be opposed by Bible-wielding bigots, just like the abolitionists and freedom riders were.
Of course many of the good people in these movements were Christian, but they were not Christian initiatives. I hope your revisionist history is merely error and not disingenuousness.
Go ahead and lay Communism and Nazism at the feet of secularists, but don't forget that Hitler used Christianity to consolidate power and put forth his vision.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
I think the U.S. and modern Europe provide much better examples of secular government.
posted on 11.17.2004 9:29 AM13
Brad, Your anecdote reminds me of the Hollywood community. Like your teacher, most do not know any normal evangelicals - but they have their strong opinions based on their misguided discussions among themselves of what "we are like"
In other words, they do not make their movies to deliberately paint the one "Christian" character in a bad light (hypocrite, bigot, brain-dead idiot) - but they simply are portraying us as they think we are.
posted on 11.17.2004 9:41 AM14
jpe:
The Church at Pierce Creek in New York had its tax-exempt status revoked for taking out an advertisement in USA Today to oppose the election of Bill Clinton in 1992. To my knowledge, that is the only church to actually be sanctioned by the IRS for political activity.
More recently, the MAINstream Coalition visited conservative churches in Kansas this summer to monitor for political activity. This obviously does not represent harassment by the IRS, but is an attempt to use the tax code to chill political content in churches. To my knowledge, the MAINstream Coalition has not monitored liberal churches for signs of political activity. It did spark a similar effort on the right, ratoutachurch.org.
posted on 11.17.2004 9:48 AM15
Here's the plain truth of the matter: people only get riled up by religion's entrance into politics when it enters in ways they don't like. Conservatives didn't much like what the Catholic Bishops had to say in the 1980s about the economy and nukes, and liberals get all bent out of shape when they say things about abortion and cloning. There are good arguments (someone above mentioned Rawls and Habermas) for what folks call "public" reasons (they aren't the same as secular reasons, by the way), but my experience has been that whether you buy those arguments or not largely depends on whether you think that arguments based on religious claims have any validity or not. And that view depends on a whole complex of social, religious, and ideological factors that themselves just aren't reducible to any easy conclusion. Some folks buy religious arguments, some folks don't, and there's not an obvious way to bridge the gap.
My own view is, more or less, that religious views are just like other kinds of moral views. They depend on ideas or claims that themselves cannot be justified. And since moral claims of all sorts inevitably make their way into political life, religious claims do as well. They always have been and as long as people are religious, they always will.
By the way, strictly speaking, shouldn't everyone be in favor of a theocracy. After all the " direct rule" of an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good God would be pretty cool, would it not?
posted on 11.17.2004 10:01 AM16
By the way, strictly speaking, shouldn't everyone be in favor of a theocracy. After all the " direct rule" of an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good God would be pretty cool, would it not?
But only if He agrees with ME! :)
posted on 11.17.2004 10:13 AM17
Yet even though the concept of theocracy has its roots in Jewish, Catholic, and even Islamic history, the term has somehow become associated with conservative Protestant Christianity.
Ah, the unintentional irony. You begin this post with a quote from the theocratic butcher John Calvin, and you wonder why there's an association between Protestant Christians and theocracy?
What do you think about the abolitionist movement of the 1800s? As I understand it, many -- perhaps most or nearly all -- of its members were deeply religious people, who were trying to impose their religious dogma of liberty on the legal system that at the time legally protected slavery.
As Frederick Douglass said:
"We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen, all for the glory of God and the good of souls. The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals of the slave trade go hand in hand...Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to the enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me. For of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others."
The fact is, it is the very ancestors of the "religious right" today that fought to keeep slavery, and fought tooth and nail against the civil rights movement.
The issue, as I've noted is not the religious involvement per se, but rather the fact that immoral and unethical behavior is advocated in the name of religion.
I'd also mention the degree to which theocrats are represented in the Republcan party- you are being disingenuous to claim that only Michael Peroutka's supporters are theocrats.
posted on 11.17.2004 10:24 AM18
Mumon,
Ah, the unintentional irony. You begin this post with a quote from the theocratic butcher John Calvin, and you wonder why there's an association between Protestant Christians and theocracy?
Theocratic butcher?
The fact is, it is the very ancestors of the "religious right" today that fought to keeep slavery, and fought tooth and nail against the civil rights movement.
Um, no. The ancestors of the “religious right” are not Southen slaveholders but Francis Schaeffer, Abraham Kuyper,….et al.
I'd also mention the degree to which theocrats are represented in the Republcan party- you are being disingenuous to claim that only Michael Peroutka's supporters are theocrats.
Feel free to point out these Republican Party theocrats. (And please, try to stick to actual theonomists.)
posted on 11.17.2004 10:48 AM19
You can not lay slavery at the feet of either Christianity or secularism. Followers of both participated in it and followers of both fought to end it.
As to the quote by Frederick Douglass, I assume he never met William Wilberforce who spent his entire life campaigning against the slave trade in England. His faith drove him to fight against that, losing much of what he had gained in his life so far. I also assume he never met the countless Christians in the South who helped slaves escape.
Some Christians (nominal, most likely) did some terrible things, but they did so in spite of the teachings of Christ, not because of them. That is a huge difference.
Hitler may have used Christianity imagery and language to woo the Christians in Germany, but his belief in evolution drove him to see Jews and blacks as "inferior" races because they hadn't "evolved" as far as the German race. He committed his autrocities as a result of his beliefs, not in spite of them.
But regardless, it is a non-point to discuss the ending of slavery or segregation as being soley Christian or secular. As I said Christians and secularists had their own reasons to be on one side or the other.
As far as secular having one idea about government providing and protecting rights and buy collective needs. I would say that sounds very familiar to the form of government the first Christian settlers had in mind. When you look at most overtly secular or athetistic governments, they do not abide by those ideas.
Also, I would say that it is the governments job to protect rights but it is not theirs to provide the rights. The rights are already there, if the government can provide rights, then they have the authority to take them away. That is a difference between what the founders formed ("endowned by our Creator with certain inalienable rights") and what most people see the government as today.
So as the original post says, it is ignorant to say that most Christians in America want a "theocracy" in our government. Most of that thought process, as has been said repeatedly, comes from ignorance of exactly who Christians are and what they really believe.
posted on 11.17.2004 11:03 AM20
Mr. Carter:
Apparently you're not aware of the linkage between "Conservative Citizens' Councils" and the Ku Klux Klan.
While Robert Byrd's denounced his membership in the Klan, John Ashcroft and Trent Lott have never repudiated their association with the CCC.
Nor do you seem to be aware of the NCP. Nor apparently the history of Calvin's Geneva. Nor, I might add, the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.
posted on 11.17.2004 11:10 AM21
mumon,
rather than discussing history, would you care to comment on the current racist perspective of the liberal media towards Dr. Condi Rice. The Oliphant cartoon just printed would be a good starting point. There have been others of course showing Dr. Rice as the stereotypical house nigga, all done by the liberal elite and published by same.
http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/
Should not every liberal denounce in no uncertain terms such blatant racism? Or is it truly acceptable to make racist jokes about blacks when they are Republicans?
posted on 11.17.2004 12:14 PM22
You could also comment about this one by Danzinger (which he no longer even keeps on his own website - but to my knowledge has hardly apologized for)
http://mhking.mu.nu/archives/049887.php
Yet, there have been incidents at fraternity costume parties where a couple guys show up in blackface and the liberal PC crowd can't run fast enough to the microphones to condemn such insensitive behavior, and demand some sort of action and investigation by the University.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17313
23
Geezus, Steve, nice attempt to change the subject.
Condi Rice is a lying four-letter-word-that-I-have-never-seen-used-here. The fact that she is black is interesting only because it's such a damn freaking shame.
posted on 11.17.2004 12:42 PM24
The fact that she is black is interesting only because it's such a damn freaking shame.
What? It's a shame that she's black??? Explain yourself, please.
posted on 11.17.2004 12:52 PM25
Um Larry...
I think the subject of this post was further analysis of the current political climate in light of the reelection of Bush....not a debate on the role of Christians and slavery from 150+ years ago.
I know the comments often take a life of their own, but if anything, I was getting us back to the subject...
posted on 11.17.2004 1:19 PM26
The difficulty with this discussion is that the secularists really do not understand Christians or Christianity. For example, the example of the abolitionist being Christians is undeniable to anyone who reads the actual history. To say Oberlin College and plains states area Christians were not instrumental in the 2nd Great Awakening in 1858-1859 and that this didn't effect the nations view of slavery is absurd. The issue is the secularist can't see the various shades of Christian movements. They use stereotypes and bigotry that simply defines a Christianity that none of us fundies even recognize and that our communities do not find as part of our herritage.
This is the "red" state "blue" state issue. You can't make some stereotype to say all blue states or blue counties are like this and people in those counties are like so and so. So too, the same is true with Evangelical fundies (of which I am one).
That is why these discussions get so irrational and ugly. The secularist really does not understand the Christians values and the DNA of our communities. Therefore, there is this fear of this mythic Evangelical who doesn't even exist.
brad
27
Living in a country where 34 percent of the population believes in UFOs and ghosts, I shouldn’t be surprised to find that Americans will believe just about anything.Hell, some 89% of Americans believe in a three-for-the-price-of-one deity, one-third of which will be returning "real soon now" to forever defeat evil and save everyone from their own sins. UFO-ologists and ghost buffs don't have a monopoly on weird beliefs. Even self-proclaimed secularists and atheists have strange, illogical beliefs: Bill Maher, for example, claims to be an atheist, but believes in astrology, of all things. Many self-proclaimed atheists and secularlists still buy into crap like "alternative medicine," feng shui, and magnet therapy.
My point? People are naturally credulous, and naturally inclined to believe things that they want to believe. And at the same time, people tend to readily believe the worst, too. I don't doubt that there were many who believed that Kerry's election would have led directly to another major terror attack.
Critical thinking is hard, and if people don't work at it (most don't), they jump to all sorts of goofy conclusions.
Now, on to the part about theocracy:
After all, more than half of American evangelicals are either Baptists or non-denominational. We don’t even want a centralized church government much less a central government controlled by the church.That's all well and good, but that's not what we're afraid of (and why I think "theocracy" isn't exactly the correct word). Instead, we're afraid that the "values" voters will try to codify their religious values into law. That would result in a de facto theocracy of a sort: you can worship however you choose, but you must live by our religious values. Worship your God, but play by our God's rules. In a state such as that, there can't be religious liberty, not really.
Now there are plenty of places where secular and non-Christian values overlap with Christian ones, and where there are good pragmatic reasons for codifying them. In those cases, there's no quarrel. But even when you start codifying seemingly benign things like forcing businesses not to operate on Sundays, you cross lines.
In the recently-prominent case of gay marriage, no one has yet, to my knowledge, come up with an opposing argument that doesn't appeal directly to religion, slippery-slope fear-mongering, or both. If you can quantify, in non-religious terms, exactly how and why allowing gay marriage will damage society as a whole, then you've got a starting point for getting a ban that's consistent with our national background. Until then, you're just trying to push your religious views onto others.
And that's the part that we fear.
posted on 11.17.2004 1:41 PM28
Speaking as a non-US citizen a lot of the rhetoric is foreign.
I'm curious to know whether this article makes sense to anyone.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/156/story_15629_1.html
29
Steve_in_Corona:
You've got to be kidding. First of all, the subject I raised was in direct response to a carnard often raised by the religious right, some of whom would like to forget that slavery was opposed by Spartacus and not Paul.
Secondly, the artist is merely depicting Dr. Rice. The idea that because she's African American that she's beyond satire and ridicule, not to mention criticism especially when she really is a sycophant, who appears to have lied under oath is itself racist.
You should be ashamed of yourself sir.
posted on 11.17.2004 1:47 PM30
Kent:
To their credit, Americans United for Separation of Church and State complained.Yet another reason why I'm a card-carrying member. It's wrong when either party does it. posted on 11.17.2004 1:52 PM
31
tgirsch
With all due respect and with attention to self-fulfilling prophecies, a house built with good feng shui attracts more of a market because...all other things being equal, a house with good feng shui attracts more people because some people believe the house has good feng shui and therefore is more desirable.
So, I'll take a house with good feng shui every time. ;-)
posted on 11.17.2004 1:52 PM32
Secondly, the artist is merely depicting Dr. Rice. The idea that because she's African American that she's beyond satire and ridicule,
posted on 11.17.2004 2:03 PM