SOROS ON THE PRESIDENCY
No Born-Again Christians Need Apply
In an earlier blog post this morning, Lowell Ponte notes that, in addition to pushing a de facto ban against practicing Roman Catholics serving on the federal bench, the left now proposes that devout religious believers may have no place in academia either (see, "Paul Krugman's Religious Test for Professors").
In the same spirit, George Soros — whose Shadow Party effectively sets policy for the Democrats today — told The New Yorker of October 18, 2004, in reference to President Bush, “The separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again President.”
8 Comments:
"The bedrock of our democracy". Hmmm. Are we sure that's correct? Because I could have sworn (oh, sorry. To swear is akin to acknowledging a sacred being), uh, 'asserted' that the bedrock of our founding was to ensure liberty. There is no state imposed religous doctrine if a representative of the people holds views consistent with either his beliefs or of his constituients. To believe in something, and to act accordingly, is not imposing anything on anybody unless that belief and action extends extra-constituitionally. And there are protections in place for that.
Cripes-a-Mighty! (ref. to a WW II aircraft. An instrument used during a time of great distress and when the invoking of God to guide and protect you was thought of as normal. Excuse the digression), you'd think we were trying to become like GD Europe or something! That's exactly the place our fore-fathers left in order to create a 'more perfect union'.
Somebody somewhere needs to get a grip on reality. Have a beer. Relax. Live and let live...And leave the Constituition the hell alone.
Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel
Winston-Salem, NC
This is typical of leftist bigotry
and paraniod fulminations about religious conservatives. There is
no excuse for this type of bigotry
in this day and age. The left is trying to pass off secularism as the norm in this country and it has never been that way.
The Constitution in the United States once meant very straightforward things. This truth survived high-octane politics and even a War between the States. But the residue of government limited by a document was that untapped power buried in the document proved to be irresistible to mortal men.
In the 20th century several Constitutional concepts have been tortured beyond recognition. One was "separation of church and state." Yes, I know the word in the Constitution is Establishment not separation and at every opportunity I argue that the prohibition is rightfully narrow by the meaning of that word. Yet, I have no trouble informally using the word separation. It's not a bandying of words; as I said, it's a torturing of concepts.
Progressives on the left (and right) have put that concept on a high-steroid diet until now the likes of Soros can make this absurd pronouncement and not be laughed out of town.
Another Constitutional concept that has been fed toxic waste and has grown into a 50-feet tall monster is equal protection.
It isn't that "separation" or "equal protection" grew, it was government power that grew.
Before the government became a major player in charitable activities "separation" merely meant there could be no state church. But once public money begins to pay for everything from education to food to housing then how do you avoid supporting some people's ideas with other people's money?
The answer is you can't. The more government does the more it will do against the will of many of its citizens.
A private citizen acts on his private moral beliefs and pays for it himself. The government will necessarily act on some moral beliefs as well but does it with the money of people who may have serious moral objections to the use. The decision that once was private is now political.
Fundamentalist Christians don't want their taxes to teach evolution, I don't want mine to teach creatonism. Suddenly, government support of religion becomes a serious issue but only because of public education. Privatize all education and the problem goes away.
While complete privatization is the best idea, a voucher system would at least restore the decision about curriculum to the parents. It can only work if the choice of schools and curricula is very, very broad with few, if any, government prohibitions.
Reduce the power of government to control people's lives and a born-again Christian in the White House isn't a problem, even for me.
I have no problem saying it Meyer,
First Class post!
NOW WAIT JUST A MINUTE!
"Leftwing members of Congress reaffirmed that no believing Roman Catholic may be considered for any position in the Federal judiciary."
This is against the law!
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.
http://www.eeoc.gov/
Obviously I've got some letter writing to do, and some phone calls to make!
The real Catholics will want to know this, especially since they have turned in the right direction.
In 2000, 50% of Catholics voted-- 50% for Gore, 47% percent for Bush.
In 2004 63% of Catholics voted --52% for Bush, 47% for Kerry.
Wow! http://thesolomonproject.org/pop_details.php?id=485
What is up with the Jewish voters? It's mind boggling!
79 percent of Jews voted for Gore, 19 percent for Bush
77 percent of American Jews voting for Kerry, versus 22 percent for Bush.
How did the people with no religious affiliation vote?
It seems leftism goes hand and hand with people of no religious affiliation!
In 2000 sixty-one percent of people with no religious affiliation voted for Gore.
Among people with "no" religion, only 31% voted for Bush in 2004.
Rightminded
I discuss the situation in the Jewish Community at length in my blog. It is in last months archives
look for the Post Are Jewish Conservatives Uncle Toms.
In short Jews tend to live in the Bluest of Blue states. The more religious one is the more probable
one would vote for Bush. When I registered as a Republican in 1984 it was unheard of and people accused me of being a traitor to my
people. The fact that I was a dedicated Cold Warrior left me no choice.
The Young Republican club in NYC seems half Jewish . The new generation is far more probable to register as Republican then my generation. In fact it is not uncommon at all.
Soros has his own reasons for joining with the proponents of total secularization, like the ACLU, and expounding a myth that the "bedrock of our democracy" is limiting the power even of religious ideas.
For reasons that Bob Meyer eloquently gave, there arose a conflict which SCOTUS decided the wrong way. The justices should never have thought it in their jurisdiction to constrain religion or other aspects of the culture.
By creating a separation doctrine, they gave cover to the ridiculous notion that this is what the founders intended.
Post a Comment
<< Home