A Real "Theocracy Watch"?

[melon]

Here in Ohio, it's been rumored that Secretary of State and gubernatorial hopeful Kenneth Blackwell and Focus on the Family head James Dobson were caught talking about their plans for the state. Apparently, Dobson has targeted four or five states--Ohio being one of them--to get a fundamentalist Christian-friendly government. Blackwell, himself, has reportedly said in this conversation with Dobson that his goal is a theocracy; he'd just say otherwise to get elected. If these four states are successful, the goal is to create a true theocracy in the United States.

It's not surprising, now is it? First, you start with the hot-button issues (abortion). Then you scapegoat unpopular minorities (gays). That's where we are right now. Then you scapegoat unpopular groups within the majority (divorcees, welfare moms, childless couples). And then your behavior gets targeted, and, by then, it's too late.

And before you think it's impossible to get a theocracy here, all you have to do is look at the governmental structure of Iran. They have elections and elected officials--but none of them will ever be able to overthrow the theocratic overhead. Or even the governmental structure of the United States. We have elections and elected officials--but none of them are able to overthrow the capitalist overhead. But it appears that Focus on the Fascism would like to try. Looking at elections since 2000, he may very well succeed.

I'd like to think that Americans are smarter than this, so I hope that, come Election Day, you look at a candidate for more than just his religious values. After all, you never know what else these candidates stand for--and, just maybe, they're using religion for more sinister goals.

Melon

 

[aislinn]

I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "Jesus, Please Save Me From Your Followers."

Very, very scary--but I don't doubt a word of what you're saying.

 

[VertigoGal]

sources??

 

[Irvine511]

well, considering the WH consulted with James Dobson and sought his approval of their initial SCOTUS nominee, harriet miers, i am hardly surprised.

the system is set up to get the religious masses to vote for candidates who claim to represent their values who then turn around and give tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of americans while never doing anything close to what they promise like ending abortion or stoning prostitutes or whatever.

brilliant, really.

 

[nbcrusader]

well, considering the WH consulted with James Dobson and sought his approval of their initial SCOTUS nominee, harriet miers, i am hardly surprised.

the system is set up to get the religious masses to vote for candidates who claim to represent their values who then turn around and give tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of americans while never doing anything close to what they promise like ending abortion or stoning prostitutes or whatever.

brilliant, really.

Wow - that is almost too much to dissect.

The White House responds to Dobsons concerns regarding Miers, and it becomes a "consultation" - as if Dobson was part of the selection process.

As for the tax cuts - guess what, they've worked and revived the economy. I really don't see the connection between Dobson and the old "class warfare" card played there.

 

[melon]

sources??

Unfortunately, I don't have it on hand.

However, in the larger scheme of things, even if you wish to disregard the background of my argument, I think it is sound logic to examine a candidate on all of his issues, not just what he or she claims in morality. I find it horribly disturbing that many people will vote for a candidate only because he or she claims to be "pro-life." That opens the door to rampant corruption.

And you know what part of the country should know? Appalachia. The "morality" ruse has been used there for decades, and they live in third-world abject poverty because of it. Candidates there claim to be "moral," and then, once elected, maintain their corruption.

I think it is downright dangerous that Appalachian-style politics are seemingly permeating all of American society.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

However, in the larger scheme of things, even if you wish to disregard the background of my argument, I think it is sound logic to examine a candidate on all of his issues, not just what he or she claims in morality. I find it horribly disturbing that many people will vote for a candidate only because he or she claims to be "pro-life." That opens the door to rampant corruption.

Does open the same door to corruption if people use a "pro-choice" litmus test?

 

[Irvine511]

Wow - that is almost too much to dissect.

The White House responds to Dobsons concerns regarding Miers, and it becomes a "consultation" - as if Dobson was part of the selection process.

As for the tax cuts - guess what, they've worked and revived the economy. I really don't see the connection between Dobson and the old "class warfare" card played there.

no. go back and read the newspapers:

[q]But as other possible female candidates either asked not to be considered or were ruled out for various reasons, Miers looked better and better. "There was one person left standing," the Republican lawyer said. It was a back-channel process. Since Miers was in charge of the selection apparatus, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. instructed Miers's deputy, William Kelley, to secretly vet her. She was not told she was a candidate until two weeks before her nomination, and no one had done a thorough search of her background to turn up past writings and speeches that would later become public.

Recognizing that conservatives might not find Miers exciting, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove tried to lock up a few important figures who would back her, mainly James C. Dobson, head of the evangelical Focus on the Family. As Dobson later recalled it, Rove assured him "that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian [and] that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life."

That was enough for Dobson, and Dobson's blessing was enough for Rove.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702398_2.html

[/q]

my -- Dobson gets to make a call that is pretty powerful, don't you think?

it's also clear that Rove used an explicitly religious test for a public office to get his most influential backer's support.

what this does, in the spirit of a true theocracy, is create a toxic conflation of politics and religion, one that has also infected the judiciary. and we only know about this because the Miers nomination failed. you can go on and on about the "abortion litmus test" catch phrase, but when a president uses explicitly religious criteria - rather than jurisprudential philosophy - for judicial nominations, we see just how far Bush is willing to go to debase the constitution.

the tax cuts are an argument for a different thread.

 

[nathan1977]

it's also clear that Rove used an explicitly religious test for a public office to get his most influential backer's support.

what this does, in the spirit of a true theocracy, is create a toxic conflation of politics and religion, one that has also infected the judiciary. and we only know about this because the Miers nomination failed. you can go on and on about the "abortion litmus test" catch phrase, but when a president uses explicitly religious criteria - rather than jurisprudential philosophy - for judicial nominations, we see just how far Bush is willing to go to debase the constitution.

Why? Isn't this simply a game of politics as usual? You go to whomever represents your core constituency, shore up their support (Dobson was not, by your article's own admission, the only person whose support was sought), and then build a coalition of support.

Nominating someone for SCOTUS is a political process that has become increasingly partisan over the years. Since it's become so viciously partisan, why not bring political procedures to play?

 

[deep]

more religion in politics:

There is even a movement to draft Mel Gibson, the actor and director, to run against Schwarzenegger in the Republican primary next year — in part because the success of Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ," could help his chances among religious conservatives.

Governor Faces Revolt in GOP
As anger rises over the choice of a Democrat as chief of staff, party leaders demand a talk.
By Robert Salladay
Times Staff Writer

December 7, 2005

SACRAMENTO — With segments of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's political base rising in revolt, directors of the California Republican Party have demanded a private meeting with the governor to complain about the hiring of a Democratic operative as his chief of staff.

The request comes as Schwarzenegger faces sustained opposition from moderate and conservative Republicans over the choice of Susan P. Kennedy. Before serving as a state public utility commissioner, Kennedy was Cabinet secretary for Gov. Gray Davis. She also was an abortion-rights activist and former Democratic Party executive.

In appointing Kennedy last week, Schwarzenegger praised her as an effective administrator who could "implement my vision" and work cooperatively with Democrats who control the Legislature.

But Republican operatives said grass-roots volunteers were so disturbed by the appointment that they were threatening to abandon Schwarzenegger during his reelection bid next year. Others said Schwarzenegger was risking a nasty fight that could cause the party to rescind its endorsement of him during February's convention in San Jose.

There is even a movement to draft Mel Gibson, the actor and director, to run against Schwarzenegger in the Republican primary next year — in part because the success of Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ," could help his chances among religious conservatives. Raised in Australia, Gibson was born in New York and is a U.S. citizen, although he has not expressed an interest in elected politics.

"We need to have a good backup," said Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly, a grass-roots organization that is separate from the state party. Spence's group has set up the website, http://www.melgibsonforgovernor.com . "He seems to be more consistent with the Republican message" than the governor is, Spence said.

Gibson could not be reached. His spokesman, who was traveling Tuesday, did not return an e-mail and a call for comment.

 

[Irvine511]

Why? Isn't this simply a game of politics as usual? You go to whomever represents your core constituency, shore up their support (Dobson was not, by your article's own admission, the only person whose support was sought), and then build a coalition of support.

Nominating someone for SCOTUS is a political process that has become increasingly partisan over the years. Since it's become so viciously partisan, why not bring political procedures to play?

i'm sorry you have such low expectations for the SCOTUS.

you're also missing the point that it was Miers' religion that was brought out as one of her best attritubes, as if it were a crucial piece of her resume that would have trumped her genuine flaws, such as any sort of experience with constitutional laws.

as for Dobson, let's not forget, before Miers withdrew, there were *republican* senators who wanted him to testify under oath the subject of his various SCOTUS conversations with Bush:

[q]Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said yesterday that his panel is likely to require Dobson and perhaps others to testify about such purported conversations. Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" whether the committee will "bring some of these people who said they were told things that perhaps they shouldn't have been told, like Mr. Dobson," Specter replied: "my instinct is that they'll be called. And the American people are entitled to clarification."
Specter has expressed interest in Dobson's comments before, but yesterday marked the clearest signal that the broadcaster may be required to face the 18-member committee in public.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102300348_pf.html

[/q]

 

[deep]

please

Arlen Specter is not a God-fearing Republican

check his religious affiliation

he is only Chairman because he got down on bended knee

 

[nbcrusader]

you're also missing the point that it was Miers' religion that was brought out as one of her best attritubes, as if it were a crucial piece of her resume that would have trumped her genuine flaws, such as any sort of experience with constitutional laws.

Rove is telling a constituent what they want to hear. Dobson asked, Rove answered. To suggest that Dobson was part of the selection process, or came to the White House with the name of the person to nominate is just wrong.

 

[deep]

 

[joyfulgirl]

Here in Ohio,
Melon

You're in Ohio now?

 

[melon]

Re: Re: A Real "Theocracy Watch"?

You're in Ohio now?

Not exactly. But I work there.

Melon

 

[melon]

Does open the same door to corruption if people use a "pro-choice" litmus test?

Funny you say that, considering I've never heard of one. Even the Senate minority leader is "pro-life." I guess if there was a litmus test, he should never have been elevated to the position?

Considering the "Religious Left" is mute-to-nonexistent, politicians that abuse religion are always conservatives.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Rove is telling a constituent what they want to hear. Dobson asked, Rove answered. To suggest that Dobson was part of the selection process, or came to the White House with the name of the person to nominate is just wrong.

then why did specter want him to testify under oath?

this was, i think, another reason for miers' withdrawal.

 

[verte76]

I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "Jesus, Please Save Me From Your Followers."

Some of his followers *are* pretty scary.

 

[nathan1977]

By the way --

it's been rumored... Apparently... reportedly...

According to whom, now?

Don't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of the straw man you've created.

You realize that according to the Weekly World News, it's been rumored that apparently Saddam is reportedly pregnant with Satan's love child too.