IMPENDING THEOCRACY WATCH: more insanity from the mouth of Tom DeLay

[Irvine511]

because i care passionately about the separation of church and state, i'm going to make a ruckus whenever i hear one of our elected officials behaving like a Christian mullah and speaking in terms that would make the Taliban proud. today, we have these comments from the lovely and talented Rep. Delay, who doesn't believe we have any right to privacy:


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.
Mr. Dinan: How can Congress stop them?
Mr. DeLay: There's all kinds of ways available to them.
Mr. Dinan: You tried two last year on the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Senate didn't go along with those.
Mr. DeLay: We're having to change a whole culture in this - a culture created by law schools. People really believe that these are nine gods, and that all wisdom is vested in them. This means it's a slow, long-term process. I mean, we passed six bills out of the House limiting jurisdiction. We passed an amendment last September breaking up the Ninth Circuit. These are all things that have passed the House of Representatives.
Mr. Dinan: Are you going to pursue impeaching judges?
Mr. DeLay: I'm not going to answer that. I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at this. They're going to start holding hearings on different issues. They are more capable than me to look at this issue and take responsibility, given the, whatever, the Constitution.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050413-111439-5048r.htm

 

[80sU2isBest]

Comparing him to the Taliban? You're reaching. Give me a break.

DeLay has never made women wear heavy burkas, he has never stopped them from going to school or holding teaching positions.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

...

Have I mentioned that some people scare me?

Angela

 

[MissMoo]

He is the spawn of Satan.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Are you sure Satan exists?

 

[U2democrat]

Tom DeLay makes me . He's such a comedian.

 

[Irvine511]

Comparing him to the Taliban? You're reaching. Give me a break.

DeLay has never made women wear heavy burkas, he has never stopped them from going to school or holding teaching positions.

i didn't say he was the equivalent to the taliban, but he, like them, wish to live in a theocracy and he's using his tremendous influence within the House of Representatives to impose such a form of government on the American people.

and it's not just DeLay; let's take a look at what Joe Scaroborough said the other night on his MSNBC show:

"Whether the debate centers around a Presidential election, the right to die movement, the gay agenda, prayer in school, or simply letting our children recite the Pledge of Alligence, the teachings of Jesus Christ always seems to thwart the agenda of America's left wing elites. Forget what you heard in the 1960s. God is not dead. In fact, he is very much alive and beating liberal elites on one political issue after another. Maybe that is why so many of them hate the Prince of Peace."

is Scarborough saying that Jesus Christ had a position in the last presidential election, that only the Republican vote was Christian? is he saying that criticism of a Pope is somehow identical to "hatred" of the Gospels? did a Jesus take a position on gay politics in the 21st century?

the complete conflation of politics and religion among today's Republicans just gets deeper and deeper. i do have faith, however, in the good sense of the American people, and their ability to see through this constant implicit suggestion that "Jesus would vote republican." this does seem like a great path towards self-destruction by the GOP. all the libertarians and pragmatists will soo abandon a party that claims a direct telephone line to God.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I don't think it's right to claim God on a certain side, rather to paraphrase Lincoln (and later Kerry), to get on God's side.

 

[Irvine511]

i wish the GOP agreed with you.

however, that's not an effective way to scare up all those crucial votes in Ohio -- so what you do is you do lots of under-the-radar field work amongst heavily religious communities in southeastern Ohio and get the clergy to tell the laiety how to vote.

which is fine. they can do that. and they can also lose their tax-exempt status.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

let's take a look at what Joe Scaroborough said the other night on his MSNBC show:

"Whether the debate centers around a Presidential election, the right to die movement, the gay agenda, prayer in school, or simply letting our children recite the Pledge of Alligence, the teachings of Jesus Christ always seems to thwart the agenda of America's left wing elites. Forget what you heard in the 1960s. God is not dead. In fact, he is very much alive and beating liberal elites on one political issue after another. Maybe that is why so many of them hate the Prince of Peace."

... Yeah. Never mind the fact that I'm fairly liberal and believe in a god. I guess he forgot that that's possible.

Geez.

Angela

 

[U2democrat]

can delay get any more sleezy? it seems like the slime is just oozing off of him.

 

[financeguy]

?

Mr. DeLay: ...I have asked the Judiciary Committee to look at this. They're going to start holding hearings on different issues. They are more capable than me to look at this issue and take responsibility, given the, whatever, the Constitution.

"..given the, whatever, the Constitution."

Note that phrase carefully folks. Implant it upon your brains. Commit it to memory.

So the Constitution is now a "whatever". If that quote is accurate, it speaks volumes.

Unfortunately, nothing in the interview surprises me, as this is a man on record as saying that God had made Bush President "to promote a biblical world-view" -see page 230 of "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips, published 2004.

 

[VertigoGal]

what a couple of nutters...

just because I don't believe in Jesus as the son of God, I am no less of an American or a "moral" person. I'm not worried about a full-blown theocracy anytime soon, but I don't like the vibes coming off of mr. delay and his cronies.

I find it ironic that the Republicans have the Congress for the first time in, what, 40, years and they're already trying to impeach judges and do away w/ filibusters.

 

[melon]

The GOP often "sheds" one of their own periodically as a scapegoat for all their problems. Over the last decade, it was Newt Gingrich. A few years later: Trent Lott. Next on the list? Tom DeLay. He knows it too, which is why I think DeLay is extra nutty these days. And threatening judges with retaliation for not ruling his way? Downright childish.

It's only a matter of time. The GOP will likely shed him before the 2006 election, which they are seriously concerned about right now.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Re: Re: IMPENDING THEOCRACY WATCH: more insanity from the mouth of Tom DeLay

"..given the, whatever, the Constitution."

Note that phrase carefully folks. Implant it upon your brains. Commit it to memory.

So the Constitution is now a "whatever". If that quote is accurate, it speaks volumes.

Yeah...real refreshing, huh?

Originally posted by financeguy
Unfortunately, nothing in the interview surprises me, as this is a man on record as saying that God had made Bush President "to promote a biblical world-view" -see page 230 of "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips, published 2004.

Seriously?

Wow. That's...really disturbing.

Originally posted by VertigoGal
just because I don't believe in Jesus as the son of God, I am no less of an American or a "moral" person.

Thank you. I don't understand why some people don't get that.

Angela

 

[Sherry Darling]

PING Delay: 'Activist judges' did not "impose" separation of church and state! THE CONSTITUTION DOES! If you don't like that, you don't like America.

Another piece of this that often gets lost is that this principle is *good for the Church* too! It protects the Church from arbitrary control or having legislative agendas imposed on it. Also, for those of us here who are Christians, let's never ever forget that the Church was at its most corrupt when it was at its most politically powerful.

 

[verte76]

I am really tired of hearing this old about liberals and belief in God. I'm a liberal and a practicing Catholic. I've just put a garnet cross I have that was blessed by Pope John Paul II in my safety deposit box.

 

[nbcrusader]

PING Delay: 'Activist judges' did not "impose" separation of church and state! THE CONSTITUTION DOES! If you don't like that, you don't like America.

Another piece of this that often gets lost is that this principle is *good for the Church* too! It protects the Church from arbitrary control or having legislative agendas imposed on it. Also, for those of us here who are Christians, let's never ever forget that the Church was at its most corrupt when it was at its most politically powerful.

The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state-run church and guarantees the free practice of religion by the public.


The measuring stick of "separation" was invented by the courts.

As a standard, it is overbroad when compared to the Constitutional requirements.

 

[melon]

The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state-run church and guarantees the free practice of religion by the public.

The measuring stick of "separation" was invented by the courts.

As a standard, it is overbroad when compared to the Constitutional requirements.

When primarily Muslim regions start requiring Muslim prayers in public schools, even when non-Muslims are in the school (this could conceivably happen in parts of Michigan here), then Christians will start crying "separation of church and state."

As it stands, "Christians" use this term to serve themselves, because in most regions of the country, they are the "majority," and they callously don't give a flying fuck about "diversity" or "respect" for the minority. But when they are the "minority," all of a sudden, it's "separation of church and state."

The Christian Coalition pulled this stunt a few years ago, when a college required incoming freshmen to read the Koran. Fucking hypocrites.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

When primarily Muslim regions start requiring Muslim prayers in public schools, even when non-Muslims are in the school (this could conceivably happen in parts of Michigan here), then Christians will start crying "separation of church and state."

No, they should cry "Establishment" as noted by the term "requiring".

We can analyze this without the labels.

 

[melon]

No, they should cry "Establishment" as noted by the term "requiring".

But I would argue that the Christian Coalition would jump for joy if schools started requiring students to read the Bible. Do you think they'd suddenly cry "establishment" for the sake of the minority?

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state-run church and guarantees the free practice of religion by the public.


The measuring stick of "separation" was invented by the courts.

As a standard, it is overbroad when compared to the Constitutional requirements.

last time i checked, only christians went to a church. jews go to temple. muslims to a mosque.

"separation of church and state" is a phrase specifically tailored to Christianity because it is the majority religion, and that phrase is intended to prevent the estabilshment of Christianity, with no real competitors, as the state religion.

 

[nbcrusader]

But I would argue that the Christian Coalition would jump for joy if schools started requiring students to read the Bible.

The usual publicity seeking figure heads would jump. The rest of us would know that such a proposal would never see the light of a classroom.

Do you think they'd suddenly cry "establishment" for the sake of the minority?

Yes. As you've noted before, just because it has a "Christian" label doesn't mean all Christians would be happy with the end product.