as if Christians don't have enough problems...
what, there isn't enough evil in the world already? we need to go around inventing things to get outraged over?
folks, i'm sorry, but judge moore is wrong. now i understand that God is being chased out of the public square and replaced by secular humanism. i understand the hypocrisy of the supreme court allowing the lower court ruling to stand when they've got moses front'n'center on the highest arch of their building. i'm aware of how the declaration of independence talks about God, that our money talks about God, that our great patriotic songs sing about God, that our president is sworn in on a Bible, that our congressmen pray under a tax-payer funded congressional chaplain...but all of that stuff is beside the point.
the point is, this is a constitutional issue, not a religious one. judge moore is not being denied the right to exercise his faith in private, he's simply being denied the right to advertise it on public property. by putting the ten commandments statue up there by itself, moore, as a state official of great power, is affirming a specific religious view on public grounds. the government doesn't have the right to go into moore's house and take away his Bible, and moore doesn't have the right to put his Bible up in the government's house, either. and speaking of the Bible, where does it say that we as Christians are to demand specific state approval of our religious views? the Old Testament system was theocratic, of course, but the New Testament believers wanted nothing more than to be left alone. they only started getting fed to the lions when the roman government told them they had to offer a pinch of incense to caesar.
is judge moore being forced to worship a false god?
i would submit that this statue of moore's has become a false god to us, one that many well-meaning Christians (judge moore among them) have now been denied the right to worship and thus think themselves profoundly wronged. it is a tribute to the greatness of this nation that such offenses are about the worst we can come up with.
what judge moore (and those of you supporting him) are doing to Christianity is far worse than any wound, perceived or otherwise, the supreme court has inflicted. their offense, such as it is, will be forgotten in a month. you moore supporters, on the other hand, are simply reinforcing the increasingly pervasive notion that Christians have no place in government. you're reinforcing the stereotype that the only reason we would seek public office is to cram our religious views down everyone else's throat, and bolstering the suspicions of those who question the ability of a Christian to do his duty both to God and country. if you were an unbeliever, would you ever vote for a Christian politician if you associated them with judge moore? would you want to see more Christian judges on the bench? when unbelievers think of roy moore, they don't think of words like "conscientious," "objective," and "fair," they think of words like "crank," "lunatic," and "taliban." not exactly desirable traits in a judge. or a Christian.
a prediction on howard dean
howard dean isn't going anywhere.
i don't give a damn about his internet fundraising exploits or his early primary poll numbers, he's a nobody. the unions don't want him. that ellusive, all important middle america doesn't want him. minorities don't want him. who's got any use for this guy?
the only group dean's message resonates with are the same ever-stoned deadheads who blocked traffic in cities all across america back when we were building up to war--which is why, by the way, he appears to be doing so well. he's got a small but well-organized grass-roots machine who's had plenty of recent experience amplifying their marginal voices. lily-white college kids, leftover hippies, dumb liberals who are still steamed over the 2000 election...if you want to try to win an election with that as your core constituency, well, be my guest.
now here's a tip for you liberal democrats--and i know this is going to be hard for you to understand, but please, for your own good, read this carefully:
there's no way in hell that someone who is best known for his to-the-left-of-chomsky war views is ever going to be elected president in post 9/11 america.
ain't gonna happen. this prediction has nothing to do with my disdain for candidate dean's views. it's simply a political reality.
locdog sincerely hopes dean wins the democratic nomination, but he doubts it
democrats abandon blacks
according to thomas sowell, black leaders have abandoned their followers...
The aging veterans of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s keep fighting the wars of the past with the rhetoric of the past, while the very different problems and opportunities of the present are either not addressed or are given prescriptions that fit an earlier time and a different disease.
...and the democrats have ditched the whole kit'n'kaboodle:
The Democratic Party will still make its symbolic obeisance and even pretend to take race hustlers like Al Sharpton seriously. But the interests of its other constituents increasingly take precedence over the interests of blacks.
sowell argues that liberal constituencies like the teacher's unions and ACLU have interests that conflict with the good of the black community, but that these special interests always win out in the end.
can't say that i disagree. vouchers, to use one of sowell's examples, are very popular in the black community. but do you think the teachers unions are about to let their monopolistic stranglehold on education evaporate? and are the dems going to risk losing their biggest, baddest union?
locdog thinks not