Saying "Democrats" or "Republicans" in a historical setting is mostly useless. There's no denying that had I been born in a different time period, I would likely be a "republican". I'm talking about this administration, whatever label they are currently using. This administration is NOT conservative, is NOT historically republican. This administration is, mostly, opportunistic.
Well, that's certainly your view of it. It may also be possible that W's foreign policies are motivated by a more Wilsonian attitude than you're used to seeing from Republicans, who have on a day-to-day level been more wedded to realpolitik than idealism. As for the racism business, maybe I'm overly sensitive to it, but I'm sick and tired of hearing the race card played by white people and only slightly less tired of hearing it from black and Mexican-American politicians. It's a distortion of history at best and dishonest BS at worst, and my knee tends to jerk when I see it.
We've done alot of stupid things in the history of our country, there's no denying that. And whatever the original writers of the Constitution may have actually intended themselves, they set up the Constitution to be a document that would change as America changed - one of their more brilliant ideas - and one of the things that's been refined is the idea of church and state being separate. And as someone not christian, it's something I believe rather strongly in. That separation thing is purely a product of creative reading by the judiciary, though. It has nothing to do with the amendment process, which was deliberately made difficult and painful so that changes would be made only if there was a broad consensus that something needed to be changed.
As for Zimbabwe and Lebanon, you're missing the point. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for us to look to Peer Countries (first world, industrialized, etc.) for legal standards. This does not negate our taking a stand should we choose to, but I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "the rest of the modern world thinks X is bad and so do we." Sure there is. The rest of the First World tends to be made up of parliamentary democracies which don't have our ethnic and religious diversity. Let's turn this around for a minute. England, France and Germany all have established churches, supported by tax revenues. Should we, too, establish an American church? Spain and Italy have publicly supported parochial schools, as does Japan. Canada bans pornography and has sued ministers over the content of their sermons. Besides, there's no guarantee some future court won't look to Zimbabwe or Singapore for legal precedent, and no matter how much I think flogging might be a good idea in the abstract, I think the principle is a really bad idea with lots of potential for abuse.
Most of your comment has nothing to do with the actual proposition above. You have one paragraph saying that Congress has the right to do this. But you don't really say...do you think it's a good idea to remove jurisdiction in cases where one party says "God is the law"? IIRC, this bill is a response to the judge who threw out a lower court's conviction of a suspect because the jury consulted the Bible for guidance, not the Schiavo mess. Do I think it's a good idea? Yeah, actually. There's a lot of people hacked off at the judiciary, and a consensus within the GOP that federal judges in general need to be reminded that historically the courts have deferred to the legislature unless there's a clear breach of the Constitution.
(And by the way, this is not written in the "heat of the moment". I'm not trying to be aggressive or confrontational. The trouble with online discourse is you can't always tell. So I'm telling you. I'm still conversational.) Oh, I understand that. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as unrelievedly angry & combative; I know when you respond to me you're generally trying to figure out what's going on in my head that got me to where I am.
no subject
I'm talking about this administration, whatever label they are currently using. This administration is NOT conservative, is NOT historically republican. This administration is, mostly, opportunistic.
Well, that's certainly your view of it. It may also be possible that W's foreign policies are motivated by a more Wilsonian attitude than you're used to seeing from Republicans, who have on a day-to-day level been more wedded to realpolitik than idealism. As for the racism business, maybe I'm overly sensitive to it, but I'm sick and tired of hearing the race card played by white people and only slightly less tired of hearing it from black and Mexican-American politicians. It's a distortion of history at best and dishonest BS at worst, and my knee tends to jerk when I see it.
We've done alot of stupid things in the history of our country, there's no denying that. And whatever the original writers of the Constitution may have actually intended themselves, they set up the Constitution to be a document that would change as America changed - one of their more brilliant ideas - and one of the things that's been refined is the idea of church and state being separate. And as someone not christian, it's something I believe rather strongly in.
That separation thing is purely a product of creative reading by the judiciary, though. It has nothing to do with the amendment process, which was deliberately made difficult and painful so that changes would be made only if there was a broad consensus that something needed to be changed.
As for Zimbabwe and Lebanon, you're missing the point. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for us to look to Peer Countries (first world, industrialized, etc.) for legal standards. This does not negate our taking a stand should we choose to, but I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "the rest of the modern world thinks X is bad and so do we."
Sure there is. The rest of the First World tends to be made up of parliamentary democracies which don't have our ethnic and religious diversity. Let's turn this around for a minute. England, France and Germany all have established churches, supported by tax revenues. Should we, too, establish an American church? Spain and Italy have publicly supported parochial schools, as does Japan. Canada bans pornography and has sued ministers over the content of their sermons. Besides, there's no guarantee some future court won't look to Zimbabwe or Singapore for legal precedent, and no matter how much I think flogging might be a good idea in the abstract, I think the principle is a really bad idea with lots of potential for abuse.
Most of your comment has nothing to do with the actual proposition above. You have one paragraph saying that Congress has the right to do this. But you don't really say...do you think it's a good idea to remove jurisdiction in cases where one party says "God is the law"?
IIRC, this bill is a response to the judge who threw out a lower court's conviction of a suspect because the jury consulted the Bible for guidance, not the Schiavo mess. Do I think it's a good idea? Yeah, actually. There's a lot of people hacked off at the judiciary, and a consensus within the GOP that federal judges in general need to be reminded that historically the courts have deferred to the legislature unless there's a clear breach of the Constitution.
(And by the way, this is not written in the "heat of the moment". I'm not trying to be aggressive or confrontational. The trouble with online discourse is you can't always tell. So I'm telling you. I'm still conversational.)
Oh, I understand that. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as unrelievedly angry & combative; I know when you respond to me you're generally trying to figure out what's going on in my head that got me to where I am.