The following is a reworked, lengthened, and more comprehensive stand-alone version of an article that I posted last year.  Traditional, old-style Republicans need to read this and see how vastly the party had changed and how classical conservative principles have been completely abandoned.

The most dangerous element of the far-right drive to tear down America's protective wall of separation between church and state is the relentless drive to neuter the Constitution of the United States -- and by so doing, deprive Americans of the basic human and Constitutional rights that most of us have grown up to take for granted.

The agenda is simple to understand:

• The theocratic Religious Right political movement that now dominates the Republican Party seeks to use the powers of the State to micromanage many of the most intimate areas of our personal lives
• The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, guarantees Americans that their basic rights and liberties shall not be violated, ignored, or taken away by the government
• Because the Constitution guarantees a wide range of individual rights, the Constitution has acted as a formidable and frustrating obstacle to the Religious Right's insistence on tightly regulating our personal decisions
• Therefore, in order to deprive Americans of their fundamental liberties of conscience and demand obedience to their version of religious law, they must render the Constitution toothless and unable to protect the rights of Americans.

Shamefully -- indeed negligently -- the major news media have given almost zero attention to this anti-Constitutional agenda.  What little has been reported has mainly mentioned the fact that Democrats were filibustering or otherwise opposing some of President Bush's nominees for the federal judiciary -- and nearly all of this reporting has portrayed Senate Democrats in a negative light.  Precious little attention has been given to exploring why Senate Democrats have sometimes resorted to that drastic tactic.

While the political Left has expended vast energy and blog space reporting the scandal surrounding the unconventional firings of federal prosecutors by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, they have all but completely overlooked the fact that Gonzales' alleged politicization of the Justice Department is in fact just one small symptom of the extreme Right's larger agenda of poisoning the judiciary -- a key component of their war on the Constitution.

The extreme Right is waging this war on the Constitution on many fronts at once.  The first front of this war has received almost zero publicity from the (nonexistent) "liberal media."  Only the political fire fights that it has created have been reported: the media's constant depiction of Senate Democrats as "obstructionists" to Bush's nominees to the federal courts.

The Bush Administration, and that one third of Republicans who sent him to Washington to destroy our Constitutional freedoms, want to see him appoint judges like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork to the federal courts.  They want Bush to use these men as role models because their contempt for our Constitutional rights is total:  Depending on the context and on the person, the views they want sent to the federal bench range from recognizing very, very few Constitutional rights, to recognizing no Constitutional rights at all.

Making a lie of his oath of office -- to protect and defend the Constitution -- Bush has done his valiant best to fulfill quite an opposite mission, appointing corrupt, Constitutionally blind judges who will look the other way when the most basic of human rights are being stomped on.  And when Senate Democrats succeeded in blocking his most dangerous nominees, he has tried every trick in the book to appoint them anyway, whether through recess appointments or by just renominating and renominating the same candidates.  This is deliberate.

Antonin Scalia has written, in the legally significant body of Supreme Court rulings, that:

• The federal courts should have no power at all to overturn unconstitutional laws (Chicago v. Morales, 1999)
• The First Amendment does not apply if a lawmaking body feels that something is "immoral" (Erie v. Pap's A.M., 2000)
• The Constitution does not apply if a community deems something immoral (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)
• Violating Constitutional rights is perfectly acceptable if it has been traditionally done in the past (i.e. "we have always done it this way")  (Lawrence, and others)
• Literally nullified any meaningful protection in the "free exercise of religion" clause in the First Amendment (Oregon Employment Division v. Smith, 1990) -- a ruling that led to passage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- which was itself struck down mainly by the right wing of the Supreme Court.

Robert Bork and/or others in the far right judicial mold, have opined that:

• State governments should be free to ignore the Bill of Rights
• Local majorities should enjoy virtually unlimited lawmaking power, regardless of one's human rights
• The definition of "freedom" itself is not freedom to choose your life and pursue happiness, but the "freedom" of elected governments to exert power over others.

The Center for Arizona Policy, a Religious Right group affiliated with Focus on the Family, has said as much:

"When Congress makes laws we do not like, we can remove the
objectionable members at the next election; we cannot do so to
renegade Supreme Court Justices who legislate from the bench. A
conservative judge does not impose his will over the will of a
popularly elected official..."

"Conservatives, however, do not value liberty which permits
licentiousness, but rather an ordered liberty which permits freedom
in the context of community values. Conservative judges respect
these values founded on tradition and history, and will respect them
when challenged by claims of individual rights."

The first excerpt is saying that judges should never overturn laws enacted by a legislature, whether it violates your Constitutional rights or not.  The second excerpt is saying that "community values" take priority over your Constitutional rights,  If your "community values" conflict with your Constitutional rights, the community values win -- and the Constitution loses.

Former Congressman and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), in an interview reported in the Washington Times (article no longer available online), has flatly said the following:

"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. "

"Judicial review" refers to the role of the federal courts in overturning unconstitutional laws.  Tom DeLay is joining many others on the extreme Right in saying that the federal courts should have no power to enforce the Constitution and protect your individual rights.

There you have it, in their own words.

The second front in this war on the Constitution is to cripple the courts' authority to protect our Constitutional rights.

Far right groups have directly advocated stripping the federal courts of their power to uphold the Bill of Rights against state and local governments.  The Conservative Caucus, whose views are well represented among Bush's advisors and in the GOP leadership, asks in a candidate questionnaire:

"20. As a member of Congress, would you vote to terminate the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary with respect to appeals relating to alleged violations of the Bill of Rights by state and local government?"

You can't get any plainer than that.

Toward this end, the far right wing in Congress has worked diligently.  In the infuriatingly falsely titled "Constitution Restoration Act," the right wing of Congress attempted to strip the courts of any power to hear cases that would impinge upon the "Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

You can't get any plainer than that.  They tried to strip the courts of their power to prevent an illegal theocracy in the United States.  This is a direct attempt to remove our access to the redress of grievances, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

And on September 19, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2679 which, according to the Washington Post, provides that "attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion."

This war on our Constitution is no accident.  Our "Republican" leaders, including our President, who have sworn to uphold our Constitution, are instead mounting a sustained, unrelenting campaign to destroy that same document.  By anyone's definition, this is treason -- not just by the current administration, but by the bigger part of an entire political party's leadership.

This is how total, comprehensive, and overarching is their campaign to destroy the Constitution and the rights it affords.

.

"Well, duh," some of you are thinking.

To other readers, this may come as a genuine surprise.

The Alliance Defense Fund claims to support and defend religious freedom.  However, all of that nobility apparently ends when someone from a branch of a major, well-recognized religion wants to marry according to his fundamentalist Mormon faith.

From http://www.onenewsnow.com/2... :

"Chris Stovall, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the high court's decision to let the Utah court's ruling stand was solid. "And there are very strong policy reasons," he notes, "which spelled out, I think, in excellent detail by the Utah Supreme Court, for why the government certainly has the power to prohibit polygamy as an approach to marriage that's really antithetical to having a common definition of marriage that operates in the public good."

The ADF itself reports in this press release:

"WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Monday turned away an appeal that argued for the legalization of polygamous relationships.  ADF attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Family Research Council on Jan. 12 that encouraged the court to deny review of the case. "

Whoops.

So much for religious freedom and the right of a Mormon sect to define the sacred rite of marriage for itself.  But I could have told you that.

Mark my words -- when most Religious Right groups claim to support religious liberty, that claim will become a lie the moment you desire to exercise a liberty that is inconsistent with their religion.

Freedom for themselves while denying it to others.  Nihil novi sub sole.

Here's a serious but apolitical topic that is nonetheless important.  Five minutes out of your day can go a long way to protect millions of Americans.

"Phishing" emails.  We all get them.

They are made to appear like legitimate emails from financial institutions, designed to panic you into taking hasty steps to "protect" your account.  These actions, of course, include supplying important personal and account information.

How do you identify a phishing email?  Microsoft has some pointers:

http://www.microsoft.com/pr...

Now, when we receive phishing emails, how many of us simply ignore them?

Don't.  Take the time to forward the fraudulent emails to the actual financial institution that is being impersonated.  They will collect forwarded emails and supply them to investigators.

How do you find out where to forward fraudulent emails?

Manually type in the URL (Web address) of the institution being impersonated.  Do not click on the link in the email itself.  It's a fake.

Look for a link to "Contact Us," "Security," Customer Service," or the like.  Sooner or later you will find instructions on how and where to forward fraudulent emails for investigation.

Here are the reporting email addresses for some of the most frequently impersonated institutions:

• spoof@paypal.com
• spoof@chase.com
• spoof@nafcu.org
• spoof@marincu.org
• spoof@ebay.com
• spoof@citicorp.com
• spoof@wamu.net
• abuse@bankofamerica.com
• reportfraud@downeysavings.com
• reportphish@wellsfargo.com

National reporting email address:  spam@uce.gov

When you get such an email, please take the time and trouble to forward the email to the institution's fraud investigation department.  Each forwarded email that they receive strengthens their case against the perpetrators of email fraud.

(Or, come on, just out 'n say it!)

Ken Ham, president of Answers In Genesis whom I referenced in another blog comment the other day, has done it again:

""Because after all, if there is no God and there's no absolute authority, who does decide right and wrong? Who does decide good and bad?" he asks. "Those on the other end of the spectrum who believe in moral relativism, of course, wouldn't want to be accountable to God and would want to believe that everything evolved by natural processes. So you'd more suspect that those people would say they believe in evolution ...." "

A recent arrival to b.com said something similar:

"I think people who believe in the theory (remember folks, we're discussing theories here) of evolution do so because they truly don't want to be held accountable to a moral standard. If they believe that a God of some sort created them, then they might be obligated to find out about this God, perhaps even (God forbid! -chuckle ;) obey Him (gasp!) and given the moral climate of this present world, that's not likely to make most people stand up and cheer."

To quote Avril Lavigne in the song Sk8er Boi, can I make it any more obvious?

I could go off in one direction, and suggest that the seemingly primal urge to control other people makes for a very strong motive for propagandists to lie, distort, and/or otherwise misrepresent science as it pertains to evolution and creation.  If the love of money is a root of much evil, then a corollary might be: the love of power is the root of so much deceit.

But I'm curious, and I hereby solicit responses about something else.

Would someone please tell me just which particular rules and "absolutes" do they think we want to get around?

I mean, I don't have any urge to murder anyone or steal their money.  I can't imagine myself ever raping anyone, and I detest liars and dishonesty to such a degree that I'm too frank and forthright for some folk's tastes.  (But, reassuringly, when people get to know my straight-shooting nature, they say unanimously, "don't change a thing.")

So, please tell me, just what is it that you're so concerned about our doing?

Jus' come out and say it.  :-)

Since the previous post of this nature was so much fun, let's try another ride on the Starship into the ionosphere of thought.

__________________________

How can it be, that some people cannot accept the notion of a universe that always existed, but have no problem accepting the notion of a deity that always existed?

__________________________

If God is eternal, then God existed for an infinite duration of time before deciding to create the universe.  What was God doing in this infinite amount of time?

Nothing?  Busy creating an infinite number of universes predating ours?  What?

(Related:  Nuts #4 and #5)

__________________________

To people who reject the idea that the universe -- in some form -- could have existed eternally:

Most people have little trouble accepting the idea that the earth may exist in an infinite space -- you can travel an infinite number of miles "up," "down," "left," "right," "forward," and "backward" through space, without ever hitting a wall.  (Nevermind, for now, the earth or any other astronomical body getting in the way.  Pretend you're Casper The Friendly Ghost.  Or a neutrino.)

Not hard to accept, is it?

If it is so easy to accept the possibility that we live in an infinite space, what is so difficult about believing that the universe itself exists on an infinite time line?  If the earth can conceivably occupy a point set within nn infinite volume, what is so inconceivable about our occupying a point along an infinite time line? 

 _________________________

Many theists subscribe to the Thomistic metaphysical belief that God "exists out of time."

If God exists outside of time, does that mean that all of time is laid out before him to see?

If so, doesn't that mean that everything that is to take place within the universe has already been predetermined and laid out for God to see?

If so, doesn't that mean we have no choice in our destiny, and therefore cannot be held morally accountable for anything?  See: Determinism.

__________________________

If God exists outside of time, can He be anything other than an inert, frozen entity?

It seems to me that if God is a living being and not an inert, frozen entity, then He is capable of various actions -- and some of these actions would precede or follow others -- and He would therefore exist inside of time.

 

__________________________

If a miracle occurred, how would you determine that the event was indeed a miracle, and not an unknown or unaccounted-for natural phenomenon?

 

I'm posting this blog as sort of a continuation point for what began under my Creationism post.

So, with no further ado, let me toss out some assorted nuts to crack and kick about:

____________________

If it is possible for supernatural agents (like Satan, for example) to deceive people, how can any one person know that s/he is not being deceived right now?

How would you go about proving to yourself, or others, that you are not in a state of deception?  Think of the movie The Matrix, which, alas, has a character called Neo.

Impossible, you say?

____________________

If it is impossible for a victim of deception to know that s/he is in a state of deception, how can anyone (a God or anyone else) hold that person morally accountable for being deceived?  Is that not like punishing the victim of a crime?  Is it fair and just, for example, to punish a person for buying stolen goods, when that person -- in good faith -- believed that s/he were purchasing a lawfully obtained product?

Yet according to some versions of Christian theology, God eternally punishes people who have -- through no fault of their own -- been deceived into following "false gods" or into believing that God doesn't exist at all.

____________________

It is often suggested that we "follow Christ" rather than follow "Christian leaders."

Many theologians, Bible scholars, and lay believers do just that -- try to follow Christ directly. 

Yet they end up disagreeing on all manner of doctrinal points -- some of them potentially of soteriological import. 

Take the gift of tongues, for instance.  Some Christians, who claim to follow Christ rather than Christian leaders, insist that salvation must be accompanied by the speaking in tongues.  Other Christians, also claiming to follow Christ, are "cessationists" who insist that the gift of tongues has ceased.

How is it possible for two or more people -- who claim to follow Christ and prayerfully seek His guidance -- to come to opposite conclusions on issues of soteriological import?

 _____________________

In order to "reject the Gospel" or "reject God's gift of salvation," must'nt one first believe that such a message or gift is real?

Along the lines of the poser two blocks above, how can a person be faulted for "rejecting" something that s/he never became convinced was genuine?  Could a person be faulted for "rejecting" an alleged Picasso because it looks, to him, like a crayon drawing?

It's one thing to say "yes, I know this is real, and I don't want it."  But it's much less culpable to say "this don't look genuine."

Yet, according to some versions of Christian theology, God punishes people simply for "rejecting" things that appear, to them, to have no authenticity to accept.

How does this square with the simplest concepts of justice?

_____________________

Many people say that God led them to do certain things or make certain choices.  And people often pray to God in search of answers or guidance.  Presumably they receive these answers, because they keep relying upon prayer.

If this happens, how does one determine that God is the origin of the decision or the giver of the answer?  How do you verify the authenticity of a message or inspiration that seems to come from God -- especially if we throw into the mix all these other, evil beings like Satan who would be perfectly willing to deceive you into thinking that God led you to do this?

(1 John 4:1-4 runs into this problem.  I mean, any lying spirit worth his salt would pose as God or a good spirit.)

In other words, how do you distinguish a calling of God from a calling of an evil spirit -- or even just a calling in your own head?

(Or, the sorry state of science education and mainstream media)

According to this poll, roughly as many Americans belief that life, including human life, was directly created by God, as do the number of Americans who believe that life arose by evolution from earlier life forms.

I have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, I have never disrespected people who believe that God created the world.  The inclination to search for order -- and by inference, design -- is a deeply ingrained part of human nature.  The ways that body parts and functions work together do resemble something that a designer might have intentionally created.

To believe in special creation is not the mark of a fool.  It is the mark of a human being.

But on the other hand, I worry about the state of science education, and about the negligence of the nonexistent "liberal media" to set the record straight on this question.

It's true that science-oriented cable channels such as Discovery Channel treat evolution as fact.  (Well, that's because it is.)  But where are the media when it comes to addressing this issue in the detail needed to confront -- in an informed manner -- what has become a political issue?

Needless to say, the anti-evolution side is easily found in the media.  You can hear that side of it by turning on any radio, any time.

But where are the voices in the media for the other side -- the so-called "liberal" side?

As usual, nowhere to be found.  There is nowhere in the mainstream media that one can turn to hear evolutionists patiently explain their side of the story or pick apart and critique creationism.

What's disturbing about this poll is related to this media one-sidedness.  Eighty-two percent of Americans profess to be familiar with evolutionary theory -- a figure that seems very much different from my real-world experience.

Could it be that a large fraction of people who claim to be familiar with evolution are instead familiar with the distortions and misrepresentations of evolution that are broadcast daily through the media?  How many Americans, who claim to understand evolution, then say inaccurate things like "we came from apes?"

This concerns me -- not because some people believe in special creation -- but because of the continued one-sidedness in the media that leaves the secular side nearly voiceless.