Reply to
Message 21273908
For the first time in American history, the attempt is being made to make religion the basis for a major political party.
At best a huge exaggeration. A factor? An influence? An important constituency? All yes, but not "the basis" of the party.
On the contrary, congressional Democratic leaders accept the political framework set by the fundamentalists, only protesting that they, too, are “people of faith.”
"Fundamentalist is probably an exaggeration for many of the people the article is talking about, although some of them would fit that definition. The other problems is that "fundamentalist" has come to have connotations or implications that aren't part of the definition. People think of "fundamentalist" and they think Al Qaeda or maybe abortion clinic bombers. I'm not sure if the author was attempting to bring to mind those connotations or not, but it is true that some of the people he is protesting against are fundamentalists so I can't just say he is flat out wrong here.
Thus Senator John Kerry, the defeated Democratic presidential candidate, has joined with Republican Senator Rick Santorum, a supporter of the Catholic fascistic Opus Dei group, to introduce legislation to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions on the grounds of their religious beliefs.
A reasonable accommodation. Forcing them to provide birth control causes them to violate their religious beliefs, and also violates their freedom. I would not question the exemption, I would question the requirement that they are being exempted from. What a pharmacy chooses to provide should be its own decision, not a political decision. If a pharmacist who works for the pharmacy but doesn't own or control it decides to not go along with his employers decision than he faces getting fired but he should not face legal penalty.
The reason for this lies, in the final analysis, in the class character of the Democratic Party. It is a political instrument of the capitalist elite.
To an extent at least part of the party is, but for the most part the Democratic party is not a bastion of support for capitalism. Even the Republican party falls down on the job here. Of course "support for the capitalist elite", often doesn't mean "support for capitalism". Capitalists often want, and sometimes can get, the government to tilt things in their favor, so they don't have to face a rigorous free market.
The organizers of the event claim that Christian fundamentalists—who dominate the Republican Party
Again at best an exaggeration. Basically not a true statement.
They declare that America, the most religion-saturated country in the industrialized world, is a hotbed of “secular humanism” in which “people of faith” are systematically victimized.
Some Christian conservatives do say such things, and to the extent they do, they are themselves exaggerating the situation, but it isn't a total fantasy, just a distortion and exaggeration of a more limited reality. This type of thing is common. Both sides say the other side is more powerful and extreme than it really is.
In the Schiavo case, the Christian right intervened to enforce its religious dogma against the decision of Michael Schiavo
I don't think that is an entirely accurate representation. They have moral beliefs, and where trying to prevent what they saw as a grave injustice. In that sense they are like Martin Luther King Jr. or the abolitionists, both of whom were influenced by religion. Of course many might agree with MLK Jr. or the abolition of slavery without agreeing that Terry Schiavo should be kept alive, but that doesn't mean that the advancement of their belief was inappropriate or somehow out of bounds because their moral beliefs where connected with religious ideas or faith. If you disagree with the ideas you fight against them but they shouldn't be excluded from the debate.
The Democratic policy of selective filibuster has never been more than a half-hearted act of token opposition to the White House.
I don't think it is half-hearted or token, but the article is right that there are many judges that have been confirmed.
Perkins sounded the theme of victimization, declaring, “Just because we believe in the Bible as a guidepost for life does not disqualify us from participating in our government. As American citizens, we should not have to choose between believing what is in this book and serving the public.” The Catholic fundamentalist Donahue added, “We will not be told to shut up and give it over to the secular left. They claim to be the high priests of tolerance, and yet they practice intolerance against us.”
While the tone of being a victim might be questioned his statement is one that I agree with. As I said earlier in this PM, ethical principles, opinions on human rights, ect. should not be excluded from the debate because the holder of the ideas is religious.
Perkins is right that there is some attempt to exclude any ideas which have any connection to religion from the law and from public debate. He might exaggerate the effectiveness and the ill-will of those who attempt to make the exclusion, but the attempt is real.
The other eight were blocked because of extreme right-wing views on states’ rights, the powers of the federal government, the environment and race, or because of procedural objections, such as the failure of the White House to consult senators from the nominee’s home state, as has been traditional for many years.
The procedural objections are not serious enough to support a filibuster IMO. The "extreme right-wing views on states' rights" are just following the constitution as it is written. The environmental and race issues are apparently just the belief that the federal government doesn't have any power not given to it by the constitution. The constitution itself explicitly states as much, but many judges don't seem to care to much for that principle.
Even more preposterous is the suggestion that the Republican campaign against the filibuster is a revival of the tactics employed in the 1960s to beat back opposition to civil rights laws by racist senators from the South.
It is not preposterous. Its true. It's probably irrelevant (Hitler's army used tanks, does that mean its wrong when the US Army uses tanks, of course not), but it is true.
This ignores the inconvenient fact that the same social forces—and some of the same individuals—who howled about the threat to “our southern way of life” (i.e., segregation and racial oppression), are now involved in the campaign against supposed threats to “our Christian heritage.”
I think that is a distortion of reality. Its not a complete fantasy, I can't just say its 100% flat our wrong, but it is largely wrong, it presents a twisted picture of reality.
Today, the ultra-right is largely in control of the federal government
Nonsense.
“A religious conservative who doesn’t want an abortion is not denied any rights under Roe v. Wade"
But the unborn child is, and an argument could be made that the father of the child is (The mother's rights in this situation would seem to be more important than the father's because he doesn't have to carry the child. Still he has to accept the abortion if he doesn't want it to happen, and he has to pay child support if he does want the abortion to happen but the mother doesn't) Also Roe. v. Wade has little support in the actual constitution, rather than the make it up as you go along, "living constitution".
the political marriage of the White House, the Republican congressional leadership and the Christian fundamentalist groups represents a growing danger to democratic rights
That's a silly statement. They aren't a danger to democratic rights any more than other political parties and movements. Everyone takes advantage of what procedures favor them, and tries to work the system in their favor. The Republicans, or religious conservatives, are no different than anyone else in this regard. The author of the article just doesn't like religious conservatives or Republicans all that much so when they work politically against his ideas they become "a danger to democratic rights".
It is a new stage in the development of an incipient fascist movement in the United States
That is a reckless, inflammatory, and untrue statement.
based on religious hysteria, racism and anti-Semitism
Inflammatory nonsense. Perhaps even dangerous nonsense.
It demonstrates the potential for an escalation of political conflict within the United States to the point of civil warfare.
Hyperbole at best.
Tim |
