Some bloggers and the NYTimes are suggesting that the Bush administration is trying to get the religious right to back off a little on the Supreme Court rhetoric. This is very interesting because I don't think they can.
While driving, I heard Phyllis Schaffley again. She is really crazy. I notice that she now refers to judges as "judicial supremacists." But this really caught me. She refered to the Nebraska State Supreme Court decision where a Clinton nominee (hint) struck down a ban on same sex marriage. And if you weren't sure, she was pissed about it. Kept calling it an "atrocity." Really? An atrocity? And if this wasn't stopped, she warned, our traditional sense of marriage could be gone and so could the Pledge of Allegiance!
Atrocity? I don't know about you, but when I hear that word I think Sudan or Abu Ghraib. I don't think my gay friends marrying or that stupid pledge.
If anyone is looking for a single reason that I lack respect for the religious right, look no further. I could excuse (though not agree) with their magical approach to the ten commandments if they could muster half that outrage for environmental destruction. I could overlook (though not condone) their homophobic reaction to gay marriage if they could react half as strongly to cuts in services for the poor. I could put up with their bizarre worship of this country and pledge of allegiance if they could show that concern for non-American, non-whites around the world (especially those we are bombing).
But this is ridiculous.
1 comment:
The Religious Right, despite all their bluster, are not opposed to judicial activism or "supremacy." They just want judges to impose their extreme agenda by making it into law without the pesky checks and balances (that would be Christian persecution).
kgp
Post a Comment