Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Unification of Church and State

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted October 5, 2005.


Big surprise, and big trouble: Bush's new Supreme Court nominee is a Texas conservative and a fundamentalist Christian.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Molly Ivins

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble. Doesn't take much to read the tea leaves on the Harriet Miers nomination. First, it's Bunker Time at the White House. Miers' chief qualification for this job is loyalty to George W. Bush and the team. What the nomination means in larger terms for both law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Aside from that bothersome little matter, the Miers appointment is like that of John Roberts -- could've been worse. Not as bad as Edith Jones, not as bad as Priscilla Owen -- and you should see some of our boy judges from Texas.

Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment, with the addition of Christian fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone.

She is enrolled in the Valley View Christian Church of Dallas, which she attended for at least 20 years before moving to Washington five years ago. Among that church's other members is Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, considered second only to Priscilla Owen as that court's most adamant anti-abortion judge.

According to Miers' friends, she was pro-choice when a young woman, but later changed her mind as a result of a Christian experience of some kind. Those who spoke of this did not know her well enough to say whether it had been a born-again experience or simply a different understanding of theology.

Miers had the support of feminists when she ran for office first in the Dallas bar and later when she became the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, even though the feminists were aware she was anti-choice.

At that time, the far more conservative TBA was at odds with the American Bar Association and sometimes threatened to withdraw from the national organization. Miers was considered a moderate in that she did not want to withdraw from the ABA, but favored a proposal to change the organization's stance from support for abortion rights to a position of neutrality.

One of Miers' key backers was Louise Raggio, a much-revered Dallas feminist lawyer. The women lawyers groups favored Miers despite her stand on abortion because she was a candidate acceptable to the Establishment, thus making her electable as a woman.

Miers sometimes took women judicial candidates through her very prestigious firm Liddell, Sapp for the obligatory meet 'n' greet and even donated to Democratic candidates. Both these behaviors were well within the conventions of Dallas city and judicial politics, particularly in the 1980s. Dallas city politics are nonpartisan, and rather like Texas tea ("sweet or un?") come in only two flavors -- Establishment or less Establishment. Miers qualifies as ur-Establishment, despite "being a girl," as a few of the old dinosaurs still put it. The slightly feminist tinge to her credentials is a plus, but she is quite definitely anti-abortion.

She ran for city council in 1989 as a moderate, but struggled during her interview with the lesbian/gay coalition. (At the time, it would have been considered progressive to even show up.) The Dallas Police Department did not then hire gays or lesbians, and when asked about the policy, Miers replied the department should hire the best-qualified people, the classic political sidestep answer.

When pressed, she said she did believe one should be able to legally discriminate against gays, and it is the recollection of two of the organization's officers that the response involved her religious beliefs.

Miers' church states on its website that it believes in biblical inerrancy, full immersion baptism, original sin and salvation dependent entirely upon accepting Jesus Christ. Everyone else is going to hell.

I have said for years about people in public life, "I don't write about sex, drugs or rock 'n' roll." If I had my druthers, I wouldn't write about the religion of those in public life, either, as I consider it a most private matter. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution because this country was founded by people who had experienced both religious persecution and state-supported religions. I think John F. Kennedy's 1960 statement to the Baptist ministers should stand as a model of how public servants should handle the relation between religious belief and public service.

Nevertheless, we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance -- and who themselves believe they are beset by people determined to "drive God from the public square."

This division has been in part created by and certainly aggravated by those seeking political advantage. It is a recipe for an incredibly damaging and serious split in this country, and I believe we all need to think long and carefully before doing anything to make it worse.

As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
yellowdogdem
Posted by: DCH on Oct 5, 2005 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would much prefer the factual application of Jeffersonian separation of Church and State. I once wrote an OP/ED piece that predicted a Christian litmus test to get elected to National Office. It is happening. It can only be turned around by rational people who vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yellowdogdem Posted by: verna1914
» RE: yellowdogdem Posted by: Ellie1
Molly a moderate?
Posted by: jazzyjer on Oct 5, 2005 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is awfully weak of you, Molly. Ms. Meirs is real bad news. She has the ethics of a vampire bat. Being ur-Establishment in Dallas means drinks at the country club and pissing on the poor. She's not better than Owen or Jones, she's every bit as bad. Sad to say, she's sure to be confirmed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Molly a moderate? Posted by: MTguy
George Will says about the same thing
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Oct 5, 2005 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In today's Washington Post, George Will asked his readers "Can This Nomination Be Justified?" It is pretty amazing that Molly and George Will are on the same track on the same day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bush
Posted by: okie11 on Oct 5, 2005 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the victor goes the spoils. get over it people, what do you think he is going to put up a bunch liberals.. hey he is major joke but he won, his right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bush Posted by: jwg
» RE: bush Posted by: mkwagner
» Rose Garden Press Conference Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Having a rough day my dear ? Posted by: sovinformburo
» Yes sweetheart, thanks for dropping by Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» For Eastcoker Posted by: sovinformburo
» RE: For Eastcoker Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Encourage Bush???? Posted by: mendomama
» Bitter! Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Bitter! Posted by: sovinformburo
» I agree with you Posted by: eastcoker
» All right I give up Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: bush Posted by: brunowe
» RE: bush Posted by: okie11
» RE: bush Posted by: LPB
diogenes1
Posted by: diogenes on Oct 5, 2005 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the risk of exposing my profound ignorance, I'm not sure that there is any mention of a separation of church and state in the Constitution. Normally, Molly is so bang-on that I'd never even dream of contradicting her, so if anybody knows of such an injunction, please let the rest of us know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: lynnyv4
» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: COC
» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: jwg
» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: hhartman
» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: Doubtom
will this be enough to convince you?
Posted by: roygib on Oct 5, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep wondering just what the Democrats have to do before progressive voters realize that these guys are the enemy as well.
We are about to turn the Supreme Court into the judicial arm of the fundamentalists, and the leader of the Democrats in the Senate has all but announced he'll vote for Miers already.
Half the Senate Dems made it clear with Roberts that the less they know about a nominee the better.
I know, we can't have "litmus tests", heaven forbid that we insist that a canditate assure us that they will uphold our civil rights. Democrats can't be expected to do everything the liberals among us want, like upholding our liberties, or fighting for health care, or opposing the war, or refusing to vote to confirm presidential cronies. As long as they protest the most agregious Republican measures (before half of them go ahead and vote for them anyway, like the Bankruptcy bill, or the Schiavo legislation), then we can happily vote for them and go to sleep content that we have a functioning democracy in this country.
Lets face it, this is a big game of good cop, bad cop, with both parties essentially on the same side. The only way Miers is going down is if the extreme fundies put up a big fuss, and they are rapidly being lulled into acceptance.
Oh well, civil liberties were nice while they lasted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Green Party counts for something! Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Hello Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» AGREE 10000% roygib, Republicrats Posted by: Michiganman
Southern Evangelicals are hypocrits
Posted by: Jasonix on Oct 5, 2005 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with people like Meirs isn't that they're Christians, or even fundamentalists - after all, people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old have the right to take part in a democratic society. I could live with someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible as long as they're literal about what the Bible really teaches - a true "fundamentalist" would stand up for the poor, since one out of every nine verses in the Bible tells us to do so. A true "creationist" would support environmentalism, since they see God as the creator of the world and themselves as stewards of His creation. Someone who believes in adult baptism would never, ever try to force their religious beliefs on anyone else - because salvation can only be accepted by faith, not by coercion. There is much that is good and admirable in evangelical Christianity. The problem isn't evangelical Christianity - it's evangelical Christians! If they weren't such hypocrits, the country wouldn't be in this mess.

Evangelical Christians from the northeast, where evangelicals are a minority, usually take their faith more seriously than their southern counterparts. When a Baptist from Rhode Island, for example, visits churches in Texas or Alabama, he's usually shocked to find that these so-called "born again" Christians are in strip clubs on Saturday nights and in the pews Sunday morning. The southern and midwestern "mega-churches" are nothing more than community centers with a thin spiritual glaze. People use them to network for their small businesses, get deductions on their mortgages through special church programs, meet other singles in the Starbucks that are on-premise in the Bible mega-malls, etc. There is very little real spirituality in southern evangelicalism.

Probably the best thing we can do is to hold these so-called "born again" Christians to the words of their own Bibles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Jesus and the Pharisees Posted by: Michaelmammal
» Inductive Reasoning Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Inductive Reasoning Posted by: sovinformburo
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Oct 5, 2005 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes alot of agitating to keep church and state separated.

It takes constant vigilience, relentless questioning, total engagement and provacative debate to maintain a healthy state of our union.

Today, as it was 2,000 years ago, there is a vast difference of opinion on what it means to be a Christian.

The greatest challenge for us all today is provoking those citizens who have quit thinking at all.
Many have given over their very souls to idealogies and to politicians who confirm their own world view and thus, are blind to the true facts on the ground.

The greatest battle within Christianity today is confronting the fundamentalism that ignores active participation in the non-negotiable commands Christ gave His followerer's to do [Matthew 25:31-40] and neglecting to reflect on one's own heart and motivation.

"If enough Christians follow the gospel they can bring any state to its knees."-Father Philip Francis Berrigan circa: 1969

May God bless America indeed with more Christians who will question the status quo and then fearlessly speak the truth to power, for Christ told His follower's:
"Fear Not!"


www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: Michaelmammal
THIS ISN'T YOUR FATHER'S AMERICA
Posted by: LMNOP on Oct 5, 2005 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's your America, people.

A self-described red state unsophisticate advocates vanquishing the enemy as if 50% of American citizens are the enemies of the other half. And that they are just shit out of luck for several decades because of a very narrow Republican victory that probably was achieved illegally.

DHC above wants more rational people to vote, presumably against the union of church and state. But this (Okie) is what your schools system and mass media mass-produce in ever growing numbers.

And how can you compete with the churches that successfully compel their congregations to vote for theocrats? Or hackable ballot boxes that Christian conservatives control?

Unfortunately, as unfair, unwise and un-American as it may be, Mr. Joad here is right about the winner taking all. And to diogenes who asks what the Constitution says, that’ll be up to people like Justice Miers to decide, won’t it? And who thinks that they care what the Constitution says if it might disagree with their interpretation of the will of their deity? So it really doesn’t matter.

If you can’t live in a theocracy, you had better make plans to expatriate soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I got back up... Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: I got back up... Posted by: nellyman
» You are smart ssgallmd Posted by: La Femme Nikita
The Smartest Man
Posted by: honeyrose on Oct 5, 2005 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just the fact that Ms. Miers says that GWB is the smartest man she has ever known tells us all we need to know. Be afraid...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Smartest Man Posted by: timg98376
Christian = Criminal
Posted by: rkewen on Oct 5, 2005 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sad to say that the words Christian and Criminal are, thanks to this slime ridden administration of thugs and greed balls, becoming synonyms to me. I think junkies and Jesus Freaks are much more alike than different. Each simplifies their life by accepting an easy answer to every question. With a junkie it's the next fix, with the fundamentalist Christian it's saying the name of Jesus, while ignoring everything he stood for. All of Bush and Cheney's cronies should be considered as the accessories to crime that they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I am creative Soviet Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: I am creative Soviet Posted by: sovinformburo
» Everything Posted by: eastcoker
Same Old Same Old
Posted by: Sandra on Oct 5, 2005 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush who's incompetent picks a crony for the Supreme Court. She has no judicial experience and she thinks that Bush is a great president. It is interesting that many right wing spokespeople have come out against her. I've become so paranoid with this administration that I wonder if this is a strategy to get the Democrats and the public to accept her nomination, because we don't want someone of whom the right approves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Same Old Same Old Posted by: Kajamian
» RE: Same Old Same Old Posted by: Jackson
rkewen
Posted by: esactun on Oct 5, 2005 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, at least junkies don't kill each other over who has the better drug. I've never heard of rampaging cokeheads beating up smack users, trying to convert them to crack.

And, in the end, they're all simply jailed for their "creed".

But, somehow, uber-pious nuts aren't subject to arrest over their spiritual addictions and holy wars. Odd, considering that drug experience and religious experience are just patterns of brain activity (and religious brain activity, it must be said, is strikingly similar to brain activity in schizophrenia--and that schizophrenics often develop very strong religious beliefs).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Would Jesus *Really* Do?
Posted by: FoxintheStars on Oct 5, 2005 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never seems to occur to these folks that people have *always* been having babies they didn't want. In Jesus' time, I believe leaving the baby to die in a field somewhere was more popular than abortion as such, but same idea. Homosexuality was also far from unknown in the Roman Empire. Jesus had ample opportunity to condemn both had he felt a need---but not a peep. (He was too busy being economically progressive and chewing out hypocritical theocrats. ^_~)

Not long ago I decided to play "What Would Jesus Do" if people like these brought a woman before him and said "She had an abortion! What should we do with her?" And I highly suspect he would say something like "Care for the widows and orphans. If any child has ever died for lack of your hand among the poor to feed them, then you should be among the poor feeding children, not condemning this woman."

Because the Jesus in *my* Bible was never one to give you the easy answer you expected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Would Jesus *Really* Do? Posted by: woodford54
» Beautiful answer fox in the stars Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Homosexuality in the Roman Empire Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Thank you Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Jesus say's, JEEZ Posted by: Michiganman
» Gay not homosexual Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Phd'd Posted by: Michiganman
» Why? Make up your own Dogma Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: Jesus say's, JEEZ Posted by: LouiseYesh
» RE: Jesus say's, JEEZ Posted by: eastcoker
Missing Justice
Posted by: jwg on Oct 5, 2005 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it axiomatic that a Supreme court justice is more concerned with precedent (strict constructionist) than justice, how would one ever overcome the injustices of the past?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Missing Justice Posted by: Michaelmammal
Brilliant article Molly! I am impressed! You are my heroine!
Posted by: La Femme Nikita on Oct 5, 2005 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the BEST article I have read on Alternet since I have joined the community...this summer.
I took notes.
I am fighting a war against American Protestant Fundamentalism as you know, not a war of flesh and blood, but a spiritual battle due to my own abuse at the hands of American Protestant Fundamentalism Cult Orthodoxy, or APFCO for short. To read your deconstruction of Harriet Miers fundamentalism and fundamentalism and progressive issues is SO helpful. You have NO idea.
This article is a diamond to me, a diamond!
I even appreicate your guidelines about what you will and will not write about. When on the rampage against APFCO it must be written about. It is kind of like the thing with outing, what's the purpose?
If those in power use their religion to hurt people, in other words spiritual abuse, which is very real and very damaging, then they must be outed and their religion must be written about and it will make people uncomfortable, just like the outing of gays does, but it is the only way to bring about effective change.
Thank you for your courage to change the things you can, you give it to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The BEST qualified Court candidate? LOL!
Posted by: BobbyG on Oct 5, 2005 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W. Bush yet again displays his principal talent: that of patronizing audacity. The notion that Harriet Miers is the most qualified person in the nation to ascend to a seat on to the U.S. Supreme Court (even assuming his political prerogative to name a “strict constructionist”) is preposterous on its face. Judicially, this woman is charitably nothing more than Clarence Thomas in Tammy Faye eyeliner and sensible pumps. Moreover, with this nomination, Bush essentially proposes to appoint himself to the Court by proxy. One need only reflect on his Miers nomination choice of words during his October 4th press conference, which was—predictably—all about him; what HE knew about her, what HE wanted from her tenure on the Court, and about his confidence that she would consistently deliver for HIM far into the future. Nothing about what the nation wants or needs from members of this most important institution, e.g., cream-of-the-crop jurisprudential intellects demonstrably capable of learned and rational constitutional analyses borne of long study, experience, and application. No, we are to get instead a dutiful size six shoe “pit bull” puppet.

Once again we have our national intelligence insulted by this dilettante Peter Principle hire. Jon Stewart’s Daily Show should be paying him royalties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» George Bush is a classic manipulator Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Sensible Pumps & size 6 shoes Posted by: littlemanintheboat
i live in texas but not as a proud texan
Posted by: americanx on Oct 5, 2005 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
their god scares me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How would you define their God? Posted by: La Femme Nikita
*sigh*
Posted by: MT512 on Oct 5, 2005 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, if only the ignorant were more apathetic...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you! Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: *sigh* Posted by: beetruetoyou
Danger Ahead
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Oct 5, 2005 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should read the danger signs along the judicial highway during Miers' confirmation. It's nothing but bad news for us all, except in Texas, maybe, where her views took root.
And let's hope (for a miracle, LOL) that Congress rejects her. They haven't mustered any cojones to fight Bush on anything in several years.
The scariest part is that she may cast the deciding vote on Roe v. Wade. Lots of women already have hard lives in this shitty country and her nomination will make it worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Annette
Posted by: Annette on Oct 5, 2005 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Harriet Miers made her political life as a born-again Christian who has professed to devoting her life to Jesus -- which has a very specific political meaning to her and the president -- and this makes her reasoning and judgement inappropriate for the Supreme court. She is certainly no moderate in any part of her life and has deep ties to this president. As a justice she will certainly be devoted to the political will of the president and his religion!

Appointing an anti-choice activist is a blatant corruption of the role of a justice. She has no family and involves her rare free time with organizations that promote the destruction of reproductive choice. Her boyfriend is Nathan Hecht, one the most conservative justices on the Texas Supreme Court and an activist against choice. No matter which side you take in the debate, it is impossible to see this woman as anything BUT an activist. So what's wrong with that, you may say...

It is difficult for many people to understand the value of a fair court because we HAVE deeply held beliefs that have been exploited for political goals. Most people don't see or understand how politicians exploit wedge issues. But the real issue at the heart of this appointment will be more profound than the political or religious issues themselves. It is more akin to what we saw happening to our civil rights at the time of 9/11 and just as dangerous for the average citizen.

We should not allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that this court appointment is about winning the day on certain social issues. Rather it is the forms that must be put into place to promote this president's agenda that will be our downfall -- if we choose to see them for what they are: political patronage and an un-Democratic view of society based on a deeply personal religious conviction.

No one person should ever have the right to decide for all of us! We should be making our country safe from ANY FUNDAMENTALISTS who think that only they deserve to protected by the law and that everyone else can GO TO HELL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Annette Posted by: BobbyG
» Nathan Hecht is her boyfriend?! Posted by: La Femme Nikita
The Solution to the Christianity Debate (Part I)
Posted by: LoveYourEnemies on Oct 5, 2005 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone said that we shouldn't blame Jesus for all of this, it is not his fault. I agree.

I am a recovering fundamentalist. Last year was a very difficult year for me because I was ramrodded out of one church for having more biblical knowledge than the pastor (hence, I was known as a "troublemaker") and I had to leave a second church because they were distributing political tracts in favor of the Republicans (when I confronted the pastor about the illegality of this, I was told I "don't love God and [I] don't love America"). The third and final church I tried to go to had a pastor who got his sermons from Fox News.

After this, I was increasingly frustrated by the whole thing and I also attempted to blame Jesus. However, this also forced me to go into the New Testament and read it with fresh eyes.

I found a Jesus who the religious right would gladly kill. This Jesus would hang out with the worst of us (according to the religious right). In his day, he was known as a "friend of tax collectors and sinners". Today, he would be known as the "friend of homosexuals and liberals". Why?

He fought against the religious establishment, which was founded on a good premise, but quickly turned evil. The same is true today. Dobson started out wanting kids to grow up to be decent citizens, yet now, he's just as bad as the Pharisees of Jesus' day. Consider "Uncle Chuckles" Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They're just as bad.

How many of these "christians" would give their last dollar (before visiting an ATM) to a beggar on the side of the street? I actually tested this out last Sunday. There's a poor couple who begs not two miles from a local church. I watched as "fish" car after "fish" and "Bush/Cheney '04" car passed by, not one even slowing down. Windows rolled up as the light where they were turned red. I watched for about an hour and then I finally gave them $20 and a $25 gift certificate to McDonalds. After that, they packed up and went to get some food. That was all they needed.

Jesus tells us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger, care for the sick and visit the prisoner. I don't know of any liberal or progressive who would call that stupid or backward. I don't believe that Jesus is the problem here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Males and Religion Posted by: sovinformburo
» Reactionary Class Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Reactionary Class Posted by: sovinformburo
» Georgia Posted by: eastcoker
» Labels Posted by: sovinformburo
» Support for anti reproduction? Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Support for anti reproduction? Posted by: sovinformburo
» The Great Schism Posted by: eastcoker
The Solution to the Christianity Debate (Part II)
Posted by: LoveYourEnemies on Oct 5, 2005 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I truly feel sorry for the congregations of these fundamentalist churches. They are told that they cannot understand the Bible by these political dog pastors. So, they go home and never crack open the good Book. If they did, they would see a different Jesus than the one that's presented every Sunday. They would see a Jesus who looks out for the widow and who loves true justice. They would see a Jesus who tells his disciples that LOVE not hatred or religious and political bigotry is what grants access to heaven. They would even see that their pastors and political leaders (conservative ones) are the very Pharisees that ultimately killed Jesus.

Like I said, I'm a recovering fundamentalist. I am also African-American, so my escape was sure once these fools said that America was a Judeo-Christian country and that slavery and genocide were only "minor" problems. Talk to your conservative fundamentalist friends. Ask them to read the New Testament like they would read a James Dobson book or any other book, instead of letting some pastor take things out of context. You will see a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CHRISTIANITY vs JESUSISM Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: CHRISTIANITY vs JESUSISM Posted by: LoveYourEnemies
Kennedy's Address to Southern Baptist Leaders
Posted by: ericchil on Oct 5, 2005 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Referred to in Molly's column:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/66.htm

Some key excerpts:

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America...where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is La Femme Nikita Posted by: eastcoker
Bible as literal truth
Posted by: AuntFaintly on Oct 5, 2005 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May I point out that the Bible is a translation? Languages simply don't translate word for word. The word that English language Bibles translate as jackel, for example, is dragon in my Polish Bible. Personally, I think dragons are much more exciting.

Then there is the small problem that classical Hebrew didn't use either vowels or punctuation. Consider "rd" - does it mean read, red, rude, rode, rod, rid or something else? Clearly, you can eliminate some of the possibilities from the context but not necessarily all but one. And anyone who thinks punctuation isn't necessary hasn't read Eats, Shoots and Leaves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What's it about? Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Do you read Hebrew? Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Hebrew Posted by: Swatopluk
They are Pharisees
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Oct 5, 2005 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For once and for all, let's get this straight. These "Christian" Fundamentalists are the same as the Islamic "Fundamentalists". Both groups pick out of their "Holy" books only what suits their warped selfish agenda. "F**K the other guy/gal, I am going to get mine first and you can wait because you are a `nonbeliever'" . These supposed "Christians" completely ignore the teachings of Jesus. They pound their chests about how righteous they are and then lie, cheat, and steal - Mr. President. They should read Matthew 25 and realize the sinfulness of their ways and repent while they still have time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who responsible? Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: They are Pharisees Posted by: jOkEr
flux
Posted by: RixStar on Oct 5, 2005 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
come on, molly. bush didn't appoint her to overturn roe vs wade as much as to be the potential deciding vote in the upcoming white house conspiricy court battle--the one that will make watergate look like white water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Watergate Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Watergate Posted by: RixStar
» RE: Watergate Posted by: eastcoker
Salvation or Burn in Your Secular Hell
Posted by: menckenman on Oct 5, 2005 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's all we need, an evangelical Supreme Court to go along with our born-again Congress and Executive. Then we'll achieve a nice christian balance of power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ha ha ha - now that is funny! Posted by: La Femme Nikita
She's gay
Posted by: littlemanintheboat on Oct 5, 2005 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebody should tell her that she is gay! (not to disparage gays)..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why? Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Why? Posted by: littlemanintheboat
» Rachel Maddow Posted by: eastcoker
Christians Enjoy yourself!
Posted by: Kajamian on Oct 5, 2005 7:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I highly recommend the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian" to all.
To the fundamentalists and born-agains who have already been told this is the work of Satanists:
WARNING: ONLY those who have read their New Testament well will be able to understand and appreciate the humor.

To the rest of us, the choice is clear:
Do we join the followers of gourd? or the left sandal?

And it follows thus: that the question should arise again -- is he who is baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but only has water sprinkled on his head truly as saved as he who is dunked in the nearest body of water?
I leave it to you, happy posters!

Isn't it wonderful how Christians can get along with each other?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

panguy
Posted by: panguy on Oct 5, 2005 7:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who will be the judge in the senate when he is impeached? No brainer, what a sorry piece of shit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a pitiful government...just what the people ordered up.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 5, 2005 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is sad is that the average american, product of what used to be a fine educational system, and exposed to the latest in thought through spectaular technology, isn't smart enough to understand the problem of inserting religion into government, the lamentable history of such comingling, or the reason for their separation in our Constitution.

What a pity – we are well on our way to becoming what we claim to detest: an ignorant fundamentalist theocracy falling from the collective progress of Mankind. What a pity. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Volcano
Posted by: La Femme Nikita on Oct 6, 2005 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting. I told Sojourner they banned me. I can tell him they changed their mind. I couldn't post last night.
Soviet, it is not good for me to be volatile and agitated. I am a young lady at her peak. I have a lot of power in my fertility. I do not want to be Kali. Do you know who she is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Volcano Posted by: sovinformburo
The Volcano Part 2
Posted by: La Femme Nikita on Oct 6, 2005 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was for Soviet. I apologize. But it is true, I could not post a comment last night. I guess the editors gave me my job back? You know I only got fired once from a job at age 15 for being late. You know why? Because I did not want to cut down the trees I was supposed to cut down. It was a landscaping job. I think the editors on Alternet would like to fire me, but some of the readers appreciate me, so I get to keep me a job...What a career, the world of journalism. No wonder my dad switched careers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Volcano Part 2 Posted by: LoveYourEnemies
» RE: The Volcano Part 2 Posted by: pacto
Where in Constitution?
Posted by: joskydive on Oct 6, 2005 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can't find it any where. Where is it?

"Separation of church and state is in the Constitution because this country was founded by people who had experienced both religious persecution and state-supported religions".
v/r,
Jim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where in Constitution? Posted by: Jennelle
Eh...
Posted by: Liberal on Oct 6, 2005 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not very fond of conservatives or Texas, either, for that matter.

But I'm not liking the hate and hostility the majority of the comments are saying...

Sure she's a conservative, but when it comes to what she is for and against, she's bold and blunt -- and that's a great quality in anyone!

I'm glad she's not like most Politicians who get elected, who suppress their views just to win the most popular vote -- which is why I wouldn't be a good politician. She's liberal on Gay Rights, which, most people, including George Bush isn't liberal on, such as abortion and other sexually explicit commentary, but, come on people, she's a human being and she needs to be respected like one, she's not some animal and she sure isn't an extremist!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Liberal on Gay Rights? Posted by: eastcoker
Harry Reid is a Democrat?
Posted by: lindalee on Oct 6, 2005 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are all in deep shit. Women are in deep shit. Meiers has the support of Harry Reid, who is more Republican than Democrat. Shame on him and shame on the all the Democrats who vote to confirm her and voted to confirm Roberts.
Ladies (and some men, we will now be fighting a war that will be hard to win. Very soon, women will not be able to walk into a drug store and prevent a pregnancy. If you think this won't happen, wake up, it's already happening even in liberal Massachusetts. This is not just about abortion....it's about reproductive freedom. It's about to dissapear. My son is 16 and I'm scared for him. I will load his pockets with condoms (if I'm able to buy them in the next few years) and preach as long and as loud as I can about avoiding pregnancy and disease and about how a woman's body works (which I have already done but will do more often now). These fundamentalist idiots don't have a clue what they are creating. I fear for the world my son will come of age in and hope that he will work to make changes and get involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Harry Reid is a Democrat? Posted by: eastcoker
Hello?
Posted by: aedwards on Oct 7, 2005 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The seperation of church and state refers to the institutions not the ideals. If we were to say that no religious ideals were allowed the we would be saying that the voices of more then half the population of the United States don't matter. This statement was a safeguard against private and foriegn direct influence over the government.

I couldn't find this statement in the constitution could some tell me where to find it. constitution link

Another interessting idea. isn't it kind of hipocritical that you would not allow the church to participate in government but political parties are allowed to form and participate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hello? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Hello? Posted by: Jennelle
» RE: Hello? Posted by: Jennelle
roe vs wade vs my rights
Posted by: nellyman on Oct 7, 2005 10:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hell, I've had my rights violated so much, (thanks michigan!!!) that i could care less.........you people dont care one way or another so why bother....If your looking to feel good about yourselves, try actually doing the right thing for a change and not make asses outta yourselves in the process......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: roe vs wade vs my rights Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: roe vs wade vs my rights Posted by: nellyman
A Moderate in Iraq
Posted by: Tankerdeath on Oct 8, 2005 2:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me pose a question on the abortion issue: How do you argue with people who truly believe abortion is tantamount to killing babies? I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Jeffersonian when it comes to beliefs about Church and State interaction and I think Fundamentatlists believe in a vicious and bloodthirsty monster of a god. But this isn't a theological argumemt for them--it's a matter of life and death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Moderate in Iraq Posted by: nellyman
» RE: A Moderate in Iraq Posted by: beetruetoyou
God's Politics
Posted by: jOkEr on Oct 8, 2005 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a book out written by Jim Wallis that everyone who cares about politics should read called God's Politics.
It deals with the issue of religion and christianity in politics and the way that our "christian" leaders use this title for their own crooked gains.
If Jesus were the president of the United States he would NOT be running our country the way George W. is. It is almost as if Bush is purposely using the christian title he carries to turn the world against the real christians, and he is doing a wonderful job of it! As a christian, i can't stress enough that George Bush's christianity is not true christianity, and that there are MANY christians who know this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

one more thing
Posted by: jOkEr on Oct 8, 2005 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading the new testament, and looking at the life of Jesus makes it quite obvious that church and state are to be seperated.
There is no place for the church in politics and no place for politics in the church.
The Jews thought Jesus was going to save them from the Roman Empire (the government), but he had nothing to do with government at all. His issues were with the Jews (the church).
He left politics to the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There must be something more...
Posted by: Shadow on Oct 8, 2005 5:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Miers nomination is so nonsensical on the face of it that its time to look beyond Roe v. Wade for an explanation. How about these rationales: 1) When the various shady dealings of this administration filter up to review by the Supreme Court, how nice it will be to have an old chum im place. 2) This is the woman who knows more than anything about Bush's teetering along the brink of the illegal and unethical. (Illegal war; illegal treatment of prisoners, etc. etc.) And she's apparently the point person for spinning his past brushes with the law. Putting her on the bench will keep her quiet forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where is separation of church and state in the Constitution
Posted by: KMar on Oct 9, 2005 10:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two separate threads in these comments ask where is the separation of church and state in the Constitution.

It's part of the first Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law . . . respecting an establishment of religion . . . ."

The style committees who worked on the original constitution didn't have as much time to work on the amendments in the Bill of Rights, or they would probably have chosen a different verb than "respecting." It means Congress cannot create a state religion (an established religion, according to the language of Europe at the time). Some of the states supported religion in ways we would now consider state-sponsored establishments -- and they probably considered them state-sponsored establishments then too, although they sometimes tried to modify it (in New England, for example, the states required taxes to support religion but let the taxpayer choose which church to dedicate the taxes to).

American constitutional jurisprudence later applied the first amendment (and most of the rest of the first 10 amendments, but not quite all) against the states in the same way the 1st amendment always applied against the federal government. The 14th amendment (passed after the civil war) was interpreted as preventing the states from doing, on a state level, the kinds of things the federal government is prohibited from doing at the federal level.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Esablishment clause?
Posted by: aedwards on Oct 10, 2005 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How does the establishment cause effect religion helping to influence government?

The clause is there to prevent the government from controlling religion. The idea is to not allow the government to control anything that the market can control. It takes the power from the government and distributes it to the people. If the people are influenced by religion than who are we to say they don't matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interaction Between Church And State
Posted by: DivabyLaw on Oct 10, 2005 6:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American history speaks of our forefathers as God-fearing men. The God, in whom we trust, is the Father of Jesus Christ. Though other religions are allowed to operate without interference from American authorities, Christianity is the religion of America.

When trying to be constitutionally correct, we make mentiion of the freedom of other religions to exist without persecution. Prayer in public schools does not violate an atheist's right to choose not to believe in God. If there is no God, the atheist should not have a problem with open prayer in public schools.

However, preventing prayer in public schools has violated the rights of every Christian in America. To pray in school does not constitute imposition or solicitation of Christianity upon people of other religions. We allow them operate. They should allow the Christians to continue with open prayer in public schools.

One may argue the other religions will want to pray openly in schools, also. America's laws were written by men who are described as God-fearing. It is well enough the other religions are allowed to practice and believe as they please. God has a standard about those in leadership administering justice and equality, especially as it concerns the poor. Government rests upon the shoulders of Christ.

People with other beliefs do not have to participate in the public prayers. If they are intimidated, maybe they do not believe strongly in the validity of their own religion.

Every aspect of government affects all socio-economic levels at some point. Be it through taxes, labor laws or welfare. The church should be the guiding force in goverment because the church works for the good of the people, for the good of the government.

The doctrine of the separation of church and state evolved to keep the government from directing the affairs of the church. Otherwise, the church would lose its freedom to operate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sorry to burst your "bubble"
Posted by: nellyman on Oct 11, 2005 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hate to be the one but like "Santa Claus", there is no such thing as a "born-again christian". Like the "mafia", your in for life.......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yes there is Posted by: aedwards
Religious Belief as basis for recusal.
Posted by: Shadow on Oct 11, 2005 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If one believes that he/she is going to hell for eternity because he/she supports abortion rights, surely this belief demands that the believer recuses him/herself from Supreme Court deliberation on the issue. What greater "conflict of interest" could there be than the certainty of eternal damnation? And if Roberts, Scalia and Miers overturned Roe, their conflicts of interest would obliterate any reasoned judgement they may have made based on their reading of the Constitution.

If Roberts, Miers and Scalia appropriately upheld Roe, they would face burning in hell forever. If they overturned Roe, they would get years--perhaps centuries--off of their stay in Purgatory. They should not have to deal with that much conflict. Scalia may think that his personal friendship and fishing outings with Cheney et al. do not constitute a conflict of interest in deciding Cheney's legal problems. But a fish fry is one thing; frying in hell is another. Recuse, please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stephi
Posted by: stephiym on Oct 11, 2005 3:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it quacks like a duck . . . Molly, why aren't you calling this nomination by its real name? It's AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for a candidate with no experience, bumping the really qualified out of the way, in order to maintain gender balance. If George is now shifting his policy machine to embrace affirmative action, then let's apply for a job, any job. We are gender-qualified.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Call to action. Stop the Republican Party.
Posted by: maximus on Oct 11, 2005 5:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call to action. Stop the Republican Party.

http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8

http://tinyurl.com/b97vk

Where Republicans tread, innocent people end up dead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement