Robert Reich's War on Evangelicals

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | December 8, 2003 | Don Feder

[cookcounty]

"OTOH, I share his distrust of many of the evangelicals."

You watch too much television. Evangelicals don't watch TV preachers and neither should you.

[randita]

In truth, all law is made on the basis of some moral principle. It is specious for Reich or anyone else for that matter to single out one or two laws whose moral basis he disagrees with and label only those as being religiously founded.

In a republic, it is up to the voters (not Robert Reich and not the courts) to decide what moral principles are going to be codified. It matters little whether or not those moral principles stem from religious convictions (although it's certainly healthier for society and the future of the republic, if they do).

[Gritty]

Robert Reich is just another nasty little totalitarian man who wants his twisted version of morality to prevail!

Like others of his ilk, rather than try and prevail in the various elected lawmaking bodies (where it cannot) he pursues it relentlessly in the Courts, where the Will Of The People is neither a consideration nor a deterrent.

[Zack Nguyen]

I think conservatives should welcome Reich's attacks. I like it when both sides start getting more honest and consistent in their positions. He will lose in the end.

[Sam Cree]

"You watch too much television. Evangelicals don't watch TV preachers and neither should you."

I quit watching television about 12 or 14 years ago, for the most part, and I couldn't stand to watch the TV preachers when I did watch it. But I am interested that you don't consider TV preachers to be evangelical, that gives me a slightly better impression of them. What about Pat Robertson, for instance? I have seen his face on TV.

[Sam Cree]

”Reich writes. 'For more than 300 years, the liberal tradition has sought to free people from the tyranny of religious doctrines that would otherwise be imposed on them. Today’s evangelical right detests that tradition..."

Interestingly, today's "liberals" and today's Democrats also detest that tradition.

"Until around 1830, well after the Constitution was written, both Massachusetts and Virginia required that tax money be used to support Christian churches, Baptists in Virgina and Congregationalists in Massachusetts."

My understanding is that the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment (I like that term much better than the "seperation of church and state" clause) still is not considered to apply to the states. Yet, IMO, the idea of citizens being taxed to subisidize religion flys in the very face of the ideals for which the USA, was founded, individual freedom, which includes freedom of religion.

[Sam Cree]

"It all boils down to forcing everyone to worship the state"

Considering the ever increasing paternalism of our state, I cannot disagree, but having a state religion, as has often been done in the past in other places, would make the above even more likely.

[Sam Cree]

"the Judæo-Christian philosophical principles set forth in the Bible are the basis of this country's laws and should be recognized as such"

That is the very fist thing I stated before commenting on the article, in my initial post. It is inarguable.

However, while the Judaeo Christian principles set forth in the Bible are the basis of our code of ethics, on which so many of our laws are based, they are not the basis of our principles of individual freedom and personal liberty. IMO, conflict between the 2 is not only not inevitable, the possibility should not be ignored.

I do think many on the religious right (and the religious left, too, even more so) are quite capable of intruding into our freedoms.

While you are laughing out loud at cook county's advice to me to stop watching so much TV (and bumping his erroneous advice with bold type), I guess you also did not read my reply to him that I, in fact, rarely watch television, and certainly not the preachers to be found on it. The witty rejoinder is off the mark. TV is mostly crap, you probably agree.

"Are we so “polite” to religious minorities that we're ashamed of our own heritage?"

Yes, but it's a hugh mistake on our part.

[Sam Cree]

"In a republic, it is up to the voters (not Robert Reich and not the courts) to decide what moral principles are going to be codified."

It's more up to the legislators, I think. It's up to the voters to pick the right legislators.

[MissAmericanPie]

The problem with our Constitution is that it has no punishing teeth in it. So these vermin have no fear of ignoring it.

[hosepipe]

Did he say all this while standing on a box behind a lecturn ?... If so... Bwahahahahaha....

[Sam Cree]

"The problem with our Constitution is that it has no punishing teeth in it."

That's an interesting point, to which I don't have the answer. Now you got me thinking.

[international american]

Reich is from the Begala School of Liars.He even lied about his teaching credentials. He was a "lecturer" at Harvard, NOT a professor.

[Eva]

As I have stated many times, the Judeo-Christian religions are anathema to the left because they will not tolerate and cannot subjugate a people who answer to a higher power than the state. The only difference between today's left and the left of the thirties is that the new left weltanschauung includes a world without borders and uses the cult of the environment as the amalgum to meld the diverse interest groups into a power generating force, instead of the extreme nationalism of the German left.

[tpaine]

randita:
"In a republic, it is up to the voters (not Robert Reich and not the courts) to decide what moral principles are going to be codified."

_____________________________________

It's more up to the legislators, I think. It's up to the voters to pick the right legislators.
32 -Sam-

---

In our constitutional republic, it has long been decided what principles are going to be upheld.
Our BOR's specifies that life, liberty & property cannot be infringed upon without reasonable law based on due process.
The moral views of a majority of voters cannot form the basis of laws that are repugnant to the individual rights outlined in our BOR's.