Posted on 04/28/2005 6:39:33 PM PDT by CHARLITE
If a sentient being from a different universe were to observe and assess the cultural debate in the United States, it would likely conclude that proponents for the various sides are locked in a life and death struggle for supremacy, and the being would not be far wrong.
In a recent speech, one of President' Bush's Judicial Nominations, Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court asserted that the cultural divide in the United States is as marked as anytime since the Civil War. The ACLU is reported to have severely criticized her for her "intemperate" remarks. This raises a number of questions. Is it intemperate to identify and articulate a problem for what it is? Isn't the first principal of the scientific method to deal with facts? Would medical doctors observing cancer in a patient not discuss it so as to come to a consensus as to the best treatment protocol?
It seems a bit silly for the ACLU to engage in such nonsense. But in order to detract from Justice Brown's candidacy the ACLU feels it necessary to malign her remarks, without regard to the remarks' veracity. If Justice Brown had suggested that one side or the other take up arms to kill the opposition, one could legitimately conclude that it was "over the top." To chastise her for stating the obvious seems a tiny bit untoward, even for the ACLU.
Another view of the Cultural War is reflected in the so-called "mainstream media" where there is much ado about the "religious right" dominating Presidential politics; and is nonsense. For what it's worth, the various definitions of "religious right" are slanted to aggregate, stereotype and disparage those who advocate their religious beliefs as a component of public policy.
The "Left" rages over the President's acknowledgments of his reliance upon God, or for seeking Divine guidance, or "erring on the side of life," or any other action or pronouncement that has or even resembles a religious connotation. This despite the fact: that from its foundation the leaders of this nation openly acknowledged their reliance upon Divine inspiration; that the writers of the Declaration of Independence incorporated wording that structurally acknowledged the preeminence of the "Creator;" that the nation has turned to God in times of great trial and distress; that the Pledge of Allegiance incorporates the fact that the nation is "Under God;" that its money states, "In God we Trust;" and that Article VI of the Constitution stipulates that ".no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Despite the Nation's abundantly clear heritage, today's Democrats and "RINOs" flaunt that provision of the Constitution just noted by requiring only those who meet their "litmus test" of supporting unlimited abortion, sexually perverted marriage unions, euthanasia, denying school prayer and other "socially progressive" "secular" agenda items be admitted to the Judicial benches of the United States. However, by filibustering anyone whose religious beliefs might influence his or her Judicial thinking and behavior and might be contrary to their own views, they violate Article VI of the Constitution.
One cannot help but wonder how they would react if the shoe was on the other foot.
Semper Fidelis
Comments: Cheetah@gulf1.com
FYI Ping! :)
It isn't just the ACLU. We had some shyster on FR a couple days ago saying exactly the same thing. Apparently the truth is indeed considered "intemperate," at least among the product of law schools.
Gore has sold his soul.
Sold his what? (/SARC)
How can you sell what you do not have...?
A.A.C.
Thanks for the ping! Excellent article snippet from th Milw. Sentinel, BTW!
A.A.C.
Back in "the day", Rush Limbaugh used to reference the paroxysms of worshipful adulation which followed Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as "Gorbasms"...
Ol' "Mikey" no longer commands the respect he once did, so I propose revisiting that moniker and flying it under a new flag - a different working definition, so to speak...
(drumroll, please...)
'gore-basm' {Gor-baz'm}
verb.
1) A seizure or outburst of banality.
2) A verbal tirade replete with self-absorption.
3) A rant detached from reality, and failing to recognise one's own irrelevance.
usage: (example) "Everyone in the Senate chamber expected John F. Heinz-Kerry to address specific provisions of the judiciary appointment debate, but instead he suffered a massive gorebasm while at the lectern."
(with apologies to no one)
A.A.C.
A Gore could not find his own a%$ with his own two hands. How did he think anyone wanted him to be the most powerful human in the universe? Really???!!!
The fool has said in his heart that Al Gore is smart..
Everybody is born with a soul (his mind, will and emotions). So .. Gore does have one - he just sold it for power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.