Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: The Republican Plan To Nullify The Courts and Establish Christian Theocracy

Whoever gets the Republican nomination in 2012, you can be sure of one thing: they plan to end our Democracy.

At the Iowa “Thanksgiving Family Forum” there were dire warnings against Sharia law. But there was a whole lotta love for a Theocracy, as long as it’s a Christian one. In fact, only one candidate even mentioned freedom of choice; the only problem is, he hasn’t a chance in hell (you’ll pardon the expression) of winning the nomination (via Slate):

There was [only] one voice of dissent among the candidates. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges, Paul stood alone. Protecting America is too important to let the Constitution get in the way.

The rest, meh… Jesus is Lord, and we have to make our country ready for his return. Here are the lowlights of your current Republican hopefuls, every one waiting to get their godly, self-righteous finger on the nuclear button:

1. Religious Americans must fight back against nonbelievers. To quote Herman Cain:

What we are seeing is a wider gap between people of faith and people of nonfaith. … Those of us that are people of faith and strong faith have allowed the nonfaith element to intimidate us into not fighting back. I believe we’ve been too passive. We have maybe pushed back, but as people of faith, we have not fought back.
2. The religious values we must fight for are Judeo-Christian. Rick Perry warned:

Somebody’s values are going to decide what the Congress votes on or what the president of the United States is going to deal with. And the question is: Whose values? And let me tell you, it needs to be our values—values and virtues that this country was based upon in Judeo-Christian founding fathers.

3. Our laws and our national identity are Judeo-Christian. Michele Bachmann explained:

American exceptionalism is grounded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is really based upon the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were the foundation for our law. That’s what Blackstone said—the English jurist—and our founders looked to Blackstone for the foundation of our law. That’s our law.

4. No religion but Christianity will suffice. Perry declared, “In every person’s heart, in every person’s soul, there is a hole that can only be filled by the Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. God created our government. Bachmann told the audience: I have a biblical worldview. And I think, going back to the Declaration of Independence, the fact that it’s God who created us—if He created us, He created government. And the government is on His shoulders, as the book of Isaiah says.

6. U.S. law should follow God’s law. As Rick Santorum put it:

Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law.

7. Anything that’s immoral by religious standards should be outlawed. Santorum again:

God gave us rights, but He also gave us laws upon which to exercise those rights, and that’s what you ought to do. And, by the way, the law should comport—the laws of this country should comport with that moral vision. Why? Because the law is a teacher. If something is illegal in this country because it is immoral and it is wrong and it is harmful to society, saying that it is illegal and putting a law in place teaches. It’s not just—laws cannot be neutral. There is no neutral, Ron. There is only moral and immoral. And the law has to reflect what is right and good and just for our society.

 8. The federal government should impose this morality on the states. Santorum once more:
The idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong. Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, the states do not have the right to do wrong. … As a president, I will get involved, because the states do not have the right to undermine the basic, fundamental values that hold this country together.

9. Congress should erase the judiciary’s power to review moral laws. Newt Gingrich suggested:

I am intrigued with something which Robby George at Princeton has come up with, which is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in which it says that Congress shall define personhood. That’s very clearly in the 14th Amendment. And part of what I would like to explore is whether or not you could get the Congress to pass a law which simply says: Personhood begins at conception. And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for. You would therefore not have to have a constitutional amendment, because the Congress would have exercised its authority under the 14th Amendment to define life, and to therefore undo all of Roe vs. Wade, for the entire country, in one legislative action.

Gingrich said the same strategy could secure the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and protects the right of states to disregard same-sex marriages performed in other states. In his words, “You could repass DOMA and make it not appealable to the court, period.”

10. Courts that get in the way should be abolished. Gingrich again:

The simplest first step which I would take is to propose—and I hope this will be a significant part of the campaign next year—I have proposed to abolish the court of Judge Biery in San Antonio, who on June 1 issued an order that said, not only could students not pray at their graduation, they couldn’t use the word benediction, the could not say the word prayer, they could not say the word God, they could not ask people to stand for a moment of silence, they couldn’t use the word invocation, and if he broke any of those, he would put their superintendent in jail. I regard that as such a ruthless anti-American statement that he should not be on the court, and I would move to literally abolish his court, so that he could go back to private practice, as a signal to the courts.

Biery’s order was an overreach. In fact, it was overturned two days later by an appeals court. But he’s only the first target of the anti-judicial purge. The next words after Gingrich’s threat came from Santorum, who said: “I agree with a lot of what has just been said here. I would go farther—one step farther, Newt. I would abolish the entire Ninth Circuit.”

11. The purge of judges should be based on public opinion. Gingrich  once more:

Part of the purpose of singling out Judge Biery and eliminating his job is to communicate the standard that the two elected branches have the power and the authority to educate the judiciary when it deviates too far from the American people. And I think you would probably take that approach.

12. Freedom means obeying morality. Santorum concluded, “Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”

So there you have it. The only hope for actual freedom of religion, and any voice for atheists, is Ron Paul. Who believes in hell, he just doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in it.

via Christian theocracy: How Newt Gingrich and the GOP would abolish courts and legislate morality. – Slate Magazine.

Pro-Life Without Health Care: More Hypocrisy in Saturday’s GOP Debate (via SLOG)

Dan Savage noticed more than the lack of gay-bashing in Saturday’s GOP debate:

When the candidates were asked to share a story about an event that shaped their worldview, their faith, their relationship to Jeebus, etc., Santorum and Gingrich both told stories about children—Santorum about one of his own, Gingrich about a friend’s—who were born with life-threatening medical problems. The lives of both children were thanks to extraordinary medical interventions: weeks in neonatal ICUs, round-the-clock care, heart transplants, multiple brain surgeries. These events, both men said, both illustrated and cemented their commitment to life: these children could’ve died at birth—doctors in Santorum‘s case had all but declared the child dead and, according to Santorum, coldly advised him and his wife to “accept the inevitable” death of their newborn—but these children deserved a chance at life, by God, even if meant defying doctors and the odds and conventional medical wisdom. (Is someone trying to find these doctors that Rick Santorum has cast as the villains in his morality tale? It might be interesting to hear their side of the story.)

Santorum and Gingrich pledged that, should either be elected president, no child would ever be denied a shot at life. They would both put an end to the Obama administration‘s practice of taking sick infants out of incubators and tossing them out windows. Because life is sacred and precious… and no medical intervention or treatment should ever be denied a child, no matter how long the odds, because LIFE! And that’s what it means to be pro-life. Cue rapturous applause from the audience.

Okay, great. I actually agree with the proposition that all children should have access to the kind of medical care that Santorum’s child did. (Medical care that was paid for by the federal government, BTW.) But both of these douchebags are pledging to repeal Obamacare. Both oppose “socialized medicine.” (For your family, not for theirs.) Both men would regard the creation of a single-payer health care system—like the one they have up in Canada—as an unacceptable socialist assault on freeeeeeeeeeeedom. And both men stood silent when audience members at a previous GOP debate cheered for letting a man without health insurance die. Because this is America, where letting children die of toothaches is one of prices we pay for freedom.

Could someone—a journalist maybe?—ask these two pieces of smugassshit how they can assert that no child should ever be denied access to medical care while at the same time opposing any effort to make sure that all children have access to medical care? If being pro-life means being pro-access-to-medical-care, how can they describe themselves as pro-life? Or are they only pro-life when it comes to their own children and those of their close friends?

via Saturday’s GOP Debate | Slog.

Classic Republican idiocy: touching pro-life stories only made possible by access to GREAT HEALTH CARE. So, logically, if we vote against health care for all, we’re killing all those severely handicapped preemie babies that can’t afford it. And that makes baby Jesus cry, right?

Funny Because It’s True


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 637 other followers

%d bloggers like this: