Text of an article titled Christian Right Marks Start of `a good 4 years' (by Robin Abcarian - Los Angeles Times)
A couple of hours after President Bush took the oath of office, the indefatigable Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder and chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, was more upbeat than usual. On Wednesday, Sheldon had tossed a Christian bash for more than 800 people at the Ritz-Carlton hotel. The host committee was virtually a who's who of politically important evangelicals, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed and Rev. Jerry Falwell. On Thursday, Sheldon played host to an indoor gathering of about 300 fellow Christians, people who wanted to experience the inauguration events with like-minded people but weren't inclined to brave the weather.
"This is the beginning of a good four years," said Sheldon, who is given to quoting historical figures and this time offered a snippet of George Washington's 1796 farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." "Religion and morality," Sheldon repeated. "That's what is happening--that fusion of religion and morality and public policy has now come about."
Comment by L. P. : It seems to me that the fusion of "religion... and public policy" must be effected by at least a partial fusion of church and state, the strict separation of which I will continue to defend until the day I die. Disturbing trends such as the one detailed above are why I joined the ACLU just this morning. Check it out at http://www.aclu.org.
I am reminded of Michael Douglas' character in An American President, when he confronts a crowd of hostile reporters and says "Why yes, I AM a card carrying member of the ACLU - an organization devoted solely to protecting the rights guaranteed to you by the United States Constitution - the question is, why aren't YOU a member?"
So there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Why not join? Because I see no need to protect the rights of NAMBLA perverts
There a term in logic that refers to a situation where the exception to the rule (protecting everyones rights except NAMBLA pervs) proves the necessity for such a rule (i.e., the necessity to protect peoples rights). It's too bad that I cannot recall what that term is.
Bottom line, EVERYONE has certain rights under the consitution, and you can't pick & choose who you will give these rights to. That said, for the greater good there must always be limits....
Well I suppose it depends on your view of the world and just how many "rights" we have under fire, how often they are under fire and just who should defend them. My world view, or more accurately my view of the United States for this example is that the ACLU isnt here to defend the rights of people under the US Constitution. If the ACLU WAS in this business we would see more cases (perhaps even a single case???) of them defending the 2nd Ammendment. But the ACLU is NOT in the business of defending our rights, they are extremist liberals in the business of defending their own views of what the US should be. P.S. do you honestly expect to be taken seriously when you use a fictitious character spouting a one liner from a movie as validation of your point?
Post a Comment