Recently in Election '08 Category

As you pointed out, Jay, earlier this week the Democrats handed Rush Limbaugh a major victory: they made him relevant again.  Of course, President Obama's comment to the Republicans about not "listening" to Limbaugh was supposed to be ironic, as in, this is the wing of your party that is really out to lunch.  The DCCC "petition" is just one more fundraising gimmick--and a bad one at that.  I'm sure that Limbaugh will be converting to the Democratic Party if just a few million people tell him they are upset with him.  (And, oh yes, a pig just flew by my window.)

The broader point you attempt to make is that this is all prelude to some Democratic plot to quell right-wing talk radio.  And you invoke the dreaded "Fairness Doctrine."  During the time the "doctrine" was in place, it had very little positive effect and zero negative effect.  Here's what it was and wasn't.  It was not an "equal time" rule, requiring a balanced coverage of all issues by each show.  Indeed, it didn't even cover specific shows, including shows by, say, Jay Sekulow or Barry Lynn (or that Limbaugh fellow).  It was designed to push local radio and television stations to present alternative views where an issue had become a local matter of controversy.  It was crafted under the unremarkable theory that since the electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource and it was "sold" to certain people in the form of licenses to broadcast on specific frequencies, owners had some modicum of responsibility to serve the needs of a broadcast area. 

The Fairness Doctrine, in its entire history, was only partly responsible for two broadcasters' failure to renew their licenses. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine, and not even the ACLU saw it as a First Amendment problem.

 
And by the way, Obama said he doesn't even support the Fairness Doctrine.

 

I'm not as excited as some of you may be about all the inaugural activities.  Maybe it is because of that tad bit of "realistic cynicism" that hits us here in Washington after a while.  Having said that, yesterday's concert at the Lincoln Memorial was an overall delight (poor Marisa Tomei having to quote from the fraudulent promise of Ronald Reagan's first inauguration notwithstanding).

Two actions though stood out above all others.  The Gay Mens Chorus of Washington (although not identified accurately--no "Gay"-- by HBO in its broadcast) was a brilliant addition to the singing by Josh Groban and Heather Headly.  And then the capper, was not just having Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen sing "This Land Is Your Land".  They sang it complete with the rarely performed verse "I came to a sign that said 'Private Property', but on the other side it didn't say nothing.  That side was made for you and me!"  The ideas of fullblown American integration of the GLBT community and an actual redistribution of wealth at an official inaugural event was a priceless reminder of the diversity of opinion and the radical views about economics that have always been a part of the American conversation.  I know that when these ideas are even articulated, some conservatives go ballistic.  It was probably best on Sunday if those folks were just watching football.

P.S. I loved Marisa Tomei in The Wrestler, and I have nothing against football.

I realize, Jay, you are eager to draw me into this case because your side is likely to win. My position has been consistent: Michael Newdow and all of the other plaintiffs in this suit are right on principle, but that doesn't mean the court will agree with them.

Public events like presidential inaugurations, gubernatorial swearings-in and even city council meetings should be open to all. Everyone should feel welcome at these gatherings. When we include sectarian prayer at such events, we send the message that some believers are more welcome, even that they are better citizens. (Don't bother arguing that exclusion of prayers is hostility toward religion, Jay. Anyone is free to pray on their own at any time during these events. It's the government sponsorship I object to, not the praying.)

Having said that, I accept that legal challenges like this are not likely to succeed in the current judicial climate. Dr. Newdow brought a similar case in 2004 that was not successful. I failed to see the point in bringing another (which is why AU did not join the case), but I do believe his filing brought a lot of important historical information to light.

Prayers at inaugurals are an on again, off again phenomenon.  The Constitution's version of the Presidential oath does not end "so help me God." I had hoped that Barack Obama would have dropped both of these practices, but he did not.  (It only adds a problem that Rick Warren is the first voice we'll hear at the inaugural. I certainly don't anticipate that he will give some homophobic prayer, but we know him already by his acts against same-sex marriage.)

In this case, you claim to be standing up for religious freedom. What you are actually standing up for is a brief prayer recited in a pro forma manner as part of day-long celebration to mark the instillation of a secular ruler of an officially secular nation. You are standing up for the coupling of religion and state in a highly symbolic and ritualized manner. Is this a real prayer with a real religious message or just a by-rote exercise that is included because everyone expects it to be?

In the Book of Matthew, Jesus warned against such ostentatious public prayers. It's better to pray alone in your closet, he said. Jay, you have argued for the right to pray in public on behalf of the government because it is "traditional." Notwithstanding the evidence, that is not even the issue. If a "tradition" (of whatever genesis or duration) is non-inclusive and demonstrates an official preference for one religion over others or religion in general over secularism it is wrong.  Plain wrong.

We obviously disagree fundamentally about the role of the courts in dealing with issues where fundamental rights (like marriage and equal protection) are at stake.  The "will" of the voters does not trump such rights and the courts exist to uphold them against just such a tyranny of the majority.

I'm also afraid, Jay, that in the big scheme of things, it is worse to construct a theological justification, or at least an apologia, for treating GLBT Americans as second class legal citizens than it is to interrupt a church service by showing up in pink underwear (which apparently occurred once in the past month). You know I don't condone disruptive activity.  However, the breath exhausted on condemning this by the Religious Right would have been better expended doing almost anything else, perhaps even having the constructive dialogues many Christians apparently need to have on GLBT issues.

On the legal front, there is a completely legitimate call for an inquiry into whether churches that did expend resources, as they are entitled to do, on passing Proposition 8 accurately reported those expenditures under state law. The group Californians Against Hate has filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission which I believe is thoroughly appropriate, as does the New York Times.

Just like there needed to be a national effort against partisan politicking from the pulpit, perhaps there needs to be a parallel campaign demanding accountability and transparency on initiative funding. Treating all who get involved in these initiatives with the same scrutiny would not interfere with any legitimate "free exercise of religion" claim.  You can't be against such equal treatement, can you?

Barry, contested issues of public policy, such as the definition of marriage, should be settled at the ballot box, not through violence or the actions of activist judges. It is unfortunate that you would try to link the defense of traditional marriage with isolated acts of violence, just as it is unfortunate that some opponents of Proposition 8 resorted to interrupting church services, threatening houses of worship, and mob violence after the vote occurred.

 

The fact is that the wide-ranging majority of Californians and other Americans who support traditional marriage do so for a variety of sound reasons. It is not "homophobia" to believe that marriage should remain, as it has since time immemorial, a union between one man and one woman, nor is it distasteful to interpret the Bible as supportive of this view. Many different segments of California's diverse population supported Proposition 8, not just white evangelicals. Exit polls showed that about 70 percent of blacks and a majority of Latinos voted in favor of traditional marriage.

 

Regarding the legal challenges filed by opponents of Proposition 8, this is yet another example of a court being asked to improperly usurp the will of the people. The voters of California have spoken clearly on this issue on two different occasions (the California Supreme Court invalidated a voter-approved traditional definition of marriage earlier this year). The people of California, like the people of countless other states that have been presented with the issue, unequivocally reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage, and that decision should not be overturned by an activist judiciary.

 

As we pointed out in a letter filed with the California Supreme Court, all perceived doubts regarding Proposition 8 must be resolved in favor of upholding it. "As Thomas Jefferson famously stated, 'I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.'" We also explained that "Proposition 8 does not create far reaching, sweeping, or profound changes in the state's constitutional scheme. Rather, it merely clarifies the definition of a single right recognized in the California Constitution. As such, Proposition 8 does not rise to the level of a constitutional revision."

 

In short, the case is about what "marriage" is, not about whether an individual is denied the ability to enter a "marriage." All adults in California equally enjoy the fundamental right to enter a marriage, i.e., a union between one man and one woman, and no person holds a right to enter any other form of relationship and call it "marriage."

 

Barry, the bottom line here is that the people have spoken after a high-profile, vibrant debate and the California Supreme Court should not overturn their decision.

Before I suggest that readers take a look at a more detailed post-election document, I wanted to note something about your last post.  If prayer is to be taken seriously, we have to know what the praying is for.  I'm...

With the history-making election of our first African-American president, Barack Obama begins an important transition time leading up to the inauguration in January.  He will face many challenges - a faltering economy, the need to protect our great nation from...

Barry, you're right about the volume of election predictions.  Everyone has a prediction and while your pre-election analysis is interesting, the fact is that anything can happen in this election.   There is one thing that you don't need a...

The blogosphere is filled with them: predictions about the outcome of Tuesday's election.  Although a Google search indicates there are even ones made by monkeys, a quick examination of the first few hits indicates this could be a put on....

Barry, the examples you cited show precisely why the IRS gag rule should be repealed. When the IRS investigates pro-life churches who speak out in defense of the unborn during the election season, it has a chilling effect on other...

For the past two years I have been telling my liberal friends, Jay, that the Religious Right is not dead; it is not even sleeping.  I've also been alerting them to the fact that the so-called "new evangelicals" may have...

As noted in my last post, if that school assignment was to draw anything you want (and that's the end of the story), then you were right to intervene.  I would have done the same if her mother had...

Barry, to address your critique of a McCain supporter's prayer: people of all faiths are entitled to pray as they see fit. There is nothing wrong with wanting our government leaders, who make decisions that have a profound impact on...

                Yes, Jay, there are so many issues that should be discussed in the third debate.  I am not clairvoyant (although given the stock market I am thinking of putting up a psychic hotline and trying to get $2.99 per...

The fact that tonight represents the final debate between Senators McCain and Obama at Hofstra University on Long Island also marks the final opportunity for these two candidates to address - in a debate format - key issues that have...

I'm glad that Michelle Obama wasn't too offended, but I still think she had every right to be after Senator McCain's "that one" comment.Of course, the candidates should address both constitutional law and future Supreme Court nominees at the final...

While Senator McCain's comment that you referred to wasn't the best phrase he could have selected, Michelle Obama has said she was not offended by it, and it should not divert attention away from discussion of the real issues.  ...

Barry, I am sure you are as disappointed as I am - not one word mentioned in the 90-minute debate about the importance of judicial nominations or the Supreme Court of the United States.  With the election less than a...

Barry, I agree that constitutional issues and the importance of Supreme Court nominations should get more coverage during this Presidential campaign. I would like to see this issue discussed at the debate tonight even if Tom Brokaw does not bring...

Jay, I'm sure you noticed that the major media has noticed that there is a Supreme Court.  This may have something to do with the fact that this, the first Monday in October, is the opening day of the 2008-2009...

Barry, I am sympathetic with the frustration felt by many pastors who try to fully articulate their religious worldviews during the election season while having to censor themselves due to the IRS gag rule. As I have stated before, I...

Well, about 35 pastors, most with the aid of the Alliance Defense Fund, have issued a challenge to the Internal Revenue Service's statutory authority to prohibit preachers from endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit using church resources. For example, the...

Jay, I know you were at the annual Religion Newswriters Conference the other day and may have seen first-hand pollster John Green's startling-to-some news that after all the hyped up effort by Democratic Party officials to go after evangelicals, evangelicals...

Barry, you can stop waiting for answers. It looks like you are just trying to put the worst-possible spin on the Values Voters Summit to detract from the serious issues of importance to evangelicals that were considered there.   I...

There is a belief, widely shared in the Obama camp, that there is a plethora of voters out there who are dying to vote for a Democrat if they can just be convinced that he or she is truly religious. ...

As the Presidential campaigns enter the final seven weeks before the election, it will be interesting to watch how evangelical Christians, Catholics, and other religious voters respond to the outreach efforts of both sides.   The Obama campaign has taken...

I know you are happy about the verdict in the Teen Challenge case.  Frankly, I have never been convinced this case was really about religious discrimination.  It always seemed to me to be one more sad example of the NIMBY...

Senator McCain and Governor Palin should attend the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit this upcoming weekend. The event has featured many well respected speakers in the past including "Sean Hannity, Tony Snow, Dr. Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, Governors Mitt...

Barry, I'm sure you really don't want to go down the 'experience' road with this election.  Sarah Palin has a proven track record of success.  In his address to the Republican National Convention, former New York Mayor and presidential candidate...

No matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat, no one can deny the fact that Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska and now the Republican Nominee for Vice President of the United States, gave a phenomenal speech at...

It is unfortunate that Barry implies that Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and the millions of other Americans who believe that a creator designed human life, are anti-science while those who believe that human life randomly evolved from non-living chemicals...

So, Jay it now seems clear the not only is Governor Sarah Palin historically challenged, but scientifically challenged as well.  A number of my pro-science colleagues have pointed out how "intelligent design" played a role in Palin's gubernatorial campaign...

As I mentioned previously, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, signed a proclamation which declared a week in October 2007 as "Christian Heritage Week" in Alaska. Governor Palin's acknowledgment of our nation's history and heritage is welcomed...

Sen. John McCain is announcing that he has selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential Running Mate. Gov. Palin is now the second female vice-presidential candidate to represent one of the major parties.   Social conservatives are pleased...

OK, this had to happen sometime in the first few weeks.  I have to concede a point to you, Jay.Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito did defend the First Amendment free speech claims of a non-profit in the Wisconsin Right...

Rejecting the idea of a "living Constitution" simply means that a Justice will respect the authority allotted to the legislative and executive branches (and the state governments) by the actual language of the Constitution and will not create new "rights"...

Jay, I am looking for change in the Supreme Court.  At least, I am looking for change away from the ideological beliefs of members like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.  These men seem to think their function is to...

Senator Obama's selection of Senator Joe Biden of Delaware will, undoubtedly, represent a sharp contrast with Senator McCain and his running mate.  As I've mentioned in a previous post, the issue of the direction of the Supreme Court of the...

First, let me assure every reader that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and every other party can do anything they want or nothing at all to formally recognize the religious in their midst.  Second, let me assure you...

Let's me return to the Pew poll one more time.  It is a rich document for the statistically inclined.  I just wanted to reiterate that two thirds of the public does not like pastors, priests and other leaders using their...

The trends that Barry cited are interesting, but the Pew Research poll has other important findings that should be noted:   ·         "Roughly comparable numbers say political leaders express their religious beliefs too much (29%), too little (36%) or the...

Bloggers are now discussing the infamous "cone of silence" problem from Saddleback's Saturday forum. Rick Warren claims that he didn't know that Senator McCain was not even at the church, much less in a hermetically sealed room, at the time...

I want to make a couple observations concerning Barry's recent post on the Saddleback Forum.  First, the concern that I had regarding the content of the questioning was certainly alleviated during the presentation. Throughout the two-hour Saddleback Forum, we learned...

Let's get to the big mistake first: Barack Obama should not have agreed to do this.  If I were the Senator I'd be looking for a time machine this morning and go back to the day I agreed to show...

Rick Warren certainly did not want to share the official limelight with anybody from the religious right to the religious left. So,Jay, I wouldn't worry too much about any conspiratorial cabal of progressives managing the conversation tonight.  (However, I understand...

Barry, I am still waiting for the call to moderate The Saddleback Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion with you.  But alas, no offers.  Look, I think it's absolutely fine for the candidates to appear at Saddleback Church.  If the NAACP offers...

Let me say at the outset, that I am a fan of Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church in California.  His book, The Purpose Driven Life, has encouraged tens of thousands of people, and his ministries have had a global...

Why are we doing this again? Why another "forum" on the spiritual life and political consequences for would-be presidents? This Saturday evening both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama will sit down for separate hour-long chats with mega-preacher Rick Warren,...