So, basically, the foundation of the “wall of separation” is built on racism and religious hatred.

“Modern conservatism is not compatible with a humane egalitarian democracy ( in other words a Jeffersonian democracy) .”

If the theory would have been around in his day, Jefferson would have been as much a Social Darwinist as any one. He believed in the political elite, where those who had the higher intellect and more educated than the masses would naturaly rise above the others and be the ones to serve in political office. He was a huge proponent of self sufficiency with his vision of an agrerian society. And no, I am not calling him a racist or anything like that, but he did believe in the supiriority of the intellectual class, as do Democrats today. Don’t think he would be a big fan of affirmative action or the government welfare apparatus.

OK. Thats going to start a flame war for shure.

Stephen wrote:

“Never mind that ours is a religion-neutral country, and that religion and state are NOT to be mixed. But of course, that’s what the Constitution says.”

Uhm. No. That’s what the court says. This is the EXACT TEXT (it’s right in front of me as I type:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof;…”

It says that the FEDERAL government cannot declare any one religion as being the official religion of the country. There is no ban on spending money on things dealing with religious matters. There is no “wall of separation” clause anywhere to be found in the document. That is an interpretation by one version of the Supreme court, which is only binding as long as the succesive courts adhere to that particular view. The problem we have here is that vital, long term issues such as this are not dealt with in the appropriate fasion, i.e. the constitutional amendment. Instead we throw invectives about while letting the courts decide things of import, instead of truely making a convincing argument for our causes. We’re left with the proposal of frivolous amendments (FMA, flag burning, etc.) that, while popular in some sectors, do not have any real effect on the average citizen. Look at so many of the hot button issues; abortion, gay rights, the Patriot Act. The one thing these have in common is that they all deal with a concept of “right to privacy”, which doesn’t exist in the written text. I wonder how many of these issues would be marginalize, if not resolved, if there was an amendment that specifically declaired that right? .

Hello…hello…hello…
Echo…echo…echo

-Airplane

Meanwhile, Stephen, stand up and fight, rather than running away like a coward. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, you contradict yourself constantly. You bash Bush for spending too much on social welfare, then bash him for cutting social welfare. Same with defense, same with infrastructure, same with everything else. Nothing is consistent in your arguments other than your irrational hatred for Bush.

And don’t EVER invoke the name of Barry Goldwater again as a shield for your hatemongering and bigotry; your moronic rants, driven by ignorance and stereotyping, are the best example of what he OPPOSED, not what he supported.

Just a thought from one human being to another.

Thank you, Stephen (#17) for putting a smile on my face on a hectic Sunday. While I certainly agree that Dale Carpenter is a conservative, Stephen Miller seems a bit more libertarian to me, but Andrew Sullivan is clearly an ex-conservative.

You rant on and on about whatever you rant on about and your words have little to do with the post to which you attach them. It seems your every comment (to whatever post I offer) is the same angry diatribe. You repeat the notion that we’re apologists for the president, yet we have criticized him on occasion. And you insist we’re not conservatives while misrepresenting our arguments.

We do not defend the president “against all reason” as you put it and have faulted him on a number of occasions. And while you insist that no conservative could defend the president, nearly all significant American conservatives today have offered some sort of qualified defense of this good man, yet, like us, also criticize him from time to time. (And a few have been more enthusiastic in their endorsements.)

You claim that if we were true conservatives, “there would be disagreements, but definitely not so much hostility,” yet you fail to acknowledge that we have expressed such disagreement and fail to show the hostility in our posts (while manifesting it in your own unsubstantiated allegations).

Let’s see, I favor smaller government, freedom of association, balanced budgets and freedom for gay and lesbian individuals. Since you contend I don’t support these noble goals, could you please cite posts where I have opposed them?

But, in your diatribes, you don’t cite me (nor my co-blogger), you just attack us and the words you use to accuse us (e.g., spewing vitriol) more accurately describe your comments than our posts.

[Perhaps he expressed himself clearly, but his criticisms have nothing to do with the post to which he comments nor to the opinions of the men who post on this blog. -- Ed.]

But once the religious reich came to dominate the so-called “conservative” party, several things became immediately apparent. First, they have no ties to traditional conservatism. They tend to be as big, if not bigger, spenders as liberals. Second, the rights enshrined in the Constitution became subordinate to the duties prescribed in the Bible. Third, they didn’t give a hoot about economics, free trade, small government, etc. Instead, they wanted their moral agenda imposed on everybody, and that agenda just happens to coincide with the duties prescribed in the Bible. Indeed, historical conservatives like Barry Goldwater publicly denounced the religious reich as being antithetical to everything HE stood for. That’s saying something from perhaps the most conservative politician ever.

There are literally hundreds of examples of this “new” conservative agenda. Terri Schiavo, for example. Cutting aid to PWA. Demand second-class citizenship of GLBT (maybe even deport them to camps). Teach “Intelligent Design” as opposed to Darwinian science. No abortions. No freedom of association. Blur the State/Church dichotomy. Ah, the list is too long.

Now, what does anything in the third paragraph have do to with that in the second? Factually, nothing. These “new”conservatives aren’t the slightest bit conservative, they’re religious zealots, who want “America to return to its Christian roots.” Never mind that many, if not most, of the Framers were NOT even Christian. Never mind that ours is a religion-neutral country, and that religion and state are NOT to be mixed. But of course, that’s what the Constitution says. The Bible apparently tells them otherwise, and so they go with what they know — the Bible. They really don’t want to “return to American values,” which are espoused in the Constitution, they want to make America biblical.

Barry Goldwater, coincidently, was a Christian (Episcopalian to be exact). He was witness to the take-over of the conservative movement by the theocrats and rebuked it vociferously. GWB, on the other hand, is one of THEM. He’s a born-againer, who seriously thinks gawd has called him to duty in the Middle East and elsewhere (see Seymour Hersch’s article in the “New Yorker.” It’s scary.) GWB has his authority from ABOVE that the mess he’s created in Iraq is gawd’s will for the nation. He really thinks he’s on a divine mission! Even WH staff have to walk a fine line not to tread against this personal revelation from gawd.

Which brings me back to you two dudes. IF you were conservatives, i.e., in the mold of Burke, Oakshott, Hayek, Goldwater, etc., there would be disagreements, but definitely not so much hostility. Yes, many looney Left will be hostile no matter what. But if you were genuinely conservative, then I think most people could understand that two queers do prefer smaller government, freedom of association, full rights for GLBT, end of racism, balanced budgets, war only as a last resort, and other such things that conservatives “used” to believe. BUT, GWB, who you defend against all reason, hasn’t shown himself to be a “conservative” of this stripe. Indeed, GWB is the very antithesis of conservatism.

Look at Stephen Miller, Dale Carpenter, Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bawer, etc. These queers are “conservative,” but definitely NOT apologists for GWB. That’s because they are “Goldwater” types of conservative, not theocratic types. Sullivan, for example, is still working out his sexuality and Roman Catholicism to the respect of many people who are neither conservative nor catholic. He also makes the compelling case that GWB is NO conservative. GWB isn’t even close.

So when two gay dudes DEFEND GWB vis-a-vis conservatism, red flags appear everywhere. One CANNOT defend GWB AND be a conservative. It’s an oxymoron. Since A and not-A can’t both be true at the same time (known as the principle of non-contradiction), when you defend GWB, you are showing yourself hostile to conservatism, GLBT, constitutionalism, and reason.

I’d suggest making the point with gays from the far left.