About 60% of eligible men escaped military service during the Vietnam era

About 60% of eligible men escaped military service during the Vietnam era
Upper class liberal Christians such as myself were proud draft dodgers.

Google Search

Google search results

Letter to the blog

"Greetings From the Dr. Bob Jones Institute Think Tank."

"As national director of BJI, it is my duty to inform you and/or your organization that a detailed analysis of your positions regarding the Bible, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and in particular your political positions are not compatible with our own. The Dr. Bob Jones Institute stands for strict morality and a totally Christian Theocratic federal government. These of course are the wishes of Jesus."

"Since you or your organization have been tried and found wanting, we must insist that you disband your website immediately and no longer espouse the none sense "we have found there. Since the election of George W. Bush as our 43rd and BORN AGAIN president, and since as you know Mr. Bush did speak at the Bob Jones University and is close friends with Dr. Bob Jones III, BJI hopes you will agree it would be wise for you to obey God's will and to do so promptly."

Sincerely,

Michael C. Kelley

Our Kind

Our Kind
We are the educated elite. We are secular humanists.
WASP > JEW

"Toto, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore"

"God has no religion" - Gandhi

The One

The One

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP, the smartest man in the world.

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP, the smartest man in the world.
I will be your pastor today.

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP
Proud Vietnam Draft Dodger

Can I be a Chickenhawk Too?

Can I Be a Chickenhawk Too? You sure can! If you never served in the military, but you go around mouthing off, supporting the war, beating the drum, and advocating that we send Democratic kids off to kill Iraqi kids so that Republican kids can become billionaires, you're a junior chickenhawk!

Brave New World

Brave New World
Only I, Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP can guide you to happiness. Throw off your Jesus shackles and follow me, for only I can lead you to happiness. Tut tut, my good man.

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP has an Rx for you.

"Under the wise leadership of president Obama, two thousand pharmacologists and bio-chemists were subsidized. Six years later it was being produced commercially. The perfect drug. Euphoric, narcotic, pleasantly hallucinant. All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects. Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or a mythology. Stability was practically assured."
ALDOUS HUXLEY ( Brave New World )

"Who lives longer? the man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or a man who lives on roast beef, water and potatoes 'till 95? One passes his 24 months in eternity. All the years of the beefeater are lived only in time."
Aldous Huxley

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP says,

Drawing life to a close with a transcendentally orgasmic bang, and not a pathetic and god-forsaken whimper, can turn dying into the culmination of one's existence rather than its present messy and protracted anti-climax.

There is another good reason to finish life on a high note. In a predominantly secular society, adopting a hedonisticdeath-style is much more responsible from an ethical utilitarian perspective. For it promises to spare friends and relations the miseries of vicarious suffering and distress they are liable to undergo at present as they witness one's decline.

A few generations hence, the elimination of primitive evolutionary holdovers such as the ageing process andsuffering will make the hedonistic death advocated here redundant. In the meanwhile, one is conceived in pleasure and may reasonably hope to die in it.

Liberal Christians


Also sometimes referred to as secular, modern, or humanistic. This is an umbrella term for Protestant denominations, or churches within denominations, that view the Bible as the witness of God rather than the word of God, to be interpreted in its historical context through critical analysis. Examples include some churches within Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church of Christ. There are more than 2,000 Protestant denominations offering a wide range of beliefs from extremely liberal to mainline to ultra-conservative and those that include characteristics on both ends.

Belief in Deity
Trinity of the Father (God), the Son (Christ), and the Holy Spirit that comprises one God Almighty. Many believe God is incorporeal.

Incarnations
Beliefs vary from the literal to the symbolic belief in Jesus Christ as God's incarnation. Some believe we are all sons and daughters of God and that Christ was exemplary, but not God.

Origin of Universe and Life
The Bible's account is symbolic. God created and controls the processes that account for the universe and life (e.g. evolution), as continually revealed by modern science.

After Death
Goodness will somehow be rewarded and evil punished after death, but what is most important is how you show your faith and conduct your life on earth.

Why Evil?
Most do not believe that humanity inherited original sin from Adam and Eve or that Satan actually exists. Most believe that God is good and made people inherently good, but also with free will and imperfect nature, which leads some to immoral behavior.

Salvation
Various beliefs: Some believe all will go to heaven, as God is loving and forgiving. Others believe salvation lies in doing good works and no harm to others, regardless of faith. Some believe baptism is important. Some believe the concept of salvation after death is symbolic or nonexistent.

Undeserved Suffering
Most Liberal Christians do not believe that Satan causes suffering. Some believe suffering is part of God's plan, will, or design, even if we don't immediately understand it. Some don't believe in any spiritual reasons for suffering, and most take a humanistic approach to helping those in need.

Contemporary Issues
Most churches teach that abortion is morally wrong, but many ultimately support a woman's right to choose, usually accompanied by policies to provide counseling on alternatives. Many are accepting of homosexuality and gay rights.



Saturday, April 16, 2005

George W. Bush Elected Pope! Catholic Cardinal's Stunned!

The almost 120 Cardinals from around the world that gathered to choose a successor in the Vatican's Sistine Chapel were stunned and expressed amazement.
Cardinal Mohoney the Vatican spokesperson had this to say, "We in the conclave are all shocked. We cast our vote's using these new electronic voting machines.The results overwhelmingly favored George W. Bush over all the Catholic candidates. The last Pope, John Paul, was a superb linguist, fluently speaking 11 languages, this one can't speak fluently in one language. We just don't know what to say."

The White House has announced that Dick Cheney will assume command as President of the world tomorrow morning, when "W' travels to Rome to begin his duties as Pope.

George W. Bush had this to say moments ago as he spoke from the Rose Garden,
"I am honored to be the spiritual lighthouse, and the first War Pope.
I promise Evangelical Catho-licks and Prostates alike that I will be embodied in salvation and fair in the performance of my duties.
I am a Unitifier, not a Divide-a-cater.
I am obliged to try to save as many lost souls as I can, at least the
Devout Wealthy Elite Souls, as it is well known that Heaven is a very select place, indeed, it is more exclusive than even the best of country clubs.
It is a members only Heaven.
I may have to put a fence around it.

I will preform miracles in a fair and balanced manner.
Just as God used to wipe out entire races of people without warning, burning whole towns of perverts, killing off an entire nations, and drowning everybody without a ticket to board Noah's Ark,
I shall deliver the world from Evil Empires as I unleash the Apocalypse Wrath of Revelations.
I will ensure the Rapture and the Reunion with our beloved deceased family members and with our departed purebred pets.
I will not allow those awful Liberal Sissy Homosapiens to marry each other and I will put and end to the Clergy marrying Choirboys.

I will lead the Crusades against all them towel-headed heathens, demon-possessed voodoo-hoodoo barbarians who's Pseudo-religions that don't except Christ as the Light of Democracy, and who worship fake, made-up gods. They shall suffer my Godly Conservative Wrath and I will Destroy them with my Cherubic Armies of Angels and they shall burn for eternity in Hell, because Me and God don't take no prisoners!

Remember, it is written in the Gospel of Luke, or.... maybe it's Larry, ugh, 12, ugh,5 or something, that Jesus told us we are to live our lives in FEAR of God and the Terrorists, for God and the Terrorists have the power not only to kill us, but to torture us forever in Hell.

And to you Non Believers and Democrats, I say,
I can't wait to see you burn in Hell, I mean it.....I can't wait!!!"

Mike Whitney: 'The economic tsunami, just months away'
Date: Friday, April 08 @ 10:15:37 EDT
Topic: Economic Policy

By Mike Whitney
"If the world's central bankers accumulate fewer dollars, the result would be an unrelenting American need to borrow in the face of an ever weaker dollar - a recipe for higher interest rates and higher prices. The economic repercussions could unfold gradually, resulting in a long, slow decline in living standards. Or there could be a quick unraveling, with the hallmarks of an uncontrolled fiscal crisis."
-- New York Times editorial
I know, from reading the comments on this web site, that many Smirking Chimp readers believe as I do, that the economic tsunami planned by the Bush administration is probably only months away. Many of us have watched helplessly as the national debt has increased 3 trillion dollars while the dollar has continued its predictable decline. At present, the dollar has fallen a whopping 38% since Bush took office, due entirely to the massive $450 billion tax cuts Bush gave away to his constituents. At the same time, myriad laws have been passed (Patriot Act, Intelligence Reform Bill, Homeland Security Bill, National ID, Passport requirements etc) anticipating the need for greater repression when the economy takes its inevitable nosedive. Regrettably, that nosedive looks to be coming sooner rather than later.

The administration is currently putting as much pressure as possible on OPEC to ratchet up the flow of oil another 1 million barrels per day (well over capacity) to settle down nervous markets and buy time for the planned bombing of Iran in June.



Like Greenspan's artificially low interest rates, the manipulation of oil production is a way of concealing how dire the situation really is. Rising prices at the pump signal an upcoming recession, (depression?) so the administration is pulling out all the stops to meet the short term demand and maintain the illusion that things are still okay. (Bush would rather avoid massive popular unrest until his battle-plans for Iran are carried out)

But, of course, things are not okay. The country has been intentionally plundered and will eventually wind up in the hands of its creditors as Bush advisors planned from the very beginning. Those who don't believe this should note the methodical way that the deficits have been produced at (around) $450 billion per year; a systematic and orderly siphoning off of the nation's future. The value of the dollar and the increasing national debt follow exactly the same (deliberate) downward trajectory.

This same Ponzi scheme has been carried out repeatedly by the IMF and World Bank; Argentina being the last dramatic illustration. (Argentina's economic collapse occurred when its trade deficit was running at 4%; right now ours is at an unprecedented 6%.) Bankruptcy is a fairly straight forward way of delivering valuable public assets and resources to collaborative industries, and of annihilating national sovereignty. After a nation is successfully driven into destitution, public policy decisions are made by the creditors and not by representatives of the people. (Enter, Paul Wolfowitz)

Did Americans really believe they could avoid a similar fate?

If so, they'd better forget about it, because the hammer is about to come down Big-time, and the collateral damage will be huge.

The Bush administration is mainly comprised of internationalists. That doesn't mean that they "hate America"; simply that they are committed to bringing America into line with the "new world order" and an economic regime that has been approved by corporate and financial elites alike. Their patriotism extends no further than the garish tri-colored flag on their lapel. The catastrophe that middle class Americans face is what these elites breezily refer to as "shock therapy"; a sudden jolt, followed by fundamental changes to the system. We can expect tax reform, fiscal discipline, deregulation, free capital flows, lowered tariffs, reduced public services, and privatization. In other words, a society entirely "of, by, and for" corporations.

There are a number of signs that the economy is close to meltdown-stage. Even with cheap energy, low interest rates and $450 billion in borrowed revenue pumped into the system each year, things have still been in a virtual holding pattern. This has a lot to due with the massive shifting of wealth to the richest Americans. Supply-side, trickle-down theories have been widely discredited and Bush's tax cuts have done nothing to stimulate the economy as promised. Now, with oil tilting towards $60 per barrel, things are changing quickly, and the shock-waves should be felt throughout the country in very short order.

The Iraq war has contributed considerably to our current dilemma. The conflict has taken nearly one million barrels of Iraqi oil per day off line. In other words, the astronomical prices at the pump are the direct result of Bush's war. The media has failed to report on the negative affects on oil production, just as they have concealed the incredibly successful insurgent strategy of destroying pipelines. This isn't a storyline that plays well to the American public, who expected that Iraq would be paying for its own reconstruction by now. Instead, the resistance is striking back at the empire's Achilles heel (America's need for massive amounts of cheap oil) and its having a dramatic affect on the US economy.

Just as the economy cannot float along with a sharp increase in oil prices, so too, Bush's profligate deficits threaten the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. This is much more serious than a simple decline in the value of the dollar. If the major oil producers convert from the dollar to the euro, the American economy will sink almost overnight. If oil is traded in euros then central banks around the world would be compelled to follow and America will be required to pay off its enormous $8 trillion debt. That, of course, would be doomsday for the American economy, and the administration would do whatever is in its power to avoid that scenario. But, already a recent report indicates that two-thirds of the world's 65 central banks have "begun to move from dollars to euros." The Bush plan to savage the dollar has been telegraphed around the world and there's only one thing that the administration can do to insure that energy traders keep trading in dollars....control the flow of oil. That means that an attack on Iran is nearly a certainty.

The difficulties facing both the dollar and the economy are not insurmountable. The world has shown an unbelievable willingness to compensate for America's wasteful spending as long as America shows itself to be a responsible steward of the global economy. However, the military and economic recklessness suggests that some of the key players on the world stage (particularly Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Germany, France, China, Brazil) are collaborating on an alternate plan; a contingency plan. If Iran is bombed in an unprovoked act of aggression, we will certainly see this plan activated. The most likely scenario would be a quick switch to the euro that would have grave implications for the American economy. For Iran, the attack would justify arming disparate terrorist organizations with the weaponry they need to attack American and Israeli interests wherever they may be. In any event, the attack will confirm for everyone that we are engaged in a new world war; a conflict for global domination.

Tough Years Ahead

The neoliberal chickens have come home to roost. America has become the latest and grandest experiment for the eccentric economic policies of the Washington Consensus. The architects of this maniacal plan are expecting to bankrupt the nation and precipitate a seismic (and irreversible) shift in the fortunes of middle class Americans. The overwhelming accumulation of public debt coupled with a one-party political system (that controls the voting machinery) ensures that we are facing years of collective struggle ahead. If there's a quick fix, I have no idea what it might be.

Friday, April 15, 2005

Frist is Insane

Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, April 14 - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Dr. Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on judicial appointments. In the past he has consistently balanced a determination "not to yield" on the president's nominees with appeals to the Democrats for compromise. He has distanced himself from the statements of others like the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who have attacked the courts, saying they are too liberal, "run amok" or are hostile to Christianity.

The telecast, however, will put Dr. Frist in a very different context. Asked about Dr. Frist's participation in an event describing the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, did not answer the question directly.

"Senator Frist is doing everything he can to ensure judicial nominees are treated fairly and that every senator has the opportunity to give the president their advice and consent through an up or down vote," Mr. Stevenson said, adding, "He has spoken to groups all across the nation to press that point, and as long as a minority of Democrats continue to block a vote, he will continue to do so."

Some of the nation's most influential evangelical Protestants are participating in the teleconference in Louisville, including Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate figure and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; and Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The event is taking place as Democrats and Republicans alike are escalating their public relations campaigns in anticipation of an imminent confrontation. The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees by preventing Republicans from gaining the 60 votes needed to close debate, using the filibuster tactic often used by political minorities and most notoriously employed by opponents of civil rights.

Dr. Frist has threatened that the Republican majority might change the rules to require only a majority vote on nominees, and Democrats have vowed to bring Senate business to a standstill if he does.

On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.

"By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said.

On Thursday the Judiciary Committee sent the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith for an appellate court post to the Senate floor. Democrats say they do not intend to block Mr. Griffith's nomination.

That cleared the way for the committee to approve several previously blocked judicial appointees in the next two weeks.

The telecast also signals an escalation of the campaign for the rule change by Christian conservatives who see the current court battle as the climax of a 30-year culture war, a chance to reverse decades of legal decisions about abortion, religion in public life, gay rights and marriage.

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, wrote in a message on the group's Web site. "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

Democrats accused Dr. Frist of exploiting religious faith for political ends by joining the telecast. "No party has a monopoly on faith, and for Senator Frist to participate in this kind of telecast just throws more oil on the partisan flames," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

But Mr. Perkins stood by the characterization of Democrats as hostile to faith. "What they have done is, they have targeted people for reasons of their faith or moral position," he said, referring to Democratic criticisms of nominees over their views of cases about abortion rights or public religious expressions.

"The issue of the judiciary is really something that has been veiled by this 'judicial mystique' so our folks don't really understand it, but they are beginning to connect the dots," Mr. Perkins said in an interview, reciting a string of court decisions about prayer or displays of religion.

"They were all brought about by the courts," he said.

Democrats, for their part, are already stepping up their efforts to link Dr. Frist and the rule change with conservatives statements about unaccountable judges hostile to faith.

On Thursday, Mr. Schumer released an open letter calling on Dr. Frist to denounce such attacks. "The last thing we need is inflammatory rhetoric which on its face encourages violence against judges," he wrote.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Radio Host Fired For Wondering If Pope Went To Heaven

PITTSBURGH -- An evangelical Christian talk show host who questioned the beliefs of the Catholic church and entertained a caller's question about whether the late Pope John Paul II would go to heaven has been fired.

Marty Minto, 39, a senior pastor at a New Castle church, was fired Friday after three years as a host on WORD-FM in Pittsburgh. He said he was told that he was alienating listeners.

"As far as I'm concerned, I was doing what I've always done on the radio -- look at events around the world from a biblical perspective. I've always been willing to talk about controversial subjects," said Minto, who has had shows in Albany, N.Y., Denver and Phoenix.

Last week, Minto questioned some of the Catholic church's beliefs, such as purgatory, and fielded a question from a caller who asked whether the pope would go to heaven. Many evangelical Christians believe that someone must be a "born-again" believer to enter heaven.

Minto, who is also senior pastor of the 100-member Turning Point Community Church, said he told the caller that whether someone was born-again was personal and "between an individual and the Creator."

Chuck Gratner, general manager of WORD-FM, didn't dispute Minto's description and said he was let go because of differences in how he conducted his show.

"WORD-FM needs to function in this city in support of the entire church -- that means everybody -- and not focus on denominational issues," Gratner said.

Scalia sodomizes his wife?

WHEN U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (above) spoke Tuesday night at NYU's Vanderbilt Hall, "The room was packed with some 300 students and there were many protesters outside because of Scalia's vitriolic dissent last year in the case that overturned the Texas law against gay sex," our source reports. "One gay student asked whether government had any business enacting and enforcing laws against consensual sodomy. Following Scalia's answer, the student asked a follow-up: 'Do you sodomize your wife?' The audience was shocked, especially since Mrs. Scalia [Maureen] was in attendance. The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer."

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Bill: Gay GOPer
'self-loathing'

BY AUSTIN FENNER
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, April 12th, 2005

Former President Bill Clinton wasn't about to let just anybody attack his wife - especially a gay Republican operative.

Clinton fired back yesterday, suggesting that political consultant Arthur Finkelstein, who has launched a "Stop Her Now" campaign, is suffering from "self-loathing."

Finkelstein married his male partner in a civil ceremony in Massachusetts in December, with a few of his conservative clients at the nuptial.

"... He went to Massachusetts and married his longtime male partner and then he comes back here and announces this," Clinton said at a Harlem news conference.

"I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious, and is totally Machiavellian in his position, or there's some sort of self-loathing there. I was more sad for him."

His decision to bring up Finkelstein's sexuality hearkened back to a similar remark made by John Kerry in an Oct. 13, 2004, presidential debate.

In responding to a question whether homosexuality was a matter of choice, Kerry said, "I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Finkelstein did not return calls for comment.

Republicans believe that if Hillary Clinton can be defeated in her Senate reelection efforts in 2006, it would kill her chances of running for the presidency in 2008.

Her husband appeared in Harlem to announce a $10 million initiative aimed at eradicating HIV/AIDS among children in Africa

Monday, April 11, 2005

Here comes the Scalias

The religious right may have lost its battle over Terri Schiavo, but its war against "liberal judges" has just begun.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo

April 11, 2005 | The day after Terri Schiavo died, Gallup pollsters began calling Americans to ask them how various national figures had acquitted themselves in the operatic debate over whether to remove the terminally ill woman's feeding tube. The results seem to provide a simple outline of American opinion on the matter. In short, Americans think the Schiavo case was none of their business. The poll, like all other polls on the case, shows that Americans, by an overwhelming majority, don't think it was the president's or Congress' business, either. Asked what issues matter to them, Americans said pretty much the same thing they've been saying for months -- terrorism, healthcare costs, gas prices and the state of the economy. "Changes to how the federal courts handle moral issues" is an issue deemed "extremely important" by only 20 percent of the nation.

Here's the troubling thing: That 20 percent is running the country, and they're now pressing for such changes in the way the courts decide cases. While most Americans are apparently indifferent to the long-term implications of the Schiavo case, many religious conservatives see it as having lasting political utility. Its most important outcome, they say, is in highlighting an unsettling flaw in American governance. They call this flaw "judicial tyranny," though most of the rest of us know it by a friendlier name, "checks and balances."

For the politicians representing this minority -- which is to say, leaders in the House and Senate, if not the president himself -- the Schiavo case presents an opportunity to stem what conservatives frequently call an "out-of-control" judiciary. By "out of control," they mean out of their control; in the Schiavo case, after all, we saw two branches of the federal government succumb to the will of this savvy minority, while a third branch remained determinedly out of reach. Now that third branch is under attack. It is far from clear that the judiciary will survive unscathed.

Conservative legal scholars concede that the Schiavo case does not rank as history's most egregious instances of "judicial activism." Supreme Court decisions on church-state divisions, the death penalty, gay rights and, of course, abortion are still more deeply hated. But the case, with its emotional appeal and saturation media coverage, has clearly juiced the troops at an opportune moment -- just in time for an expected Supreme Court vacancy and for a Senate debate over a Republican plan (aka the "nuclear option") to prevent Democrats from filibustering judicial nominations.

Confronting "judicial tyranny" is now "the great battle of our time," Gary Bauer, the former presidential candidate, wrote in his daily e-mail newsletter a few days after Schiavo died. James Dobson, the influential evangelical leader and founder of the ministry group Focus on the Family, unleashed a 5,000-word attack on the judiciary in the April issue of his Action Newsletter. Dobson writes that "although many fine men and women serve on the bench," their decisions on moral issues illustrate "the heady abuse of power that is all too common among independent fiefdoms known as judges. They rule like royal monarchs. And sitting on the top of the pyramid is the U.S. Supreme Court, which threatens the liberty that was purchased with the blood of countless men and women who died to secure it."

These attacks are tame in comparison to the pugilism of Texas politicians. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay reacted to Schiavo's death by declaring that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior"; he made it clear that the responsible men he was talking about were judges. Meanwhile, Republican John Cornyn of Texas, in a speech on the Senate floor last week, suggested that outrage over so-called judicial activism might lead "to the point where some people engage in violence" against judges. (He later backpedaled.)

As Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick pointed out, this new conservative line against the judiciary is broader than previous right-wing attacks on judges. Conservatives are now criticizing all federal judges, not just "liberal" judges. More precisely, many are upset with the very idea that judges act as a check on the other branches of government. The Supreme Court may be stacked with Republican nominees, and it may have handed the presidency to a Republican candidate who lost the popular vote, but that doesn't matter to Dobson. He still believes that Justice Anthony Kennedy is "the most dangerous man in America," and that stopping judicial tyranny is urgent.

Kennedy was nominated to the court by Ronald Reagan. Other than in a few big cases involving gay rights, abortion and, most recently, the death penalty, Kennedy has mostly sided with conservatives on the court. For the religious right, though, "mostly" is not good enough. Religious conservatives want judges that never waver, which is why groups like Dobson's support efforts that would both radicalize the courts as well as reduce their authority.

It isn't clear how far these efforts will go. Passage of the nuclear option -- which would leave Senate Democrats with virtually no say on who gets on the courts -- looks possible, but not guaranteed. Various other Republican efforts to strip judges of their authority in specific kinds of cases look rather unlikely to pass, as do plans to impose term limits or other curbs on judges' tenure. What matters, though, is that in the wake of Schiavo, the right is fully committed to its battle on the federal judiciary.

Cass Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, stresses that Republicans have already succeeded in their efforts to remake the judiciary. In the past 30 years under Republican presidents, the federal courts have become strikingly more conservative. No current Supreme Court justices are as liberal as some we've had in the past -- as Earl Warren, or Thurgood Marshall, or William Brennan. Yet at the same time we have more extremely conservative judges -- like Antonin Scalia, or Clarence Thomas -- than we've ever had. These judges, who favor an interpretation of the Constitution that allows no room for changing times, envision a judiciary that is less interventionist than the kind of third branch that liberals would demand.

"The real danger is not Tom DeLay talking recklessly," Sunstein says. The Schiavo case presages something scarier -- the continuing "massive transformation of the federal judiciary."

To many observers, it isn't immediately clear how the state and federal court rulings in the Schiavo case might be construed as "judicial activism." Over the years, court decisions that have most rankled the right are those in which -- to quote various conservatives, including George W. Bush -- judges "legislate from the bench," finding new rights (such as a right to privacy, or a right to gay marriage) in old texts. The Schiavo case involved no apparent legislating from the bench. As Vikram Amar, a constitutional law professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law, notes, "The term 'activist' ceases to have any coherent meaning if it's applied to judges who stay out of things. Maybe you can call it a slothful judiciary, but not activist."

Schiavo's case would never have made it to the federal courts had it not been for Congress and the White House, which, under heavy pressure from religious conservatives, intervened during the weekend after Schiavo's feeding tube was removed on March 18. Republicans in the Senate and the House -- with little opposition from Democrats -- rammed through a strange law that applied only to Schiavo's parents. The bill, referred to by many as "Terri's Law II" (the first "Terri's Law" was enacted in Florida in 2003), directed the federal courts to hear Schiavo's parents' plea to reinsert the feeding tube.

Conservative legal scholars admit that it's difficult to label the courts' decision to stay out of the case as an instance of judicial activism. But they still insist that the courts acted unfairly in the Schiavo case. They say that the courts should have examined the fundamental issues of fact in the Schiavo affair, such as whether she was indeed in a persistent vegetative state, or whether she'd ever told her husband that she wouldn't want to be kept alive on a feeding tube. Federal judges didn't think so and instead focused their review on matters of law, such as whether Schiavo's constitutional rights to due process and religious freedom had been violated by the Florida courts. They also debated whether Terri's Law II was constitutional in the first place. Ultimately, they decided that if the Schiavo case went to trial, the court was unlikely to find that her rights and freedoms had been violated. So they rejected Terri Schiavo's parents' request to restore her feeding tube.

To conservatives, this is where the judges failed the nation. Their decision, says Jordan Lorence, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund," a group that fights cases of church-state separation across the nation, was based on personal biases rather than the law. "The federal courts blew off Congress. They said, 'We're only going to give superficial, perfunctory review,'" Lorence says. "The judges inserted their personal opinion in the case when they said, 'We think this legislation is improper and unnecessary so we're going to drag our feet on it."

By refusing to review the facts in the case, the courts were "thumbing their nose" at Congress, in DeLay's colorful phrasing. When Congress told federal judges to jump off a cliff to save Terri Schiavo, DeLay and company believe, the judges should have jumped.

When Dobson looks at the federal judiciary, he sees a system that is "far too powerful and is totally out of control." In his newsletter, he implores readers: "Please tell me you understand the danger of this outrageous situation. To put ultimate power in the hands of those who promise to make up their rules as they go along -- or to base them on treaties that were never ratified by Congress -- is a recipe for disaster. Democracy itself hangs in the balance."

Every time the courts subvert the will of Congress and the White House, Dobson considers the judges to have acted in an unprincipled way. It is a mistake to think that Dobson and his cohorts simply want a more conservative federal judiciary. What they actually want is a federal judiciary that, in addition to being conservative, is tremendously more deferential to Congress and the White House, two institutions in which Dobson feels more at home. In Dobson's perfect world, Congress and the president could single-handedly have saved Terri Schiavo; to the extent that the courts played a role, it would have been as a rubber stamp.

It is worth noting that not all conservatives share the idea that the judges in the Schiavo case acted in an unfair manner. Bill Frist, for instance, told reporters last week that he thinks the courts did a good job, even though he disagreed with their decision not to order the reinsertion of her feeding tube. Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, one of the conservative groups taking the lead in pushing for the elimination of the filibuster to block judicial nominees, says that "when we talk about the judiciary going forward, I don't think we're going to cite the Schiavo case as an example of unprincipled judging." Even many religious conservatives -- including Lorence of the ADF -- say that there's only a little bit of judicial activism in this case.

But even if conservative groups are slightly split on the question of whether the decisions in the Schiavo case were technically "legislating from the bench," they mostly share the broader idea that the judiciary represents a grave threat to their governing philosophy, and they recognize the political prize that is the Schiavo case.

The polls may show that most of the country hated what Congress and the White House did in the Schiavo case. But the religious right doesn't believe the polls. Many conservatives told me that they think that if the public were to truly look at the facts in Schiavo's case -- at Schiavo's health, which they say was better than the media portrayed it, and her husband, who they say was worse than the media portrayed him -- Americans would side with religious conservatives.

"You wouldn't believe how many phone calls we received from our supporters," says Michele Combs, a spokeswoman for the Christian Coalition of America. "They were asking us, 'Why didn't they give her a fair trial?' A lot of people are really against judges imposing their own personal opinion on a case, and many people were saying that maybe Judge Greer" -- the Florida circuit judge at the center of this case -- "legislated from the bench because he didn't hear all sides." The case, Combs said, was certain to "energize our base on judicial nominations," a base that, now more than ever, wants to "make certain that judges uphold the law."

To people skeptical of the Republicans' efforts in this case, the Schiavo case looks like a triumph for checks and balances. In several legal reviews of the case over the past half-dozen years, the courts remained true to bedrock principles of law and refused to intervene, even under tremendous political pressure. The system worked. Religious conservatives, though, see it in a different light. To them, the system failed; democracy -- the will of elected lawmakers -- was subverted by unelected judges. As DeLay said in a speech to a conservative conference in Washington last week, the judiciary has "run amok."

Such political attacks on the judiciary are nothing new. "The judiciary has been politicized from the outset," Amar says. The disappointments have spanned the political spectrum. A conservative court frustrated FDR's early New Deal programs, earning the antipathy of Democrats (and prompting his efforts to pack the courts). The court under Chief Justice Earl Warren -- which gave us the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954 and a host of criminal-justice decisions fair to defendants, including Miranda -- riled conservatives. Bowers vs. Hardwick, the 1986 opinion upholding state sodomy laws, upset liberals. Lawrence vs. Texas, the 2003 case that overturned Bowers, upset conservatives. The anger that Democrats felt over Bush vs. Gore might only be eclipsed by the anger Republicans felt over Roe vs. Wade.

What's different about the current period, Amar says, is that the politicians criticizing the court "seem to be more reckless. The House and increasingly the Senate don't just vent and say stuff-- they also go through the motions and try to pass legislation."

Last year the House passed the Marriage Protection Act, which barred federal courts from hearing any claims concerning the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that allows states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. In September, the House passed another bill stripping federal courts of their right to hear cases involving the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

In neither case did the Senate follow suit. Because the Constitution is generally thought to give federal courts the power to review all questions arising under federal law, many observers say such laws would have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But just because these proposals may have been unconstitutional doesn't mean they weren't breathtaking in their reach; they indicate Republicans' deep contempt toward the federal courts, as well as what Amar calls "the absolute lack of sophistication in the way the House of Representatives seems to discuss the courts."

While the House may pass reckless legislation that goes nowhere, the Senate is on a course to institute a radical rule change that would permanently alter the makeup of the federal courts. The Senate, which must confirm every nominee to the federal bench, is currently composed of 55 Republicans and 44 Democrats (there is one independent, Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords). Therefore, on the basis of simple majority vote, Democrats can keep a nominee off the federal bench only by persuading some Republicans to go their way.

During Bush's first term, though, Democrats began filibustering judicial nominees, a virtually unprecedented tactic that required each nominee to win 60, rather than 51, Senate votes in order to make it to the court. Democrats used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's 52 nominees to federal appeals courts; these 10 nominees were opposed largely on ideological grounds, principally because Democrats contended they were too conservative.

Republicans claim that the Democrats' actions were unfair and unconstitutional. Bush routinely says that his judicial nominees deserve an "up or down" vote. In February, he renominated seven of the 10 filibustered judges in order to press the matter. The strategy was designed to prompt an epic showdown in the Senate, a showdown that may come in the next few weeks.

This is how things will go down: If Democrats again attempt to filibuster one of these previously blocked judges -- the first nominee would likely be either Priscilla Owen, who sits on the Texas Supreme Court, or Janice Rogers Brown, of the California Supreme Court -- Republicans are expected to trigger a complex parliamentary maneuver in which they'd vote on permanently eliminating the use of the filibuster for all judicial nominees, including those to the Supreme Court.

When Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott was majority leader, he began calling this proposal the "nuclear option"; wary of the bad message this sends (Republicans don't want to be thought of as the party that annihilated the Senate), they have now begun calling it the "constitutional option." But even by that label it is seen as no less radical a move. If the gambit passes, Republicans will have virtually unchecked power to hand out lifetime appointments to conservative federal judges, completely remaking the third branch of government.

It isn't quite clear just yet if Republicans will launch this effort. In recent days, stung perhaps by criticism over Republicans' actions in the Schiavo case, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has appeared to waver on the issue. Religious conservatives, though, are pressing hard for him to attempt to eliminate the filibuster, and the ones I spoke to were confident that he will indeed go nuclear.

Groups on both sides of this debate are spending millions to win. Liberal organizations say they're putting down at least $5 million to defeat the nuclear option. Their slogan is "Because America Works Best When No One Party Has Absolute Power." They have already begun advertising on television in 18 states (The ads show shots of Jimmy Stewart filibustering in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.") "We've opened up our 2,500-square-foot war room, and we're doing a massive grassroots effort; we've got 75,000 signatures right now," says Ralph Neas, president of the People for the American Way Foundation, one of the leading progressive groups opposed to the Republicans' effort.

A recent Wall Street Journal opinion poll asked respondents whether they thought the Democrats' proper role in Congress should be to "work in a bipartisan way to pass Bush's legislative priorities" or, instead, to "provide a balance so Bush and Republicans don't go too far." By a 2-1 margin, respondents wanted Democrats to make sure that Bush doesn't go too far. As for the filibuster, 50 percent want to keep it, while 40 percent want to see it defeated.

If the Democrats' message is that the filibuster is necessary to check Republican excesses, conservatives say the filibuster must be eliminated in order to check Democratic abuse. More plainly, they say the filibuster on judicial nominees is simply unconstitutional and that it leads to less-than-great judges on the bench. The Constitution doesn't give the Senate the right to defeat a nominee just because it doesn't like the nominee's ideology, conservatives say.

"It really hasn't ever been the case that presidents have to consider a possible filibuster" in picking their nominees, says Rushton of the Committee for Justice. If that were true, some of today's Supreme Court Justices -- for instance, Clarence Thomas -- wouldn't have made it to the court.

If you're a liberal, you may think this is a good thing. But if Clarence Thomas doesn't get on the court, neither does a liberal justice like Brennan. If you require a supermajority for all Supreme Court nominations, you're inevitably relegating yourself to more moderate federal judges -- judges that are neither predictably liberal nor conservative. Did the founding fathers envision that? Do liberals want that? The difference between a filibuster and no filibuster is the difference between a court full of judges with arch views -- whether liberal or conservative -- and a court with nine Anthony Kennedys, one that doesn't toe an especially firm ideological line.

But balance is apparently the last thing that conservatives want. To hear conservatives talk about Kennedy, you'd think there was a special circle of hell reserved for him. Kennedy, who has sided with the liberals in landmark cases involving gay rights, abortion and the death penalty, is an apostate; not only that, his jurisprudence, like Sandra Day O'Connor's, is seen as ad hoc, ever shifting with the times, unmoored by tradition or law. Kennedy is fond of citing the opinions of foreign courts, as well as more mystical concepts of personhood.

In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the 1992 decision that upheld abortion rights, Kennedy declared, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Kennedy's warm and fuzzy approach to the law prompts endless derision from conservatives. And when Republicans get rid of the filibuster, says Rushton, "You will not see Anthony Kennedy-style Zen Buddhism from the bench."

On the other hand, what's wrong with Anthony Kennedy-style Zen Buddhism? Supreme Court justices are enormously powerful, and you get only a few chances, every now and then, to select a new one. These people are going to serve on the court for decades. Wouldn't it be more prudent, says Amar, to choose someone who's neither too far gone on either the left or the right? "If Bush gets three picks he'll lock into place a conservative court for the next 40 years," Amar says. "If the country isn't conservative for all those years" -- if the country, as it is bound to do, shifts in its mores -- "you wouldn't want those conservative judges there." Keeping the filibuster, Amar says, ensures a more moderate court, and there's nothing wrong with moderation for 40 years.

Republicans, who currently enjoy enormous power in two branches of the federal government, believe they can leverage that power into the third branch, while at the same time holding on to the Congress and the White House. None of us knows if this is true. But at least for now, if Republicans overcome the filibuster, they'll enjoy a year or more in which they can pack the courts with conservative judges. Under Bush, in the absence of a filibuster, and spurred by a powerful interest group, they are likely to give us many more judges in precisely that mold.

In theocracy they trust

Christian right leaders denounced separation of church and state and prayed for a judge's deliverance to Satan. And their Capitol Hill allies were right there with them.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michelle Goldberg

April 11, 2005 | According to David Gibbs, the attorney for Terri Schiavo's parents, Terri sobbed in her mother's arms after the courts condemned her to death. "Terri Schiavo was as alive as any person sitting here," he said. "Anything you saw on the videos, multiply times two hundred. I mean completely animated, completely responsive, desperately trying to talk." Schiavo, said Gibbs, would struggle to repeat the word "love" after her mother, and managed to get out something like, "loooo."

Gibbs was speaking to a banquet of religious right activists and conservative operatives last Thursday, the first night of the Confronting the Judicial War on Faith conference in Washington, D.C. The hundred or so people in the audience had converged on the Washington Marriott from 25 states. Many cried as they listened.

"America needs a healing," Gibbs said, and the crowd murmured its assent. "We're sitting here desperately as a nation needing to adopt the heart of God…We're on the eve of a real major decision. Are we going to do it God's way, or are we going to head down the path of whatever these judges think is best? Terri was alive. The courts killed her. The courts killed her in a barbaric fashion. Others are already facing and will face a similar fate if we don't do something."

Conservatives convened at the two-day Confronting the Judicial War on Faith conference to figure out what that something should be. The event was remarkable in bringing together lawmakers and Capitol Hill staffers with unabashed theocrats. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Texas, shared the stage with prominent adherents of Christian Reconstructionism, a Calvinist doctrine that calls for the subordination of American civil law to biblical law.

Other strains of the religious right were represented as well -- Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.'s conservative niece, was there, as was the Catholic anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly. Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court Justice who lost his job after he refused to remove a two-ton granite Ten Commandments monument from his courthouse, received an adulatory welcome. There was Tom Jipping, a counselor to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch who used to work at Concerned Women for America, and Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. All were united by a frantic sense of crisis symbolized by Schiavo, who has become a mythical figure, martyred and quasi-divine, in the stories that percolate through America's evangelical subculture.

Having won control of two branches of the federal government, the activists of the religious right have come to see the courts as the intolerable obstacle thwarting their dream of a reborn Christian nation. They believe in a revisionist history, taught in Christian schools and spread through Christian media, which claims biblical law as the source of the Constitution. Thus any ruling that contradicts their theology seems to them to be de facto unconstitutional, and its enforcement tyrannical.

Some believe that the problem can be rectified by replacing liberal judges with conservative ones. Others, noting that even judges appointed by Republicans often rule against them, have become convinced that they must destroy the federal judiciary itself. Thus, ideas offered at the conference ranged from ending the filibuster and impeaching all but the most right-wing judges to abolishing all federal courts below the Supreme Court altogether. At least one panelist dropped coy hints about murder.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, originally scheduled as the keynote speaker, was called away to Pope John Paul II's funeral, but he delivered a laudatory welcome via video. DeLay accused the judiciary of having "run amok," and said that to rein it in, it would be necessary to "reassert Congress' constitutional authority over the courts." His endorsement was one of many signs that this intense conclave, with all its apocalyptic despair and exhilarated calls for national renewal, represented something more than a frustrated eruption by the febrile fringe. However odd the ideas emanating from the conference seemed to a secularist, they are taken seriously by people with real power in our nation. Indeed, they're taken more seriously than such oft-derided relics like "separation of church and state," which the conferees treated as a devilish heresy.

The Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration is a new coalition whose membership includes major figures in the religious right. Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly and Ray Flynn, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, are among those sitting on its executive committee. During the conference, though, the JCCCR's public face was interim chairman Rick Scarborough, the former pastor of Texas' First Baptist Church of Pearland. Scarborough, a close ally of DeLay, now runs a group called Vision America, which is working to mobilize a network of "patriot pastors" for nationwide political action. He's also the author of a booklet titled "In Defense of…Mixing Church and State." It argues that the belief that the Constitution provides for separation of church and state is "a lie introduced by Satan and fostered by the courts. Unfortunately, it is embraced by the American public to our shame and disgrace, and that lie has led us to the edge of the abyss."

The sense that America is on the cusp of chaos was nearly universal at the conference, leading to calls for a radical restructuring of American government. On panel after panel, speakers -- including Michael Schwartz, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn's chief of staff -- demanded the impeachment of judges who disagree with the doctrine of Antonin Scalia-style strict constructionism. Several asserted the right of the president and Congress to disregard court decisions they think are unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was excoriated with the kind of venom the right once reserved for Hillary Clinton.

On a Friday panel titled Remedies to Judicial Tyranny, a constitutional lawyer named Edwin Vieira discussed Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down that state's anti-sodomy law. Vieira accused Kennedy of relying on "Marxist, Leninist, Satanic principals drawn from foreign law" in his jurisprudence.

What to do about communist judges in thrall to Beelzebub? Vieira said, "Here again I draw on the wisdom of Stalin. We're talking about the greatest political figure of the 20th century…He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty. 'No man, no problem.'"

The audience laughed, and Vieira repeated it. "'No man, no problem.' This is not a structural problem we have. This is a problem of personnel."

As Dana Milbank pointed out on Saturday in the Washington Post, the full Stalin quote is this: "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Milbank suggested that Kennedy would be wise to hire more bodyguards.

Was Vieira calling for assassination? I'm not sure. The conference's rhetoric, though, certainly suggested that judges deserve to reap the horrors they have been ostensibly sown. The affair finished with a rousing speech by recent Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes, who drew enthusiastic applause when he said, "I believe that in our country today the judiciary is the focus of evil."

It is a challenge to know how seriously to take this sort of thing. The world inhabited by most of those at the conference seems so at odds with empirical reality that one expects it to collapse around them. With each new lunacy perpetrated by religious fundamentalists, progressives tell each other than any second the pendulum will swing the other way and some equilibrium will return to our national life. They've been telling each other that for more than four years. But the influence of religious authoritarianism keeps growing.

The Confronting the Judicial War on Faith Conference was not large -- it drew at most 200 people. The speakers and attendees, though, included many of the core figures of the religious right. Even if they fail in their far-reaching plan for eviscerating the judiciary -- and in the near term they almost certainly will -- the Republican Party will try to push through aspects of their agenda. Thus it's worth taking note of exactly whose agenda it is.

One conference speaker was Howard Phillips, the hulking former Nixon staffer who helped midwife the new right. Years ago, Phillips, along with Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich, recruited a little-known Baptist preacher named Jerry Falwell to start the Moral Majority. Though he was raised Jewish, Phillips is now an evangelical Christian who told me he was profoundly influenced by the late R.J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism. "Rushdoony had a tremendous impact on my thinking," Phillips said. As time goes on, he said, Rushdoony's influence is growing.

Christian Reconstructionism calls for a system that is both radically decentralized, with most government functions devolved to the county level, and socially totalitarian. It calls for the death penalty for homosexuals, abortion doctors and women guilty of "unchastity before marriage," among other moral crimes. To be fair, Phillips told me that "just because a crime is capital doesn't mean you must impose the death penalty. It means it's an option." Public humiliation, he said, could sometimes be used instead.

Herb Titus, another Rushdoony follower, also spoke. He was the former dean of the law school at Pat Robertson's Regent University. As Sara Diamond, a scholar of the conservative movement, wrote in her book, Not By Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right: "In the early 1990s, at a time when Robertson was seeking academic accreditation for the law school, Titus was forced to resign when he refused to renounce his belief in Christian Reconstructionism."

Some Republicans might have decided that, in the wake of the Terri Schiavo controversy and the possible public backlash, it wasn't a good idea to be seen in such company. The pope's funeral gave DeLay an excuse not to show up in person, and Republican senators Sam Brownback and Tom Coburn, both initially listed on the conference Web site, also dropped out.

Still, several congressmen and congressional staffers gave their enthusiastic endorsement to the conference, using much the same language as Phillips, Titus and Scarborough. Speaking via video, DeLay apologized for missing the event and emphasized its importance. "Judicial unaccountability is not a political issue," he said. "It is a threat to self-government." Then he enumerated the measures Congress was taking. The House, he said, has already passed an amendment that breaks up "that leftist 9th circuit that meets in San Francisco" -- the court that ruled the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional -- "and told them they could go meet in Guam."

It seems likely that DeLay will work hard on behalf of his supporters at the conference. After all, as the scandals swirling around him become a cyclone, the theocrats are his most loyal constituency. Several people at the conference wore "Hooray for DeLay" buttons, and Phyllis Schlafly called on everyone to stand behind him.

Nor is DeLay this crowd's only firm ally in Congress. Michael Schwartz, the longtime right-wing operative who now serves as Senator Tom Coburn's chief of staff, made The Hammer sound soft. "This problem that we're dealing with fundamentally is a question of sovereignty," he said. He went on to argue that, "when the Supreme Court says that there is a right to kill babies in the Constitution and therefore we can't have laws against that, or there is a right to commit buggery in the Constitution and we can't have laws against that," it implicitly asserts that "the people have no right to make laws."

As long as the Supreme Court purports to "grade the papers of Congress" -- in other words, to evaluate its laws -- "it is counter to the very basis of this republic." Thus, until America throws out the principal of judicial review, "it is a sick and sad joke to claim we have a Constitution."

No wonder Phillips seemed so confident that, despite the congressional no-shows, his agenda has champions in the federal government. Although they weren't there, "Coburn and Brownback are totally in sync with the people here," he told me.

The conference attendees took their warfare metaphors seriously. They exist in a parallel reality, with its own history and its own news, and in that reality, the Schiavo case dwarfs the war in Iraq or the budget deficit in its import. The Terri Schiavo story that has so galvanized them isn't the same one shown on CNN or reported in the New York Times. Rather, it was an act of, as one conference participant called it, state-sponsored terrorism, designed to demonstrate the court's terrible power to take life at will. The narrative that Gibbs presented on Thursday seemed familiar to his audience, but it was new to me.

To begin with, in his version of the story, Michael Schiavo probably caused his wife's brain damage by beating or choking her until she was near death.

There were three leading theories about what happened to Terri all those years ago, he said. The first was that she had a heart problem. The second was that she had an eating disorder. There was no evidence, he said, for either of those.

"The third leading theory -- and as you can see, the first two seem to be sort of eliminated -- is that there was some form of foul play," he said. "That some sort of strangulation or violence occurred, at the hand of the husband possibly."

Gibbs offered nothing to substantiate this rather serious claim.

With his wife hospitalized, Gibbs said, "The husband did everything he could to keep people away from Terri, because if television cameras or regular people got in to see her, they would clearly see how alive she was."

Nor was her condition irreversible. "I firmly believe that for all the depravation and abuse she suffered at the hand of her husband…if she'd have had any therapy she wouldn't even have needed a feeding tube," he said.

In Gibbs' telling, Circuit Court Judge George Greer cavalierly ignored all this overwhelming evidence. Such villainy, he said, is the direct result of a legal system that has tried to cast off God's dominion.

"Our founding fathers," he said, "they were going to take the word of God, and God has given us in the Bible his word, and they said this book will always be true, and if there is ever a close call in policy, in leadership, in law, in society, if there's ever a question, we want to look to the source of absolute truth. That's why the Ten Commandments are so important. They were the original source of American law."

That version of history is taught at Christian schools like Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Gibbs' alma mater. It is also a virtual fairy tale. The Constitution contains not a single mention of God, Christianity or the bible. As the historians Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore wrote in their book The Godless Constitution, such secularism wasn't lost on an earlier generation of Christian conservatives, who decried America's founding document as a sin against God.

They quote Reverend Timothy Dwight, president of Yale College, who said in 1812, "The nation has offended Providence. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of God; without any recognition of His mercies to us, as a people, of His government or even of His existence. The [Constitutional] Convention, by which it was formed, never asked even once, His direction, or His blessings, upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without God."

If the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration has its way, that present system will soon be coming to an end.

As Gibbs finished speaking, Scarborough invited the audience to get on their knees. All over the room, people dropped to the floor, heads bowed. From somewhere in the audience, a preacher started up:

"Father, we echo the words of the apostle Paul, because we know Judge Greer claims to be a Christian. So as the Apostle Paul said in First Corinthians 5, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus."

It sounded like a prayer for death.

Sunday, April 10, 2005

The Crusaders

Christian evangelicals are plotting to remake America in their own image

It's February, and 900 of America's staunchest Christian fundamentalists have gathered in Fort Lauderdale to look back on what they accomplished in last year's election -- and to plan what's next. As they assemble in the vast sanctuary of Coral Ridge Presbyterian, with all fifty state flags dangling from the rafters, three stadium-size video screens flash the name of the conference: reclaiming america for christ. These are the evangelical activists behind the nation's most effective political machine -- one that brought more than 4 million new Christian voters to the polls last November, sending George W. Bush back to the White House and thirty-two new pro-lifers to Congress. But despite their unprecedented power, fundamentalists still see themselves as a persecuted minority, waging a holy war against the godless forces of secularism. To rouse themselves, they kick off the festivities with "Soldiers of the Cross, Arise," the bloodthirstiest tune in all of Christendom: "Seize your armor, gird it on/Now the battle will be won/Soon, your enemies all slain/Crowns of glory you shall gain."

Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when the courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency -- all the way until Jesus comes back.

"Most people hear them talk about a 'Christian nation' and think, 'Well, that sounds like a good, moral thing,' says the Rev. Mel White, who ghostwrote Jerry Falwell's autobiography before breaking with the evangelical movement. "What they don't know -- what even most conservative Christians who voted for Bush don't know -- is that 'Christian nation' means something else entirely to these Dominionist leaders. This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Water Act is about clean water."

The godfather of the Dominionists is D. James Kennedy, the most influential evangelical you've never heard of. A former Arthur Murray dance instructor, he launched his Florida ministry in 1959, when most evangelicals still followed Billy Graham's gospel of nonpartisan soul-saving. Kennedy built Coral Ridge Ministries into a $37-million-a-year empire, with a TV-and-radio audience of 3 million, by preaching that it was time to save America -- not soul by soul but election by election. After helping found the Moral Majority in 1979, Kennedy became a five-star general in the Christian army. Bush sought his blessing before running for president -- and continues to consult top Dominionists on matters of federal policy.

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

At Reclaiming America, most of the conference is taken up by grassroots training sessions that supply ministers, retirees and devout churchgoers with "The Facts of Stem-Cell Research" or "Practical Steps to Impact Your Community with America's Historical Judeo-Christian Heritage." "We're going to turn you into an army of one," Gary Cass, executive director of Reclaiming America, promises activists at one workshop held in Evangalism Explosion Hall. The Dominionists also attend speeches by supporters like Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida, who urges them to "win back America for God." In their spare time, conference-goers buy books about a God-devised health program called the Maker's Diet or meet with a financial adviser who offers a "biblically sound investment plan."

To implement their sweeping agenda, the Dominionists are working to remake the federal courts in God's image. In their view, the Founding Fathers never intended to erect a barrier between politics and religion. "The First Amendment does not say there should be a separation of church and state," declares Alan Sears, president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a team of 750 attorneys trained by the Dominionists to fight abortion and gay marriage. Sears argues that the constitutional guarantee against state-sponsored religion is actually designed to "shield" the church from federal interference -- allowing Christians to take their rightful place at the head of the government. "We have a right, indeed an obligation, to govern," says David Limbaugh, brother of Rush and author of Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Nothing gets the Dominionists to their feet faster than ringing condemnations of judicial tyranny. "Activist judges have systematically deconstructed the Constitution," roars Rick Scarborough, author of Mixing Church and State. "A God-free society is their goal!"

Activist judges, of course, are precisely what the Dominionists want. Their model is Roy Moore, the former Alabama chief justice who installed a 5,300-pound granite memorial to the Ten Commandments, complete with an open Bible carved in its top, in the state judicial building. At Reclaiming America, Roy's Rock sits out front, fresh off a tour of twenty-one states, perched on the flag-festooned flatbed of a diesel truck, a potent symbol of the "faith-based" justice the Dominionists are bent on imposing. Activists at the conference pose for photographs beside the rock and have circulated a petition urging President Bush to appoint Moore -- who once penned an opinion calling for the state to execute "practicing homosexuals" -- to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The other side knows we've got strongholds in the executive and legislative branches," Cass tells the troops. "If we start winning the judiciary, their power base is going to be eroded."

To pack the courts with fundamentalists like Moore, Dominionist leaders are planning a massive media blitz. They're also pressuring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist -- an ally who's courting support for his presidential bid -- to halt the long-standing use of filibusters to hold up judicial nominations. An anti-filibuster petition circulating at the conference blasts Democrats for their "outrageous stonewalling of appointments" -- even though Congress has approved more nominees of Bush than of any president since Jimmy Carter.

It helps that Dominionists have a direct line to the White House: The Rev. Richard Land, top lobbyist for the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, enjoys a weekly conference call with top Bush advisers including Karl Rove. "We've got the Holy Spirit's wind at our backs!" Land declares in an arm-waving, red-faced speech. He takes particular aim at the threat posed by John Lennon, denouncing "Imagine" as a "secular anthem" that envisions a future of "clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn."

The Dominionists are also stepping up efforts to turn public schools into forums for evangelism. In a landmark case, the Alliance Defense Fund is suing a California school district that threatened to dismiss a born-again teacher who was evangelizing fifth-graders. In the conference's opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream of hearing in every classroom: "I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe."

Cass urges conference-goers to stack school boards with Dominionists. "The most humble Christian is more qualified for office than the best-educated pagan," says Cass, an anti-abortion activist who led a takeover of his school district's board in San Diego. "We built quite a little grass-roots machine out there. Now it's my burden to multiply that success all across America."

Cass points to the Rev. Gary Beeler, a Baptist minister from Tennessee who got permission for thousands of students to skip class and attend weeklong events that he calls "old-time revivals, with preaching and singing and soul-saving and the whole nine yards." Now, with support from Kennedy, Beeler is selling his house and buying a mobile home to spread his crusade nationwide. "It's not exactly what I planned to do with my retirement," he says. "But it's what God told me to do."

Cass also presents another small-town activist, Kevin McCoy, with a Salt and Light Award for leading a successful campaign to shut down an anti-bullying program in West Virginia schools. McCoy, a soft-spoken, prematurely gray postal worker, fought to end the program because it taught tolerance for gay people -- and thus, in his view, constituted a "thinly disguised effort to promote the homosexual agenda." "What America needs," Cass tells the faithful, "is more Kevin McCoys."

While the dominionists rely on grass-roots activists to fight their battles, they are backed by some of America's richest entrepreneurs. Amway founder Rich DeVos, a Kennedy ally who's the leading Republican contender for governor of Michigan, has tossed more than $5 million into the collection plate. Jean Case, wife of former AOL chief Steve Case -- whose fortune was made largely on sex-chat rooms -- has donated $8 million. And Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza, is a major source of cash for Focus on the Family, a megaministry working with Kennedy to eliminate all public schools.

The one-two punch of militant activists and big money has helped make the Dominionists a force in Washington, where a growing number of congressmen owe their elections to the machine. Kennedy has also created the Center for Christian Statesmanship, which trains elected officials to "more effectively share their faith in the public arena." Speaking to the group, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay -- a winner of Kennedy's Distinguished Christian Statesman Award -- called Bush's faith-based initiatives "a great opportunity to bring God back into the public institutions of our country."

The most vivid proof of the Christianizing of Capitol Hill comes at the final session of Reclaiming America. Rep. Walter Jones, a lanky congressman from North Carolina, gives a fire-and-brimstone speech that would have gotten him laughed out of Washington thirty years ago. In today's climate, however, he's got a chance of passing his pet project, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which would permit ministers to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, effectively converting their tax-exempt churches into Republican campaign headquarters.

"America is under assault!" Jones thunders as his aides dash around the sanctuary snapping PR photos. "Everyone in America has the right to speak freely, except for those standing in the pulpits of our churches!" The amen chorus reaches a fever pitch. Hands fly heavenward. It's one thing to hear such words from Dominionist leaders -- but to this crowd, there's nothing more thrilling than getting the gospel from a U.S. congressman. "You cannot have a strong nation that does not follow God," Jones preaches, working up to a climactic, passionate plea for a biblical republic. "God, please -- God, please -- God, please -- save America!"