The Religious Right shows its true colors

Diane Rehm, who has a wonderful program on NPR, did a segment on Christian voters this past Wednesday. One of guests was Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council (better known as NAMBLA). Diane asked Sprigg why conservative Christians do not care about issues beyond gay marriage and abortion. Here is the answer:

I think the difference on some of these issues is primarily in the proper approach. It is not in the level of concern about it. Certainly conservatives are concerned about poverty as well. But the question is: do you believe that the answer to the problem of poverty is throwing more government money at it or is there something more underlying in terms of our cultural values?

Cultural values? Like allowing rich people to keep even more of their money?

If you look at statistics you find, for example, that family structure is very highly correlated with poverty levels. So that if people get married and stay married they're unlikely to live in poverty. It's people who are raised by single parents or who live as single parents, for example, who are the most likely to live in poverty.

To quote the Bible according to Lewis, "At this point the left side of my brain turned to the right side of my brain and said, 'It's dark in here, and we might die.'" People are poor because they get divorced? Oh, that's right, the sun rises in the morning because the rooster crows. Doing a little math here...the divorce rate is 50%...carry the five...take the square root of seven...we must be the poorest nation on Earth! Apparently, statistics are the work of the devil. Otherwise this guy is just plain stupid.

But please continue:

On the environment, I think there is a Christian obligation to care for the stewardship of the Earth. But the question is: for whose benefit?

I don't know...the glory of God?

We believe that we need to do what's for the benefit of human beings not for the benefit of snail darters or something like that and therefore we should consider the economic costs of proposals for environmental regulations.

Unbelievable. Sprigg must hold a literal interpretation of the Bible. Consider Deuteronomy 7:13...

And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

See? We don't need to protect the environment. God will take clean up the environment for us!

I should point out that not all evangelicals are this pathetic when it comes to the environment. Consider the Evangelical Environmental Network:

As many of the scriptures demonstrate, the Bible teaches that both "nature" or "the environment" and humanity are part of creation. Both are inextricably linked to one another, have been ever since God formed us from the earth (Gen. 2:7; 3:19; Ps. 104:27-30), and will continue to be in God's future when we will exist as resurrected bodies on a new earth (I Cor. 15:35-44; Rom. 8:19-23; Isa. 65:17; Rev. 21:1). In other words, humanity and the rest of creation are part of all of creation. Therefore, creation-care does not just mean caring for "nature," nor does it just mean caring for humanity; it means caring for both. A biblical creation-care ethic is a holistic ethic.

Hilarious pop quiz

I implore you to check out the Chronicle of Higher Education to take a fantastic pop quiz in celebration of Constitution Day.

In case you doubt my assessment of the quiz, consider question 11:

11. The Ninth Amendment states that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Supreme Court has treated that language as:

• (A) The constitutional foundation for a broad range of unenumerated rights
• (B) Excluding the right to be free from indoctrination about the Constitution on September 17 of each year
• (C) Irrelevant
• (D) Embarrassing

Worst president ever

The Washington Post today has a great piece about some of the worst presidents in U.S. history who are not named Bush. Here is a brief excerpt:

Warren G. Harding (1921-23)

Pro: Handsome. Women had just won the right to vote, after an arduous struggle to be recognized as equals. Harding was chosen by his party on the theory that the ignorant little ninnies would go for the better-looking man.

Con: He was a moron.

Pro: He knew he was a moron. He could not believe it when he was nominated, asking his handlers if they were sure there was no one more qualified: "I am a man of limited talents."

Con: He dishonored the White House by having furtive sex with his mistress in a closet near the Oval Office. This was Clinton, without the charm or brains or ability.

Pro: He was not personally corrupt.

Con: Nearly everyone he appointed was corrupt. His friends exploited his dimwitted good nature, taking everything they could grab. His own father once told him, "Warren, it's a good thing you weren't born a girl, because you can't say 'no.'"

Public Policies, Constitutions, and Gay Bashing

I know I am a little late to the game on this, but Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote a very interesting Op-Ed in the Washington Post last week. He claims:

The Framers meant our Constitution to establish a structure of government and to provide individuals certain inalienable rights against the state. They certainly did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights or enact public policies, as the Federal Marriage Amendment does.

Ordinary legislation -- not constitutional amendments -- should express the community's view that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." To use the Constitution for prescriptions of policy is to shackle future generations that should have the same right as ours to enact policies of their own. To use the Constitution as a forum for even our most favored views strikes a blow of uncommon harshness upon disfavored groups, in this case gay citizens who would never see this country's founding charter as their own.

I have a number of observations. First of all, I am sad that Judge Wilkinson no longer feels he has a chance to get a seat on the Supreme Court. No Republican president will ever nominate him in the face of this Op-Ed.

Second, it is very reassuring to hear a conservative judge object to the theocratization of this country, not because he agrees with gay marriage, but because he disagrees with the tactics of the religious right. I agree with Judge Wilkinson that using the Constitution to restrict civil rights is contrary to the history and tradition of our democracy and that it does palpable injury gay people.

But I have to disagree with Wilkinson's main point about enshrining public policies in constitutions. Wilkinson writes, "There is no greater need for such a constitutional backstop here than there is for a constitutional amendment bolstering states' authority to pass a sales tax, establish a transportation department or support public education."

Apparently Judge Wilkinson does not read a lot of state constitutions. Virginia, for example, the mechanics of the property tax, the state lottery and State Corporation Commission are all spelled out in the state Constitution. The Constitution of Virginia also contains a clause protecting oyster beds from destruction. This trend of longer, more detail-specific constitutions is true of most other states as well.

Even though it is smaller and more difficult to amend, the U.S. Constitution enshrines many public policies as well. The 16th Amendment authorizes the national income tax, the Prohibition Amendments certainly dealt with public policy, as does the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. You could even make the case that the 1st Amendment is a public policy.

Nonetheless, I shouldn't let this line of argumentation get in the way of the fact that it took a lot of guts for Judge Wilkinson to write this piece. There is hope for our judiciary yet.

P.S. While I take issue with Wilkinson's analysis, his conclusion is worth noting: "The more passionate an issue, the less justification there often is for constitutionalizing it. Constitutions tempt those who are way too sure they are right. Certainty is, to be sure, a constant feature of our politics -- some certainties endure; others are fated to be supplanted by the certainties of a succeeding age. Neither we nor the Framers can be sure which is which, but the Framers were sure that we should debate our differences in this day's time and arena. " For more on certainty in politics, please go here.

Retarded territorial laws: Puerto Rico edition

Check out the following passage from the Rules of the Senate in Puerto Rico:

During the hours of session or at Committee meetings, Senators as well as Senate officials and employees who carry out works at the Sessions Hall, the Galleries, the
Café Room or the Hearings Rooms or elevators, shall be properly and suitably dressed, this provision including, concerning men, the use of suits. Sneakers, men's shoes without socks, jeans, shorts, sleeveless shirts, short blouses, décolleté, or bareback garments, and short or tight skirts and dresses, among others, shall be considered to be inappropriate and unsuitable attire. The President shall determine the dress code for the employees of the Senate to discharge their functions at the Floor and the Committees.

A few observations: (1) It's sad to see that a legislative body has to employ a policy ordinarily reserved for Morton's Steakhouse. You would think that the dignity and seriousness of the institution would be enough of a motivator for people to dress appropriately. apparentlyntly William Donald Schaeffer, Ted Kennedy or the late Strom Thurmond have never been to Puerto Rico. No tight skirts? I would rather live in a Communist nation. (3) Applying the dress code to the Café Room is a little much. Think of the warning sign that the Café will have to print: No shirt, no shoes, no tie, no jacket, no sleeveless shirts, no service.

Although on the other hand, maybe a legislative dress code isn't the worst thing in the world. Consider Nebraska, where state Senator Ernie Chambers has been serving for the past 30 years. Here is a picture of the distinguished senator from Omaha. He commonly wears a black or blue T-shirt in legislative sessions, rather than a suit. He is such a nutjob that he introduced a bill to resegregate Omaha public schools so that the local black, white, and Hispanic populations would be able to control schools within their particular neighborhoods in the city. Legislators are so fed up with Chambers' antics that some people claim that Nebraska's adoption of legislative term limits was conceived largely to force Chambers out of office.