The Inmates Are In Charge of the Asylum

When religion and politics mix, it can be good or bad. But when religion starts being political, then people should get nervous. Case in point - the recent conference where people began to edge closer into la-la land.

Skin that article, and be very scared at what they're saying. People who don't agree with your views are guilty of bad behavior in office, and should be impeached. (Said views being that juveniles should be allowed to be executed.) That off-the-wall comment came from Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly. Edwin Viera opines that Justice Kennedy's philosophy - and please note this is a direct quote here - "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law." Wow - Marxist AND Leninist? I guess Mr. Viera just couldn't get those two to skootch over a touch to include Trotskyist as well. Satanic as well, because Justice Kennedy struck down an anti-sodomy statute, which I assume was Lawrence v. Texas. "Love thy neighbor" in Mr. Viera's Torquemada-shaded view must have the codicil, "...unless they know show tunes a little too well." But Edwin isn't done yet! He adds a quote from the man whose very principles Kennedy genuflects to: "He (Stalin) had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,'" As Dana Milbank points out, the whole quote is ""Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." "Love thy neighbor...unless he knows show tunes a little too well or likes people who knows show tunes a little too well." Mr. Viera's Bible must have about 100 extra pages from all the add-ons he needs.

Now, before you think that this is the usual nutjobs prevalent on both sides of the aisle, look at who was both at the conference and supposed to attend the conference. Alan Keyes was one, the perennial bridesmaid at the Republican Presidential primaries. Roy Moore, the judge from Alabama who made a name for himself by using the Ten Commandments as political theater. And Tom DeLay himself - the Leader of the House - was supposed to attend this conference, before being called away to the Pope's funereal. These are not just fringe people - these are people who are front and center in the Republican Party now. Did you hear anyone condemn these sayings, perhaps say they were a little too much and a little over the top? I haven't. Guess the liberal media took the day off or something.

These people are basically saying that when the law happens to interfere with their beliefs, the law is wrong. See Terri Schiavo for example, but here Mr. Michael Farris makes his wishes known in a way that has the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves. He would allow Congress to vacate court decisions. So, if the law is followed exactly as written and there is no problem in the case itself, but these latter day Ayatollahs feel it's wrong, the law is wrong. I use the term Ayatollahs intentionally here, and not for hyperbole. In Iran, there is a Council of Guardians of the Constitution who are above the President and legislature. If they feel a law legally passed by either other branch is against their beliefs, they can vacate it. Does this in any way seem a little close to what these people are advocating? And do you really feel this is a system we need to emulate here in the United States?

These people want to filter the Constitution, federal laws and state laws through a religious barrier and are calling for the drastic rewrite of the separation of powers idea to gain that power. I have not heard one Republican condemn these ideas yet. This is religion as politics in its most overt and frightening form, and they have some major people in the Republican Party who feel like they do. If any Republican happens to read this site, might I suggest it may be time for a splinter group in your party?