The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Light Blogging the Next Few Days Not because of the election results. My mother's 90th birthday is coming up, and this has turned into a family reunion. The population of Bandon, Oregon, is about to significantly but temporarily grow! Humor: Public Opinion Survey A reader informs me: The latest telephone poll taken by the Governors of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California yielded results on whether or not people who live in in these states think illegal immigration is a serious problem: Labels: humor Things That Matter, Things That Don't No, I haven't been sulking. I've been busy doing the final checks of the proofs for my new book. I was disappointed to see that the referendum in Boise about restoring the Ten Commandments monument to the city park failed. The vote is just about all in, and it went down to defeat about 53-47. Am I disappointed? Sure. There was no reason for the City Council to remove it in the first place. Making Rev. Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps happy is about the worst possible reason for the Boise City Council to have removed that stone. But I'm not all that bummed out about it. It was symbolic, and because the costs were small, it was worth the effort to restore the Ten Commandments. But let's not lose perspective, okay? There are much more important issues--things that genuinely matter in terms of public policy--and on a number of those, we won. I was not entirely thrilled with the text of HJR 2, the amendment to the state constitution that defined marriage as "one man, one woman"--as I explain here--but the alternative was to wait for some Idaho judge to decide that there was a right to gay marriage implicitly contained in a penumbra of an emananation from the 1982 repeal of the Idaho Constitution's ban on celestial marriage. So we passed it. So did six of the other seven states with similar measures on the ballot. (Arizona appears to have narrowly rejected it--I guess too many Californians moved in.) The Republican Party swept all statewide offices in Idaho (removing the last statewide Democrat), and of course, both House seats went Republican. While some of the Republicans who were elected aren't really conservatives (like Governor-elect Butch Otter), others clearly are, such as Bill Sali--hence the level of invective and libel directed at him by the left. (Is there anything more tragically sad than being a Idaho leftist?) Instead of whining about the Congressional results, conservatives need to take the following steps: 1. Start looking for people of the highest personal integrity to challenge Democrats who just won yesterday. I suspect that most of these new Congresscritters won't have time to become crooked between now and 2008, but hey, you never know! 2. Newt Gingrich's Contract With America in 1994 was a terribly effective campaigning tool, because it emphasized reform and an ideological focus. At least part of what sank Republicans this time around was that many Republican Congresscritters became what the Democrats were in 1994: people whose reason for being in power was to keep themselves in power. I notice that many (although not all) the Democrats elected in yesterday's sweep were social conservatives (for Democrats), and the success of the various marriage initiatives suggests that this has real potential as a strategy for next time around. 3. The Democratic Party is going to self-destruct in very short order. All political parties are coalitions of interest groups. Some years ago, a prominent Democratic Senator (who I will not identify because he later denied having said it) described the Democratic Party as "Jews, trial lawyers, blacks, and unions." It is a gross oversimplification, but there's some truth to it. Republicans are often oversimplified to "Evangelical Christians, businessmen, and gun nuts." In both cases, these are important interest groups within each party, although there are obviously large numbers of party faithful who don't fit into any of these groups. As the number of interest groups within a party grows, conflict grows as well. Gore Vidal's 1960 play The Best Man captured this tension with a line that describes a Democratic National Chair as "the only known link between the KKK and the NAACP." The Democratic Party coalition formed in the 1930s included blacks (suffering more than most whites during the Depression), ethnic Northern urban blue collar whites, Southern whites, labor unions, and various leftist intellectuals, such as the ACLU. It was a coalition that held together for a remarkable period of time, but by the late 1970s, there were cracks forming. Pressure for forced busing from the intellectuals and black leadership created conflict with urban blue collar whites, and drove out Southern whites (even ones that had accepted the end of de jure segregation). Hostility towards traditional Christianity to satisfy intellectuals and the emerging homosexual movement drove out many poor Southern white evangelicals. Inflation pushed labor unionists into increasingly high marginal tax rates, and this led to conflict with the Democratic Socialists, who saw high income tax rates as a way to redistribute wealth from rich to poor. The increasingly strident support for restrictive gun control, which had been confined to the Northeast, drove away rural hunters. The Republican Party coalition, until the 1970s, had fewer constituencies. The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were largely evangelical Southern whites, gun owners, and labor unionists who were becoming disenchanted with tax rates and affirmative action programs. By 1994, many of these people had been driven into the waiting arms of the Republican Party. But nothing is forever. As the Pew exit polls showed, "values voters" voted Democratic in large numbers because of disgust with "corruption" (probably including not only Abramoff-style financial scandal, but also Rep. Foley's IMs). I doubt that these voters are gone for good--but they will need to become disgusted with the Democratic Party, to get them to vote Republican in 2008. Fortunately, the Democratic Party is almost certainly going to help us on this. The current Democratic Party leadership is again an odd mix of interest groups. There is the Ned Lamont crowd--who hate the U.S. so deeply that they don't want us to win in Iraq, even if it were possible. There is the environmental movement. There are the homosexual activists that want same-sex marriage. There are labor unionists. There are Democrats like Joe Lieberman who want the government to do traditional liberal things (redistribute wealth downward, encourage labor unions, disarm law-abiding adults), but who recognize that we are engaged in a war with really bad people. And then there are these newly elected Democrats who smell suspiciously like moderate Republicans. How long can this last? The moonbat left wants Pelosi to get going on impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney. They want Congress to cut off all funding for the Iraq war now, and bill Bush and Cheney personally for the $400 billion we've spent. (We're taking it out of your pension--live a long time.) If they don't get at least some serious investigations that spend tens of millions of dollars and engage in character assassination, they are going to be hopping mad. The gun control groups have been keeping their mouths shut--and they are going to expect some payback--at least passage of a gun control bill that they force Bush to either sign or veto. The environmentalists are going to demand that the deficit be solved with a high gasoline tax. (You will notice that an attempt to get the voters to approve that in California didn't quite work.) The illegal alien lobby will demand something—and of course, Bush is on their side already. It was only House Republicans (and some House Democrats) who stopped that from happening. And many of these freshly arrived Democrats are going to listen to these demands and say, "Wait a minute! My district sent me here to clean house of corrupt politicians, and to get a sensible policy in Iraq--not all this other stuff." And inevitably, Pelosi is going to have to hold together this churning whirlpool of interest groups, all back in power (and all convinced that they are a major part of why the Democrats are back in power). It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw of an Iowa tornado, with pigs, cars, houses, swirling in the dust. Labels: establishment of religion Why Idaho Has Become More Conservative Over Time This article from the Idaho Statesman confirms what I have observed--Californians who move here tend to be more conservative than those who have never had the California liberal Democratic experience: Lynn Laird spent more than an hour Tuesday edging a baby stroller through a maze of classrooms and hallways to reach her goal — the voting booth.There's a pretty substantial sorting going on right now, with Californians who think "gay marriage" is an oxymoron (at best) moving to more conservative places. I just wish that we could get some of liberal Idahoans who think it would be so cool to have Democrats run the state and local governments to actually move somewhere where Democrats run the state and local governments. (Or even better--all the liberals move out of California, so that I could move back, but unfortunately, good weather is a high demand item. Liberals, being rich, can afford to buy up the places with nicer weather.) For some odd reason, many of these liberal Idahoans prefer to live in a society run by knuckle-draggers. Shortly after I moved my family here, I met a couple that was at least aware of the silliness of this. He had just completed his residency; she had a Masters of Fine Arts. They were looking for somewhere to move with the intention of starting a family. By their own admission, they were quite liberal--but places that shared their values weren't places that they would want to raise children--so they moved to Boise. Hello? Is there a message there? No, I'm Not Sulking About The Election I've been very busy doing one last review of the proofs for the next book. Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Idaho Elections It isn't really too big a surprise, but Butch Otter, the Republican who represented U.S. House seat 1 here got himself elected governor. Otter is definitely more part of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, but he does listen. After initially opposing a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage, he heard from enough irritated constituents to change his position. Still, it will be good to keep our eye on him. The race to fill Otter's House seat was between Sali and Grant. Sali managed to stay focused on issues until a couple of weeks ago, when Grant's really nasty attack ads started running, at which point Sali went negative. I'm not surprised, and realistically, as much as voters claim to hate negative ads, they do work. The race hasn't been called, but Sali is definitely still ahead. I would be surprised to see Grant win the race now. In other statewide races, Republicans seem to be winning (no surprise). Tom Luna is out ahead for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (as well as domestic partnerships) passed, no surprise there. I was disappointed to see Proposition 2, the eminent domain/zoning value loss initiative go down to defeat. My county, Boise, is so much a Republican Party stronghold that not only did all three legislative districts go Republican, but even such uncontroversial, largely functional posts as county assessor and clerk of the court went to Republicans. Of course, this isn't much of a surprise. Some weeks back, the county was looking for a new district attorney, and ads indicated that the resumes should be sent to the Republican Central Committee for screening! It's almost like living in a mirror image of Sonoma County, California. Elections I've been having intermittent Internet problems at home since Monday evening--up and down, as water got into the antenna in the rainstorms. The bad news: Democrats won control of the House, and it sounds like the Senate is still a possibility. The good news (such as it is): a fair number of these Democrats who won House seats were very, very conservative, especially on social issues. Indeed, some of them, had they run as Republicans, would have had no great difficulty getting the nomination. Still, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party will be in charge. I know Republicans who backed Democrats for House on the theory that two years of Democratic control will prepare Americans to vote Republican in 2008. This is almost certainly true, but the costs to national security are going to be very high. Interesting item that I heard on NPR this morning: Pew surveys show that large number of white evangelicals, instead of voting Republican, voted Democrat, because of the corruption problems of the Republicans. What the guy from Pew described as "values voters" were disturbed. Well, they should have been disturbed. It is certainly true that the Democrats in Congress aren't any better on the corruption and immorality count. But when you are running on the moral high ground ticket, you better be on the moral high ground. Saying that the Democrats are just as immoral isn't going to motivate voters. Around the country, "values voters" expressed themselves by passing "one man, one woman" initiatives in seven out of eight states. I'm not sure what caused Arizonans to vote it down--to my knowledge, the first defeat such a measure has suffered at the hands of the voters--but this should be a reminder to the Democrats that this set of victories in the House and Senate was not an endorsement of the Democratic Party's stance on sexual morality. Tuesday, November 07, 2006
One of the Reasons That I Respect the Washington Post... Yes, they are a pretty liberal newspaper, but they publish articles like this: FORWARD OPERATING BASE SYKES, Iraq, Nov. 5 -- For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.Worth reading in full--especially if you are one of those who thinks that pulling out would be in the best interests of the soldiers. Does This Sound Familiar? Found over at a blog called DoD Daily News: We (the USA) were hit with bombs in Hawaii by the Japanese. Germany never attacked us. They did not offer any threat to us. It took us so long dealing with that part of the world, and it cost us so much blood and treasure. Wasted lives. So many died for a war that was none of our business. There were no WMD there. There were only nice Germans, innocent people in Germany. "Can't We All Just Get Along?" Remember when Rodney King said that as the riots started in Los Angeles? It might have been a very calculated effort organized by his attorneys--but he came across as sincere in his desire to see the riots end. I am sure that there are cynics who will see Saddam Hussein's remarks yesterday as some sort of attempt to save his life: BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A somber Saddam Hussein called on Iraqis to forgive each other Tuesday, when he returned to court two days after being sentenced to death for crimes against humanity in another case.Here's another possible explanation: after a couple of years of bluster, trying to save his life under the delusion that he might end up back in power in Iraq--waking up to realize that he has been sentenced to death, and he will almost certainly die in the next couple of months--has caused him to reassess what he has done. I don't know how much good Hussein's request for reconciliation will do, especially since at least some of the insurgency is al-Qaeda foreigners with no loyalty to Hussein--but I do wonder if at least some of the Baathists who are involved in the fight might reconsider their position. I suspect that Hussein really believes that the horrible things that he did were in the best interests of Iraq, and now that he sees that he has no realistic chance of living much longer, or of getting back on top, he might be looking at the consequences of this bloody fight going on in Iraq, and has decided that it is in the best interests of his country to be at peace. Monday, November 06, 2006
"Don't Knock It 'Til You've Tried It" If you are of my generation, you probably remember this phrase. It was, along with, "If it feel good, do it" one of the slogans of our very open-minded, very liberal times. The essence of "don't knock it 'til you've tried it" was that any condemnation of a behavior or practice that you hadn't done was simply narrow-mindedness. How could you know if it was good or bad unless you had experienced it? With that came the assumption that if you liked doing X, then X must be good, right? At least, it was right...for you. A lot of people are going to use Rev. Haggard's embarrassment as evidence that opposition to homosexuality is repressed homosexual desires. I think Haggard's very public disgrace demonstrates that he wasn't repressing anything. He lied to people, including his wife--but he didn't repress anything. He just gave into his lusts in secret, and as with many shameful things done in secret, it finally came to light. There's another part to this: when Rev. Haggard preached about the evils of homosexuality, he probably wasn't lying. To use the title of this posting, he was knocking something that he had tried. He obviously saw homosexuality for what it was--an unhealthy and destructive lifestyle that had could not stop himself from being part of--and his preaching against it was probably driven by the knowledge that he was trapped. I am hoping that the good that will come out of it will be that others who are fighting (and losing) the urge to sin will seek help before they make a public spectacle of themselves. Dead Voting You are doubtless familiar with the Democratic big city machine slogan, "Vote early, vote often." In Chicago, where the dead vote frequently, they add, "vote forever." But today, I am going to discuss another intersection of death and voting--voting for the dead. Michael Williams notes that Republicans are trying very hard to get Republican Glenda Dawson elected to the state legislature. She's been dead since September, but it is important for her to win, so that the governor can call a special election. Otherwise, a Democrat ends up in that job. Now, I can see some real advantages to electing the dead. 1. They don't take bribes. 2. You don't have to worry about what they might say or do to Congressional pages. 3. They don't collect a salary. 4. No more long boring speeches. 5. They never vote for tax increases or pork barrel programs. (Of course, they can't vote against them, either.) I am reminded of a story told by a co-worker who was in the Air Force. Dave's paychecks stopped arriving. Meager though they were, they were somewhat necessary for the paying of bills, so his commanding officer made some inquiries, and discovered that the paychecks had been ended because, as the commanding officer indelicately explained, "You are dead." There had been some screwup in the bureaucracy, and Dave had been marked as deceased, and so the paychecks stopped. Anyway, it was a very difficult situation to unravel, and for several weeks, all Dave could do was tell his creditors, "I am currently dead, but I expect my condition to improve shortly." Boise County Assessor's Race I've heard back from both Brent Adamson and the incumbent, Linda Blough. Both agree that much of what the office does is pretty mechanical, but there are some interesting differences in what each had to say. Both of them oppose Prop. 2, the statewide initiative concerning eminent domain and protection of property owners from zoning changes. Linda Blough wrote me: The state mandates market values and deadlines for this office. That part, I have no control over. As you have probably heard, I have been with theBrent Adamson, who is challenging her wrote me: Glad you asked, yes the Assessor office is in charge of valuation of property, private and commercial. But the office is also the place to get license plates and the maps of the county are updated by this office.I really can't see any strong argument for picking one over the other. Looking For Events To Promote My New Book, Armed America If you watch Book TV on cable, you know that they cover events, almost always in the Washington DC area, where an author is speaking to a group about his new book. If you have an organization or event in the DC area that might be interested in having me come and speak in late December to early January--please let me know. The DeLay Seat This is incredible! Everyone was saying that this was a guaranteed Democrat pickup. DeLay's legal troubles caused him to withdraw from the race--and so late that no Republican is on the ballot. And yet the latest poll shows that the Democrat is only 8 points above the write-in Republican candidate, with the ungainly and hard to remember name Sekula-Gibbs. (Why not find someone with an easy name to spell, like Johnson or Smith?) Real Clear Politics still thinks the Democrat is going to win this one, and they are probably right--but who would have thought that a race where the Republican wasn't even on the ballot would be one that the Democrats are going to have to fight to win? Real Clear Politics now lists the five most likely Republican House seats to change parties as Texas 22 (DeLay's seat)--with no Republican on the ballot, and the incumbent not running because of criminal charges; Arizona 8 (incumbent Kolbe not running, and the Republican outspent more than 2-1 by the Democrat); Florida 16 (Foley--resigned under a cloud, and yet his name remains on the ballot, and the Republican running in his place is only seven points back); Indiana 8; and Pennsylvania 10 (where the incumbent, Sherwood, has admitted to an adulterous affair but denies beating up on his mistress). Of the five seats most likely to change parties, three involve incumbents facing criminal charges or admitted gross immorality. One has a Republican candidate who the RNC actively opposed. It should tell the Democrats something that they are having to fight hard, and spend vast quantities of their billionaires' wealth, to win seats in the midst of an unpopular war, with most of the mass media unashamedly on their side. I keep hoping that if, as seems likely, Republicans retain control of both houses, that the adult supervision wing of the Democratic Party will tell the moonbat wing to go join the Greens. Yes, this will take away the Democratic Party's billionaires and multimillionaires, but they might at least have a chance to engage in legitimate criticism of Bush's handling of Iraq, not fantasies of planting explosives in the World Trade Center, or excuse making for people who think power tools are designed for use on screaming human heads. Idaho Democrats and Their Sons I mentioned a few days ago that while I wasn't sure if Larry Grant, Democrat running for U.S. House seat 1 was part of the moonbat end of the party, his son, Ron Grant, sure is. Now we have this example of "how far did the apple fall from the tree?" Police say two men were arrested for vandalizing flags memorializing Idaho’s fallen soldiers. Early Sunday morning police say two men were spotted by Statehouse security guards knocking over flags. Today’s 6 has learned the two men are the sons of State Senator Mike Burkett.Of course, State Senator Burkett is a Democrat. Look, if Burkett's sons were arrested doing some non-political act of vandalism, I could chalk it up to youthful stupidity. (There's a lot of that.) If this were a political act of vandalism taken against Republican campaign signs, I wouldn't be happy, but you know, people get carried away at the end of a campaign. But knocking over flags memorializing our fallen soldiers? This is moonbattery of the highest order--completely ineffective at changing policy, but rich in symbolism. Maybe Burkett is part of the adult supervision wing of the Democratic Party--but like Larry Grant and his moonbat son Ron, you have to wonder how much of this irrational hatred of the United States was learned at the dinner table. Thanks to Retired Geezer for pointing me to this story. Sunday, November 05, 2006
Why Lawyers Shouldn't Be Allowed To Be Judges Yes, you read that correctly, and yes, I'm not entirely serious about this, but something has to be done about intellectually dishonest idiots like Judge Karlton of the Ninth Circuit. Here's what the case is about. The public library in Contra Costa County (one of the San Francisco Bay Area counties) allows various groups to use the library's meeting rooms for events. Political groups; literary groups; environmental groups. I am not sure how broad the definition of acceptable groups is; I know that for a while, the San Francisco chapter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association held meetings at one of the San Francisco public libraries (no, not in the men's room) until a television reporter exposed his hidden camera (and they ran like the despicable cowards that they are). Contra Costa County explicitly prohibits religious services or meetings for religious purposes in the meeting rooms. At trial, a federal judge actually had the audacity to rule that a church has every bit as much right as any other organization to use public library facilities, and issued a preliminary injunction against Contra Costa County's refusal to allow the church equal access to the meeting rooms. The Ninth Circus, of course, decided otherwise on appeal. Professor Volokh points to this outrageous opinion Faith Center Church v. Glover (9th Cir. 2006). Judge Paez's opinion rules that the library may prohibit religious worship in the meeting rooms because the meeting rooms are a "limited public forum" and the government is allowed to regulate the use of such a "limited public forum" as long as the regulations "are viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum." Now, there might be a legitimate argument here that a church worship service in a public library meeting room would cause noise problems, and the opinion at least tries to make that case--but the library's ban is far broader than that, excluding any religious use of the meeting rooms (for example, a Bible study), and making no apparent reference to noise concerns with respect to non-religious uses. Laughably, Judge Paez regards the complete exclusion of any religious use to be "viewpoint neutral." Most outrageous of all, especially since other uses have been Democratic Party meetings and environmental group meetings, is Judge Paez's concern about the disruption that religious services would have: The County reasonably could conclude that the controversy and distraction of religious worship within the Antioch Library meeting room may alienate patrons and undermine the library’s purpose of making itself available to the whole community.But of course, political meetings involve no controversy, distraction, and would never alienate patrons! Now, those of you who were paying attention in government class may recall that the First Amendment not only protects freedom of the press, and of speech, but also: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...The federal courts have incorporated the First Amendment to apply to the states, which I believe is correct (although their method--selective incorporation--is wrong), so even aside from the question of whether religious worship is "freedom of speech" (which this opinion at least seems to recognize, before using the "limited public forum" way to dispose of it), it would seem that Contra Costa County has run afoul of the ban on laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Judge Karlton's concurring opinion is even more evidence that lawyers shouldn't be allowed to be judges: This should be a simple case it asks whether the county can be forced to subsidize a religious organization’s prayer meetings by requiring it to provide the religious organization with a free place to worship.If someone were demanding that Contra Costa County provide religious organizations, and only religious organizations, a free place to meet, he would have a point. But the fact is that Contra Costa County is being asked to provide religious organizations the same opportunities as other organizations that want to use the facilities. If Judge Karlton had the intellectual integrity of a used car salesman, he would ask why a religious organization has less rights than a non-religious organization. More importantly, the First Amendment's prohibition on Congress passing any "law respecting an establishment of religion" meant that Congress could pass no law that did anything at all, positive or negative, with respect to a religious institution or entity. Congressional action in the early Republic demonstrates that they saw no problem passing laws that used federal funds and property for the benefit of churches--as long as no single church or institution received all the benefit. For example, section 29 of townships in the Ohio Territory from 1801 onward was reserved for support of whatever church the people of that township wished funded. (See Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873, December 30, 1801.) Karlton's ignorance is both disheartening, and unsurprising. Karlton, who must be an ACLU member to be so ignorant, claims: The purported inability of the High Court to adhere to the distinction embodied in the First Amendment leads it to conclude that the issues tendered by cases, such as the one at bar, implicate viewpoint discrimination under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. They simply do not.Here's a clue for Judge Karlton: the U.S. Supreme Court's precedents, whether you like them or not, are supposed to be binding on the lower courts. You think the Supreme Court is wrong about this; okay, fine, but it would help if you actually understood something about this subject where you claim that they are wrong, and you clearly know nothing of the history involved. As the First Amendment notes, religious speech is categorically different than secular speech and is subject to analysis under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause without regard to the jurisprudence of free speech.The First Amendment does not treat religious "speech" as "categorically different than secular speech." Karlton needs to go read the text. It treats "religious worship" rather specially; it says that Congress shall not pass laws that prohibit free exercise of it (you know, like Contra Costa County's library did). There is nothing in the First Amendment's Establishment clause about religious speech, and for Karlton to make this claim is just more bluster and ignorance. Karlton continues his ignorant rant: The wall of separation between church and state that Thomas Jefferson thought the First Amendment raised, in no way prejudices the practice of anyone’s religion. Everson v. Board of Ed., 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). Instead, it serves the salutary purpose of insulating civil society from the excesses of the zealous.Except that this wasn't Jefferson's position. As the Library of Congress's exhibit on "Religion and the Federal Government" points out: It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.Gee, I think I see an analogy to Contra Costa County's library meeting rooms being available to religious groups. What's really sad is to read the comments over at Volokh Conspiracy by people who seem to be either lawyers or law students, and who think Karlton is so right about this. One of the difficulties is that lawyers are overwhelmingly atheists, and not surprisingly, regard religion as "opiate of the people" or evidence of the weak minds of the unwashed masses. (If you think I exaggerate, spend some time reading what passes for intelligence from the crowd that does most of the commenting at Volokh Conspiracy.) I am beginning to wonder if we might be better off taking our chances with having non-lawyers sitting on the appeals courts. If appellate judges were only deciding matters of law, and they were doing that generally honestly and carefully, it would be clearly an advantage to have lawyers doing so. But increasingly, appellate judges have decided that their job is not resolving legal questions, but superlegislators. Idiots like Karlton are primarily political animals, intend on imposing their leftist point of view, and completely unconcerned with actually understanding the history behind the First Amendment--and apparently too busy to actually read its text before pontificating about what it supposedly says. |
