Pat Robertson is a dick

[Undertoad]

Daily News link

Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

[vsp]

The fact that people have been known to send this man _money_ depresses me like little else.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by vsp

The fact that people have been known to send this man _money_ depresses me like little else.

How else are they gonna get to heaven? Duh!

[Happy Monkey]

More Pat.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Robertson — who founded the Christian Coalition — also said he would be wary of appointing Muslims to top positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships.
...
"They have said in the Koran there's a war against all the infidels," he said. "Do you want somebody like that sitting as a judge? I wouldn't."

Video

[smoothmoniker]

Let me be the first to say that most of us who are evangelicals view people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell the same way that most environmentalists view Peta and ELF. He's an embarassment, and does not speak for us.

The fact that we hold some beliefs in common doesn't make us any more sympathetic to his views, his politics, or his public rants.

[xoxoxoBruce]

He must be speaking for somebody because he's making a good living doing it. I just don't know any of them...or if I do they won't admit it.

[warch]

He speaks for my grandma. She also loves poor misunderstood Rush.

[mrnoodle]

don't dismiss the message out of hand, just because the messenger is unsavory. Ward Churchill is an ass, but buried under his anti-US diatribe is the very real fact that we have pissed alot of people off. Likewise, once you get past the Pat Robertson wording, there's an argument to be made that an activist judiciary will eventually destroy (or make irrelevant) the theism inherent in the founding documents. Some people might think that's a good thing, and be able to make a convincing argument for it -- just don't pretend it isn't happening.

[Undertoad]

From the swing voter POV,

There's no such thing as an "activist judiciary" - it's just judges making decisions that some people don't like. This has always happened, and is simply how the system plays itself out.

Some elements of social change show up in different places at different times, that's all. Look at civil rights in the last century where sometimes it was the judiciary to the rescue. They were not "activists" because they came out on the right side of history, or at least the winning side.

If you don't like how an issue has come out, you can turn it into a legislative one... if you have the will of the people that should not be a problem, and the issue's urgency in the public eye will mirror the legislative urgency. If the majority of the people think an issue is really a capital-P Problem, the legislature will RUSH to address it. Ham-handedly, even.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There's no such thing as an "activist judiciary"

Any judge who rules on a case in a manner that supersedes the letter of the law he/she is supposed to use as a tenet is an activist judge. Changes to law are to be made by the legislative branch, no matter how inconvenient or unfair that might seem at the time. The 9th circuit court of appeals is an activist court.

If you don't like how an issue has come out, you can turn it into a legislative one... if you have the will of the people that should not be a problem, and the issue's urgency in the public eye will mirror the legislative urgency. If the majority of the people think an issue is really a capital-P Problem, the legislature will RUSH to address it. Ham-handedly, even.

If only the non-existent activist judiciary had the same view.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Let's grant that theism (or perhaps deism) is inherent in the founding documents. Saying that judges can make that irrelevant implies that it has some relevance to begin with. What is the relevance, and what is the practical result of that relevance? Should political office be limited to deists? Should laws be written to endorse deism?

I posit that there is no relevance, and mention of creators is incidental rather than inherent in the documents, and that this choice was deliberate on the authors' part.

Should political office be limited to deists? I'm new to the word, but I think that's a non sequiter.

You'd have a hard time proving your point, I think. I think that it's obvious that the FFs were against state-run religion, but it's equally clear that the concept of God/Providence was the linchpin of everything they were trying to do. Just because God isn't de rigeur at the moment doesn't mean you can retroactively apply today's cultural whims to what's already happened.

And at any rate, Pat Robertson holding a view that opposes yours doesn't make him a dick. He's a dick, but that's not why.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

You'd have a hard time proving your point, I think. I think that it's obvious that the FFs were against state-run religion, but it's equally clear that the concept of God/Providence was the linchpin of everything they were trying to do.

Not really.

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

Not mentioning God in the Constitution was deliberate and meaningful.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Should political office be limited to deists? I'm new to the word, but I think that's a non sequiter.

It's a rather important word when discussing the religious views of the authors of the Constitution...

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Any judge who rules on a case in a manner that supersedes the letter of the law he/she is supposed to use as a tenet is an activist judge. Changes to law are to be made by the legislative branch, no matter how inconvenient or unfair that might seem at the time. The 9th circuit court of appeals is an activist court.

Considering that even if every law book were tens of thousands of pages long, it could not explicitly account for every event, there will always be interpretation.

Remember, the worst attacks on judges in the Schaivo case were on judges who were ruling on the letter of the law.

Also, no law can be written which violates the Constitution, which is a very broad document.

I take a more Libertarian view, the more freedom that people are allowed, at least in the privacy of their own homes, the better. I probably set more limits on that statement than a true Libertarian, but it's not a bad concept.

The problem with the whole "let's bring religion into schools" crowd is that they forget that since school is mandatory, this means that students are forced to endure whatever happens there. This is why everyone who believes religion is like 'moral spinach' for children is upset about judges who keep public schools strictly secular.

Of course, if this were a Muslim society and Christians were in the minorty, they would give profound thanks for such a separation.

What really annoys me is the impression given by fundies that judges are taking away religious freedom by keeping schools free of religion. This of course ignores the fact that the courts are not preventing religion in church and home, or even private religious observance in schools. In fact, they are actually protecting the right of the religious (and not religious) minority from being force-fed state sanctioned religion, and anyone who does not wish this is free to use home school or private school. It is only in the public school where the courts rule to protect students who are compelled to attend. In keeping the public school free of religion, the courts are allowing control of religious instruction to be the sole province of the child's parents, which by the way, is in keeping with the fifth commandment (Thou shalt honour thy mother and father).

[Elspode]

Has anyone nominated the title of this thread for "Most Obvious Cellar Thread Title of 2005" yet?

[Happy Monkey]

Let's grant that theism (or perhaps deism) is inherent in the founding documents. Saying that judges can make that irrelevant implies that it has some relevance to begin with. What is the relevance, and what is the practical result of that relevance? Should political office be limited to deists? Should laws be written to endorse deism?

I posit that there is no relevance, and mention of creators is incidental rather than inherent in the documents, and that this choice was deliberate on the authors' part.