Warning!: If you read this, your head will explode.
In the wake of the Democrat's stunning November rout of the Republicans, I began to wonder what became of their elite corps of culture warriors? Have they, chastened by America's resounding rejection of their message, gracefully quit the field to spend time in sober reflection of their values and message?
NOT.
If anything their Agincourt-like defeat in November seems to have driven the Right's Noise Machine into a higher gear that previously thought possible (apparently they go to 11) resulting in pieces so stupefying illogical and stupid, that they are capable of causing spontaneous cranial explosions in unwary readers
Exhibit A Ex- Judge Roy Moore's column on Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison in which he argues that as a Muslim he should not be allowed a seat in Congress, because the Constitution requires the separation of church and state!!!
No, I'm not kidding. Go get a very large drink to insulate your synapses and join me on the flip
Before we take this little romp through the illogical and twisted playground that is Judge Moore's argument, We must first pause to note the supreme irony of who it is making it. I would feel remiss if I didn't introduce the man himself to those of you who may not have the complete set of Republican Sleaze-bag Trading Cards
Frankly the boy's got incredible chutzpah for making ANY Establishment Clause arguments whatsoever. See, Judge Moore, formerly Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Alabama, was, as some of you may recall, thrown of the bench after ignoring a US Circuit Court's orderto remove a giant monument to the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court Building (he got elected to the Supreme Court mostly owing to the notoriety he gained from a similar battle over a copy of them hanging in his court room)
During the controversy the Judge had defended the Monument with quotes such as
we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs...[by] recogniz[ing] the sovereignty of God."
Hang on to that quote in the back of you mind as you now consider the logic of "Judge" Moore's arguments against Ellison:
To support the Constitution of the United States one must uphold an underlying principle of that document, liberty of conscience, which is the right of every person to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, without interference by the government.
So far so good but then:
The Islamic faith rejects our God and believes that the state must mandate the worship of its own god, Allah. A radical Islamic school that has received funding from suspected al-Qaida sources and which supports Islamic law, recently stated that "Islam cannot be separated from the state," and that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the United States Constitution and still be a Muslim, because the law of Allah as expressed in the Quran is supreme.
Such effrontery! I mean that's so totally different from what those Nice Dominionists you hang out with every Justice Sunday believe ; or even what YOU yourself argued in the ten Commandment Case! Right ? (after all basing all of society's laws on the bible is one thing, but the Koran? why that's just crazy talk!)
Thus, according to Judge Moore, Since this one Islamic School Clearly speaks for each and every one of the billion or so Muslims worldwide, he concludes:
Our Constitution states, "Each House [of Congress] shall be the judge ... of the qualifications of its own members." Enough evidence exists for Congress to question Ellison's qualifications to be a member of Congress as well as his commitment to the Constitution in view of his apparent determination to embrace the Quran and an Islamic philosophy directly contrary to the principles of the Constitution...
Congress has the authority and should act to prohibit Ellison from taking the congressional oath today!
Yes dear reader, He did. Two paragraphs after he declared freedom of conscience and worship to be the bedrock principles of the Constitution; he said that therefore Congress should refuse to seat Muslims. Yes I KNOW it hurts, but trust me, pounding your head into the desk will only make it worse---I know, I already tried it.
Even if there were enough hallucinogens in the world to make that argument actually make sense; The TEXT of the Constitution EXPRESSLY Forbids what he is proposing! Not an amendment or something mind you, but the plainly written command of Article VI the third paragraph of which reads:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
How much clearer can that be exactly?
Now if this were merely another example of "right wing idiots on parade"; I'd have simply shaken my head, laughed, and moved on. But on this one I can't. Perhaps it's just me taking my newly Sworn-in self a bit too seriously, But, I really feel like this article is particularly contemptible because of the legal and judicial background of the author.
No matter how stupid he appears on paper the fact is this man was once smart enough to take and pass a Bar exam, which is no mean feat. Moreover, he was good enough as a lawyer to get a nod to the bench (which, granted, is often a political decision, but still candidates have to have SOME legal competence once on the bench to avoid embarrassing whoever appointed them). Therefore, it is safe to say that Judge Moore is familiar with the law and might just have heard of Article VI long before he wrote this article and thus knew what he was proposing was utter nonsense.
Knew, but did not care. After all why bother with facts when's there's a rabble to rouse? Sadly, and objective look at the last six years reveals this sort of bad-faith demagoguery has become almost the defining trait of the modern Republican party:
- The White House Iraq Group, Dick Cheney's little cabal that got us into that war KNEW, that Iraq had no WMD's, no nukes, and no connection to 9/11. Knew, but didn't care, and argued it to an ill-informed American public anyway.
- Bill Frist, as a fully trained Doctor, KNEW he couldn't tell a damn thing about Terry Schaivo's prognosis from a video tape. Knew, but didn't care, and even invoked his medical learning as a reason to believe him when he argued the opposite on the floor of the Senate.
- During the '04 election intelligence and White House officials Knew the "terrorist mastermind" Abu Zubaydah, they were torturing at Gitmo, was really a low level flunky suffering from multiple personality disorder. Knew but didn't care, and conveniently raised the terror alert level every time his diseased mind came up with a new and fanciful plot to satisfy his jailers.
I could go on, But I'm sure you can think of many more examples of your own with even a second's reflection. And really that's the point; this sort of irresponsible, deliberately untrue rhetoric has become almost the signature of the Republican Party The Big Lie has gone from a tactic for them to a way of life. Not only is this an immoral and cynical way to go about obtaining and keeping power, but one with a corrosive effect on democracy. Voter’s can’t make real choices when their leaders won’t even agree on a common set of basic facts. Worse yet, imaginary solutions to real problems rarely work so the problems get worse.
Hmm anyone able to think of examples where that might have happened in the last six years?
Unfortunately, this tendency is going to get a lot worse rather than better now that we’ve got control over the Congress. Now that they can blame someone else-namely us_ for all the problems they cause by playing this game; they are likely to seek to pull it off whenever we let them. Thus, for the next for years w can’t let them get away with at all no lie should be allowed to go unchallenged or unnoted, both by "truth squads" like us AND our elected leaders on Capitol hill. Democratic leaders have expressed a desire to return to the civility and bi-partisanship that reigned in Washington before the Gingrich revolution. I think that's a fine idea; but only after we make it clear this is only possible if they promise to grows up and live in the real world; inconvenient facts (and truths) included.