[BRussell]

Zell Miller, Georgia Democrat and one of the biggest critics of, uh... Democrats, has revealed the social conservative/religious right agenda for this season.

In a speech he made on the Senate floor (this is one of those Salon watch-an-ad links), he said the following after quoting several passages from the Bible :

The culture of far left America was displayed in a startling way during the Super Bowl's now infamous half-time show. A show brought to us courtesy of Value-Les Moonves and the pagan temple of Viacom-Babylon.

I asked the question yesterday, how many of you have ever run over a skunk with your car? I have many times and I can tell you, the stink stays around for a long time. You can take the car through a car wash and it's still there. So the scent of this event will long linger in the nostrils of America.

I'm not talking just about an exposed mammary gland with a pull-tab attached to it. Really no one should have been too surprised at that. Wouldn't one expect a bumping, humping, trashy routine entitled "I'm going to get you naked" to end that way.

Does any responsible adult ever listen to the words of this rap crap? I'd quote you some of it, but the sergeant of arms would throw me out of here, as well he should. And then there was that prancing, dancing, strutting, rutting guy evidently suffering from jock itch because he kept yelling and grabbing his crotch. But then, maybe there's a crotch-grabbing culture I'm unaware of.

...

The desire and will of this Congress to meaningfully do anything about any of these so-called social issues is nonexistent and embarrassingly disgraceful. The American people are waiting and growing impatient with us. They want something done.

I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Sen. Allard and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. And S.1558, the Liberties Restoration Act, which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the pledge of allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments. And today I join Sen. Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain ways.

Here are the actions he and the other social conservative/religious right are proposing.

Federal Marriage Amendment (These are all also available at http://thomas.loc.gov , but you have to search it yourself because the search links expire.)

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Amendment proponents claim that this doesn't outlaw civil unions, but it obviously does. Have you ever noticed that social conservatives only support states' rights if it results in less individual rights?

Religious Liberties Restoration Act

a) DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS- The power to display the Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively.

(b) WORD `GOD' IN PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- The power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The Pledge of Allegiance shall be, `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all.'.

(c) MOTTO `IN GOD WE TRUST'- The power to recite the national motto on or within property owned or administered by the several States or political subdivisions of such States is among the powers reserved to the States, respectively. The national motto shall be, `In God we trust'.

(d) EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO EXCEPT- The subject matter of subsections (a), (b), and (c) are excepted from the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

I think this is pretty self-explanatory: they want to make sure we keep religion in gov't as much as possible.

Constitution Restoration Act

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

In other words, courts would no longer be allowed to review the constitutionality of government promotion of religion. This seems more vague than the one above, and thus more problematic. Is a Christian prayer in school an "acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government?" What about the president leading the country in prayer? Or having a cross on the White House? And how will we know if they're OK if they can't be reviewed? Who decides whether a particular law falls under this Act unless a court reviews it? Then if a judge does decide to review a religious law, there's this nugget:

To the extent that a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States or any judge of any Federal court engages in any activity that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge, as the case may be, by reason of section 1260 or 1370 of title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act , engaging in that activity shall be deemed to constitute the commission of--

(1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction; and

(2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution .

In other words, if you doubt we're serious about this, if you touch any of our religious laws we're going to start impeaching!

As one social conservative puts it:

That piercing scream you'll hear any day now is the leftist juggernaut in America being neutered without the blessings of anesthetic. The left, it appears, has been too busy reading homoerotic poetry tucked away inside an upside-down Marx and Engles book cover to notice, but two U.S. senators have reread the Constitution. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. and Zell Miller, D-Ga., have decided to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to regulate the federal courts.

These all seem to be a direct shot at social conservatives' primary whipping boy: the judiciary. The culture war is on! I just get the feeling that this stuff doesn't play well outside the Bible belt. Are we going to have another Civil War?

Most of my information comes from here.

[finboy]

Is it really that dramatic? Heck, social conservatives have been b*tching about the Left for years without worrying folks. Why should it be more than hot air suddenly?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by BRussell:
... The culture war is on!

NOW it's on? I thought Pat Buchanan first talked about the culture war back in 1992.

[thunderous_funker]

Hmmm, sounds like the 2004 campaign to divide the electorate with "race, guns, God and gays" has officially begun.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hmmm, sounds like the 2004 campaign to divide the electorate with "race, guns, God and gays" has officially begun.

What does any of this have to do with race? Or guns? And isn't it a little absurd to think issues like gay marriage wouldn't be a part of this campaign? More to the point: why SHOULDN'T such issues be on the table?

If people want to try and amend the Constitution, I have no problem with that. Amendments are extremely hard to get passed and ratified. And if they do pass, that's the will of the people.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
What does any of this have to do with race? Or guns? And isn't it a little absurd to think issues like gay marriage wouldn't be a part of this campaign? More to the point: why SHOULDN'T such issues be on the table?

If people want to try and amend the Constitution, I have no problem with that. Amendments are extremely hard to get passed and ratified. And if they do pass, that's the will of the people.

There's time yet to introduce the rest of the campaign.

The "culture war" is total bunk. Its a game that elites play to distract the rabble from real issues. And yes, both parties are guilty of doing it.

I find it endlessly entertaining that when Dean offered such a thought, he was immediately shouted down by those who have a vested interest in perpetuating this stupidity.

Apparently, the choice is between an politically correct nanny state and a moral authoritarian nanny state. But both nannies are on the take while we argue about it.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The "culture war" is total bunk...

Riiight. Abortion (for one example) never comes up during elections. The confirmation of judges never hinges on such issues.

... But both nannies are on the take while we argue about it.

On the TAKE? What on earth are you talking about?

And Dean was ridiculed because he apparently believed that these were the only issues people cared about in the south. Complete nonsense.

I have some good news and some bad news for you. The bad news is cultural issues will be a part of the campaign. People care about what they care about no matter how much that pains you. The good news is Iraq and the economy are the two issues that will truly drive the campaign far more than any other.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by finboy:
Is it really that dramatic? Heck, social conservatives have been b*tching about the Left for years without worrying folks. Why should it be more than hot air suddenly?

I was just doing my best Drudge Report impersonation.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
NOW it's on? I thought Pat Buchanan first talked about the culture war back in 1992.

Yeah, but now it's REALLY on.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Riiight. Abortion (for one example) never comes up during elections. The confirmation of judges never hinges on such issues.On the TAKE? What on earth are you talking about?

And Dean was ridiculed because he apparently believed that these were the only issues people cared about in the south. Complete nonsense.

I have some good news and some bad news for you. The bad news is cultural issues will be a part of the campaign. People care about what they care about no matter how much that pains you. The good news is Iraq and the economy are the two issues that will truly drive the campaign far more than any other.

I didn't say it didn't happen, I said it was a BS tactic to keep people fighting over nonesense to perpetuate the status quo.

And I didn't say people shouldn't care about such things. I'm saying that treating things like Janet's breasts as a matter for the government and a wedge issues for the parties is exactly the BS game I'm talking about.

By all means, get the rabble arguing over gay marriage while congress funnels another half a trillion dollars to Pharma and Insurance companies.

Let's debate how the government can patrol every home to insure no child accidently see a breast while the Pentagon hires thousands of mercenaries and builds private military bases unaccountable to taxpayers in 120 nations around the globe.

Pay no attention to the oligopoly behind the curtain playing both sides against each other.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
... Pay no attention to the oligopoly behind the curtain playing both sides against each other.

The scary thing is you actually believe this nonsense. It wasn't the Pharma and Insurance industries that made these issues controversial. There were rulings by judges. And even though you don't disagree with those rulings it's okay for other people to come to a different conclusion. That doesn't mean they can't care about other issues too.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I was just doing my best Drudge Report impersonation.

I figured. The "Developing..." should have tipped me off.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hmmm, sounds like the 2004 campaign to divide the electorate with "race, guns, God and gays" has officially begun.

Where was the liberal outrage over Clinton's "wedge issue", the Defense of Marriage Act?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Where was the liberal outrage over Clinton's "wedge issue", the Defense of Marriage Act?

I still have some in a chinese take-out container in my fridge.

[macvillage.net]

From the desk of George W. Bush:

Conservative Agenda: 2004-2006
- Ensure Homosexuals are 2nd class citizens
- Repeat with hispanics
- Reverse anti-discrimination laws on african americans
- Deport Asians
- Backstab the Jews who backed us thus far by becoming anti-semites

[djohnson]

Wow a Democrat sounding like a Republican. Sure this isnt the end of the world? I for one am all for that amendment. I am guessing we will see the "will of the people" will follow as well. This country was based on religious principles. If you do not like that, then get on out of here! Move off the Europe and you can see some serious socialism!

For those that disagree, you can

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Wow a Democrat sounding like a Republican. Sure this isnt the end of the world? I for one am all for that amendment. I am guessing we will see the "will of the people" will follow as well. This country was based on religious principles. If you do not like that, then get on out of here! Move off the Europe and you can see some serious socialism!

For those that disagree, you can

According to this same right, we should be allowed to own slaves no?

[Sven G]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
According to this same right, we should be allowed to own slaves no?

Well... it's not that slavery has really been abolished, sadly: there still is the so-called "wage slavery", which in particular means that many of those who come from "unwealthy" situations have little or no choice but to choose a repetitive job (which in a really "modern" society could probably, for that matter, be automatized, if the means of surviving and living were equally assured to everyone). Of course, this also means that many, many people are virtually (good word, in this case, BTW!) obliged to re-shape themselves psychologically in a very limitative manner (in relation to their potentials), in order to make all this acceptable.

OK, only personal observations, maybe - but I don't think, really, that "slavery" - in an extended meaning - is completely eradicated, today...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Well... it's not that slavery has really been abolished, sadly: there still is the so-called "wage slavery", which in particular means that many of those who come from "unwealthy" situations have little or no choice but to choose a repetitive job (which in a really "modern" society could probably, for that matter, be automatized, if the means of surviving and living were equally assured to everyone). Of course, this also means that many, many people are virtually (good word, in this case, BTW!) obliged to re-shape themselves psychologically in a very limitative manner (in relation to their potentials), in order to make all this acceptable.

OK, only personal observations, maybe - but I don't think, really, that "slavery" - in an extended meaning - is completely eradicated, today...

Yes, I completely agree with you. It is happening way to much.

But is it my right to abuse someone? Or do they have the same rights as I do?

I think most know my answer.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Yes, I completely agree with you. It is happening way to much.

But is it my right to abuse someone? Or do they have the same rights as I do?

I think most know my answer.

Of course, from a (theoretical) rights point of view, you are right: everyone should have the same rights and possibilities to live at least decently.

Sadly, it's the underlying foundations that don't really permit this: it has been so for centuries - and the "modernity" paradigm, which should in its intentions have put an end to all discriminations, regrettably seems to have failed rather miserably.

Maybe, we have never been modern (yet!), after all...

[macvillage.net]

Speaking of modern day slavery... Yahoo News is just pointing to this:
http://www.cahr.fsu.edu/traffickingreport.html