US sets out its holy order

[emad]

Guardian

Civil liberties are under threat as the religious right aims for a social blueprint that values faith over reason, writes Albert Scardino

Monday November 8, 2004

Now that the worthy opponent has offered his gracious concession, and now that the victor has promised to spend his political capital, the war can resume. The winner demands unconditional surrender.

Forget the conversation about healing a divided land. Half the population believe the government has no place in personal health care decisions, including abortion. The other half believes abortion to be murder. Half the population believe sexual orientation should not be of concern to the government; half say homosexual unions will lead to the end of civilisation and the extinction of the species. Half accept the teachings of Darwin; half believe Darwin to be a heretic. No healing can reconcile these positions.

The land has been divided before. Until 1863, half the American voters thought people of colour to be people. Half thought them to be two-thirds of a person. That is how the constitution defined people with darker skins for purposes of apportioning representation among the states. These mutually exclusive views led to the civil war and to a revolution in racial, cultural and economic relationships. The revolution ended in 1965 with Lyndon Johnson's legislative programme guaranteeing full civil rights for people of colour. The winner then applied the fruits of victory to all. The losers were left with their dignity.

The counter-revolution has been under way for 40 years. No one yet argues that the civil rights laws of the 1960s should be repealed. In many ways, they have served as the organising principles for the contemporary Republican party. School integration drove much of the backlash that fuelled resentment against social engineering. New laws that guaranteed equal opportunities in employment, housing and public contracting brought more reaction. Anti-discrimination statutes for people with disabilities, immigrants, non-Christian religions and sexual orientation triggered a powerful resentment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1346207,00.html

[nofurylike]

1. imho, this IS LBN. wondering why moved? thank you for posting. n/t

[Moderator]

2. Commentary does not go in LBN

[nofurylike]

4. thank you. my mistake, sorry. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. As usual I need to go to the british press to find out

any sensible essay

[Maat]

5. I was just thinking the same thing.

The British, French, Germans, and others around the World get it. Too bad I can't get the Media Whores and my fundie relatives to articulate the most basic common sense principles.

I am so embarassed...please, all Americans traveling abroad...let people know that LawStudentMom and her husband did not vote for *. And we do read the international press. And we do investigate..
oops!...now John *croft is going to investigate me.

[struggle4progress]

6. Christians demand the Year of the Jubilee!

Congress must act NOW! Forgive and forget all debts every seventh year! Let's help the religious conservatives bring this Biblical principle to Capitol Hill!

[Briar]

7. Great article

"The drafters of the constitution understood that the tyranny of the majority could be more fearsome and destructive than the rule of an autocratic despot. Now, the majority rules, absolutely."

This nails it.