Jewish vote in a Dean-Bush race

[migrendel]

Jews would be crazy to vote for the President. They could never gain true sway within the inner-circle, because this President is buried up to his eyeballs in dogmatic evangelical theology. He's clearly the choice of the Christian nation types, the ones that say everyone from atheists to Jews to Muslims to Catholics are enemies of the national spirit. As for this Israel business. I don't think the President is concerned with the fate of the Jewish community, he merely is trying to maintain Jewish hegemony in Israel because Christians of his stripe think that they will be "saved" if the Holy Land will go back to the Jews, thus bringing on the second coming. I also don't see how the Jewish community, one which has often been clearly given to satiety and very supportive of needed reforms, would be so prejudiced in favor of their own people that they could overlook the vengeful and murderous crimes being committed against the Palestinians. Some Jews, like Noam Chomsky, are seeing this atrocity for what it is, but I'm sad to report that the decadent Zionism of the likes of William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Dorothy Rabinowitz, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Safire hold greater sway. Perhaps what is concealed shall be brought to light.

[migrendel]

To respond to StevenNick99: I was struck by your quotation, which came from Barry Goldwater. I agree. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. We must be vigilant to defend that one quality that makes a society a great one. But the kind of extremism you advocate, extremism in defense of oppressive social constraint, is no virtue. Our Constitution contains the prohibition that the government make an establishment of religion. Yet time and time again, lawmakers harp upon Judeo-Christian values as a legitimate source of law in a Republic. This mustn't be. When you exult Judeo-Christian ethics, you indicate a preference for a system of ethics over the others. Many people find Judeo-Christian ethics to be unreasonable and offensive, because they are often rigid and inapplicable in a more complex modern society. To avoid such controversies over arcane doctrine, secularism would be an acceptable alternative grounded in right reason. When a government says that abortion should be a criminal act, children in schools shall pray, and people will be treated unequally because they are attracted to people of the same gender, they are using an argument rooted in belief. Justify it? It can't be done, because precepts of this nature are rooted in a bias towards a particular system. Thought simply isn't involved. But under a secular spirit of the law, one can examine the complex interests of all parties, weigh them against all the others, and announce an appropriate balance. To say we Democrats don't understand values is offensive. We understand different moral standards and we are not hidebound by the old. We believe and have the great good graces to say that you Republicans have values. We might also believe that your intentions aren't firmly planted in malice. But your actions, which seem to be children of manifest inequality and vengeance, just won't meet the needs of a pluralistic society. Continue to fight for Israel and unacceptance if you wish, but it is beyond a doubt that history shall prove you wrong.

[migrendel]

I would first like to challenge your interpretation of the Establishment Clause because it is so removed from historical and legal reality. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association declaring a "wall of separation" between church and state. George Washington wrote to the congregation of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island stating that their religious freedom would always be protected as long as government and religion would be apart. James Madison campaigned against a tax which would subsidize the established church of Virginia, citing the Constitution. James Madison apparently felt that a state establishment of religion was unconstitutional. But, considering that he wrote it, I still would seem that you know better. Also, in 1947, Justice Hugo Black conceived the Incorporation Doctrine, which applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This principle has been accepted by judges of all ideologies, including Robert Bork. But I suppose he's too liberal for you. Now, in light of these observations, we shall examine the concept of superiority of ideas and religions. I would posit that some ideas are superior to others. That's how I am able to take a position on an issue. But, these views, are ultimately informed by my personal predilections, as are yours. Predilections are little more than biases. I would not support your conservative views as a matter of policy, but I could reconcile myself with them philosophically if they indicative of thought, not reflexive bias. I would also take to ask anyone that says that philosophy, morals, and religion are inseperable. Every major philosopher who has posited a system of ethics has done so without God. Even those most quintessentially religious philosophers, Protestant theologians, declared God dead in the 1960's. Jurisprudence, the branch of philosophy pertaining to laws, has developed in the abscence of God. If you read any major judicial opinion it makes no mention of God. God does not come up in Marbury v. Madison. Incidentally, in Sir Edward Coke's common law opinion in Dr. Bonham's Case (1610), the antecedent of Marbury, doesn't involve God. Brown v. Board of Education is a Godless source of law, and Roe v. Wade's only reference to religion is to say that those trained in the respective discipline of theology could not agree on when personhood began. Now that I'm thinking about it, there are some cases that do make explicit use of religion to justify the precedent. They are Dred Scott v. Sanford and Minor v. Happersett. But both of those decisions of bad law, and illustrations of the peril of making religion and law close cousins, unless you think slavery and limited suffrage are good things. To sum it up, law and philosophy can stand on their own two feet without religion, because so often in the past they have.