Saturday, April 30, 2005

A Question fer The Masses

If the Founding Fathers very deliberately (and wisely) did not set up a theocracy here when they had the chance, why the sudden shrill rhetoric suggesting that's what the evil reactionary bible-thumpers Republicans are trying to do now?

Another thought:

If, according to the Loonie Left, appointing Judges who profess a Christian morality is tatamount to establishing a theocracy, and this is being opposed as a "very bad thing," then by this standard, does it follow that anyone of devout Christian faith is therefore ineligible for a seat on The Bench?

Here's the dictionary definition of "theocracy":
n 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidance
So then, is it the position of the current critics of the Republicans' theocratic opposition to the filibuster, that by allowing these judges' nominations to go through unfettered we will empanel judges who make decisions solely on the basis of their personal ideology, without regard for the rule of law or the will of the people? That some voice from on high will lead them to set aside the laws they are entrusted to enforce?

So, what do we call it when a Judge in San Fransisco authorizes gay marriages in direct contravention to a state referendum whereby the "will of the people" resounding opposed such marriages? And who has yet to be impeached for it? Where does that fit into the liberal & Democrat outrage over Republican "tactics?"

If the liberals do it, it's "enlightened" and "progressive." If conservatives do it, it's "reactionary" and "theocratic."

It's all about the hypocrisy, baby.