This post at the Volokh Conspiracy on the series is quite interesting.

At least CNN appears to have wised up and are having Christiane Amanpour host it. I think all of 5 people tuned in to their last big special, that global warming report hosted by Glenn Beck called, "Exposed: The Climate of Fear!"

Hey, here's an idea for a groundbreaking investigative tv cable news report: who exactly watches investigative tv cable news reports anyway? I would have said "interesting investigative tv cable news report" but I suspect that would be impossible considering...

Jeff Sharlet wrote about Battle Cry and Ron Luce's operation in Rolling Stone earlier this year. The article can be found on Sharlet's web site here.

I know a person who worked for Luce's Teen Mania organization. A decent but intense young man, as American fundies tend to be.

From the Rolling Stone article...

"When you enlist in the military, there's a code of honor," Luce preaches, "same as being a follower of Christ." His Christian code requires a "wartime mentality": a "survival orientation" and a readiness to face "real enemies." The queers and communists, feminists and Muslims, to be sure, but also the entire American cultural apparatus of marketing and merchandising..."

Typical Rolling Stone slant. In the middle of a paragraph of quotes, slip in a sentence suggesting the conservatives you're writing about are bigots, even though you don't have anything to back that up. Most RS articles say more about the observer than the observed.

Anyway, the word "fundamentalist" is very much overapplied to Christians. It can seemingly mean anything from simply social conservatives to Biblical literalists to the tiny group of actual radicals who think American law should be re-written to align with the Bible. And, of course, there's the capital "F" Fundamentalists, who wouldn't go anywhere near a Ron Luce rally because rock is the devil's music

You're right about the misuse of the word "fundamentalist," Eric, and we should all be more careful when we use it (I'm including myself in that). The term has specific, historic origins in the early 20th century, but today it's used for "anyone whose religious beliefs are more conservative than mine, and freak me out a little."

Anyway, the word "fundamentalist" is very much overapplied to Christians.

I'd agree with that. Most of us here in NYC don't have a clue about the difference between a Christian Fundamentalist and an Evangelical. Nor do we really care. The term "fundamentalist" has kind of evolved in a way that we generally apply it to religious conservatives of any stripe who have significant issues with the Enlightenment and Charles Darwin, and a fair amount of intolerance towards other views and religions.

...tiny group of actual radicals who think American law should be re-written to align with the Bible.

Hey, it hasn't exactly escaped our notice that some of that "tiny group" serves in Congress! And that Fundamentalists formed political coalitions with other conservative Christians intending to, shall I say, assert undue influence over institutions like the Air Force Academy and the Federal Judiciary. Don't overdo the downplaying!

"Will it attempt, Andrew Sullivan-style, to paint conservative Christians as just as frightening as Islamic terrorists?" Um... say wha? Sullivan -- who rather clearly self-identifies as a conservative Christian, after all! -- has never said this, and has explicitly denied such an equivalence repeatedly, most recently here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/for-the-record.html

I very much agree that there's a problem with a sloppiness about using terms like "fundamentalist", and we would be wise to adopt Sullivan's "Christianist" presents as a very appropriate replacement term, to mark out the kind of extremist that we really _do_ need to watch out for. A term which, again, he's very clear _not_ to say implies an equivalence with terrorists : "And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all." (from the original Time column where he tried to introduce the term)

It's worth flagging Rowe's recent post on "Dominionism" in this context, btw:
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/future-prospects-for-dominionism.html

I believe Eric may be referring to Andrew Sullivan's use of the term "Christianist" in which he attempts to portray some segments of conservative or "fundamentalist" Christianity as comparable to Islamicist. Google the word "Christianist" and you can see that is the intended use of the word.

Yes, he is exactly paralleling it with "Islamicist". Which he then points out is NOT AT ALL synonymous with "terrorist". Which is why Eric's original claim is just plain wrong.

Here's the original Time column:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html

Here's the relevant paragraph: "So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike."

I wrote:

...tiny group of actual radicals who think American law should be re-written to align with the Bible.

JohnS wrote:

Hey, it hasn't exactly escaped our notice that some of that "tiny group" serves in Congress!

I think we're talking about two different things here. While you're thinking of anyone who pushes a legislative agenda informed by Christian morality (e.g. outlawing abortion), I'm thinking of the small minority of people who think the US should become a de facto theocracy. Not just in the rhetoric of liberals, mind you, but in reality. Such people might, for instance, require all judges to swear to a Christian statement of faith.

As for Sullivan and Christianist, I agree with what David wrote in the comments to this post:

If Sullivan would stick to the usage outlined in the quote above, I'd have no problem with it. But, as he and others use it, I feel like I'm being smeared with the term every time he does, just because I happen to hold some socially conservative positions.

And while Sullivan may not really mean to explicitly equate conservative Christians with violent Islamists, nevertheless the association is still there in the construction of the term "Christianist." It's like saying that the term "Islamofascist" doesn't really compare radical Muslims to Nazis. You can write your definition however you want, but the implication remains. Furthermore, I think Sullivan knows full well that the term "Christianist" is insulting.

phil's above post reminded me that Sullivan has pointed out that not all Islamists are violent. Fair enough. I think that's a distinction that is very easily lost, since the Islamists we are most concerned about these days are those who *are* violent. Regardless, the problem remains that the term is applied too broadly to Christians who support socially conservative positions

I think we're talking about two different things here. While you're thinking of anyone who pushes a legislative agenda informed by Christian morality (e.g. outlawing abortion), I'm thinking of the small minority of people who think the US should become a de facto theocracy.

We may actually on the same page regarding the "tiny group of actual radicals," Eric. I was specifically thinking of the congressional co-sponsors of the the Constitution Restoration Act, which intended to limit the power of the federal judiciary regarding religious liberty cases. Pushing a legislative agenda is one thing, but some extremists have made no secret of their intentions to find a "constitutional" solution.

phil's above post reminded me that Sullivan has pointed out that not all Islamists are violent. Fair enough. I think that's a distinction that is very easily lost, since the Islamists we are most concerned about these days are those who *are* violent.

Indeed, I would agree Eric. I would assert the following:

Islamists worldwide are more sympathetic with violent Islamists than Christianists worldwide are sympathetic with violent Christianists.

I disagree with the Constitution Restoration Act for a couple of reasons, but I do not think it re-writes the law to align it with the Bible, or begins to re-write the law to align it with the Bible, or constitutes evidence that its sponsors intend or wish to re-write the law to align it with the Bible. The bill purports to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing cases in which any government "entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" is challenged. Unless this bill starts "living" at some point after it is enacted (being treated as meaning something that it does not), it could affect certain Establishment Clause cases, but it would not restrict the freedom of any person to practice the religion of his choice or no religion at all (though there is a risk that it would protect a government creating a Ten Commandments display or something similar with the money of taxpayers, which I oppose in principle, even though the harm would be trivial). It would protect statehouse prayers, Ten Commandment displays, a few other things like those prayers and displays, and not much else.

Here is a sponsor's press release, announcing the introduction of the bill in 2005: http://shelby.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=232804

Karl

I disagree with the Constitution Restoration Act for a couple of reasons, but I do not think it re-writes the law to align it with the Bible, or begins to re-write the law to align it with the Bible...It would protect statehouse prayers, Ten Commandment displays, a few other things like those prayers and displays, and not much else.

I'm no legal expert, but critics claim that it is so broadly written that it's unclear exactly what actions by an "officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government" could be considered outside the fed court's jurisdiction if that officer or agent claims to be invoking God's law.

[I do not think it] constitutes evidence that its sponsors intend or wish to re-write the law to align it with the Bible.

According To Roy Moore, the Constitution Restoration Act was drafted by himself and noted Christian Reconstructionists Herb Titus and Howard Phillips. The bill had the enthusiastic support of noted Reconstructionists like Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin, "the most important legislation in the last fifty years," and Dr. D. James Kennedy, now famous for this quote: "Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”

These are people who agitate against church-state separation, people who want a Christian America. I would think that the co-sponsors of the bill had to be aware of that.

Roy Moore is a Christianist for his Ten Commandments idol not doubt. But when Sully sullies a Mike Huckabee or a Sam Brownback (like with the Mother Theresa mis-appropriated quote) he's just using the label to be a jerk. Brownback, for example, is a religious-informed social conservative, but none of the positions on his campaign web site are specifically sectarian and couldn't be defended from a secular conservative point of view.

The indiscriminate nature in which the term is used (like of like "fundamentalist" in that way) and my long-standing position here at ITA that the religious right is on a serious decline are why I have little use for the term.

Thanks for the Positive Liberty link. I guess you could say I'm in the Clayton Cramer school when it comes to the "Dominionist threat."

I'd just like to point out that Sen Brownback was one of the Constitution Restoration Act's main sponsors.

Like Jonathan Rowe says (via philosopher's link), let's not overestimate the Dominionist threat, but "those who are wary of the Christian Nationalist agenda are right to stay concerned. "

JohnS,

The fact that Dominionists support a piece of legislation doesn't logically imply that the legislation is inherently Dominionist. Communists would probably prefer single-payer health care to the US's current market-based system, but that doesn't make single-payer a Communist system, or make every supporter of it a Communist.

Eric,

The fact that Dominionists support a piece of legislation doesn't logically imply that the legislation is inherently Dominionist.

True, but this particular piece of legislation was drafted by Dominists. Its vague wording has led critics to claim it could take the federal judiciary out of the business of protecting religious expression and preventing gov't from promoting one particular religion over another.

Does that make Brownback a Dominionist? Not necessarily, but he did co-sponsor the thing. It does tell me though, that your "tiny minority" carries (or carried - at least in 2004) a lot of clout.

I'm no legal expert, but critics claim that it is so broadly written that it's unclear exactly what actions by an "officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government" could be considered outside the fed court's jurisdiction if that officer or agent claims to be invoking God's law.

I do not know specifically which critics or criticisms I should be considering as I respond to this, but some of the interpretations that I have heard seem implausible to me based on the language of the bill itself, and are inconsistent with the sponsors' explanations of the bill. The bill itself states that it would prevent the Supreme Court or district courts from reviewing any matter in which relief is sought against a government entity, agent, or officer for acknowledging "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." Though some people seem to be concerned that it would make any government action unreviewable if an official invokes God to explain or justify the action, I do not think that fear is reasonable, because it is the acknowledgment itself that the bill makes unreviewable, based on the plain reading of the text. The only word that I think could even potentially introduce ambiguity is "concerning," but I think the meaning is still clear. Also, though the bill would have to go somewhere in the House and Senate to have a legislative history, its primary sponsors in both houses released press releases that support this interpretation. In addition to the Shelby press release that I posted last night, here is the press release from Robert Aderholt, the House sponsor: http://aderholt.house.gov/?sectionid=170§iontree=6,20,170&itemid=548 . It reads, "It is fully appropriate for today’s state and federal officials to recognize God in oaths, mottos, documents, prayers, and on monuments. We must protect that right... The Constitution Restoration Act will restore and preserve the acknowledgment of God to our law and government... Therefore, whether it is a public display of the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom, or a national motto ‘in God we trust,’ all would be protected since it is in essence the acknowledgment of God."

Also, for one of the reasons that I am actually opposed to the bill, I think that the chance that it would be misinterpreted is small. Effectively influencing Constitutional law by preventing the courts from reviewing certain classes of cases would be a bad habit for Congress to form. Even when Congress does not use this power, the knowledge that it is willing to do so when it is upset by the courts could seriously impact the independence of the courts. For that reason, I doubt that any court would ever be interested in a broad interpretation of this kind of bill when a more narrow interpretation is also more plausible.

Congress would also have the power to enforce the bill through the power of impeachment, which is another reason why I am not comfortable with the bill. However, I also do not think that there is much of a risk that impeachment would be used to overextend the reach of this bill. Impeachment, currently, is uncommon, and to lead to the removal of a judge or justice, it would require the agreement of the House and the Senate, and a 2/3 majority in the Senate. These impeachments would be very high-profile events, possibly involving the impeachment of several Supreme Court justices at a time. The general public would notice this, and every representative and Senator would be aware of the seriousness of what they are doing, and, if nothing more, the possibility that it would be used against them in the next election. Even if a Congress of the future would be willing and able to use the impeachment provisions of this bill, I do not believe a Congress would ever use it to impeach or remove a judge or justice for reviewing a case in which a government action is reviewed, when an official invokes God to justify the action, if the invokation itself is not the issue.

Even if that threat exists -- and I do not think it does -- I see no reason to believe that it is intended by the sponsors, since it is the least defensible interpretation of the bill.

According To Roy Moore, the Constitution Restoration Act was drafted by himself and noted Christian Reconstructionists Herb Titus and Howard Phillips.

Regardless of what these people believe about godly dominion and influence, it does not mean that their fellow supporters and co-creators of a given bill necessarily intend or expect to accomplish that, even in part, through that bill.

The sponsors of the bill may well have known about the views of its biggest supporters, but they would also have had their own reasons for introducing and supporting the bill, and they would have had their own interpretations of the bill, based on its text.

Karl

I do not know specifically which critics or criticisms I should be considering as I respond to this, but some of the interpretations that I have heard seem implausible to me based on the language of the bill itself, and are inconsistent with the sponsors' explanations of the bill.

Again, I'm no legal expert, but here are two who have a go at the Constitution Restoration Act. (And I apologize in advance if they raise some of the same objections to it that you already have.)

"Toward a Medieval Model: Deconstructing the Constitution Restoration Act" by Michael Peabody
http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/561/1/89/?PrintableVersion=enabled

"An Alabama congressman wants to give God an exemption from judicial review." By Amy Sullivan
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2004/scene_sullivan_sepoct04.msp

Here's some nice background on it:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/04/roy_moore/index.html?pn=3

Thank you for the links, JohnS. I do not think I would quite call myself an "expert," either, but here is what I think:

The Michael Peabody article demonstrates that he has a good deal of background knowledge about law and history, and the history of the 14th Amendment. However, he repeatedly makes claims about the effect of the bill without explaining why he believes it would have that effect. First, he writes that "If enacted, the CRA would effectively turn the United States into a theocracy, in which the arbitrary dictates of God—as interpreted or discovered by a judge, politician, or bureaucrat—would override the rule of law." This is the argument that I had heard before, and all that I can add to my previous comment is that I have no idea why he believes the bill would have this effect, since he doesn't say. Reading the bill myself, I don't see anything that could have that effect, and the sponsors do not seem to believe that it would have that effect. Peabody also claims that the bill could, "eliminate that portion of the Fourteenth Amendment that operates to apply the Constitution’s Bill of Rights to the state and local governments, and send the nation into a methodical tailspin when it comes to individual rights." Peabody gives additional background information on what he said that the bill would eliminate, but again, he doesn't say why he believes it could affect it. For this claim, I can find nothing in the bill that could explain it.

The Amy Sullivan article is older, and quotes an older version of the bill. I do not think the older version is any more ambiguous, but I do think that the way she paraphrases the bill adds cause for confusion: "The Constitution Restoration Act, which they introduced earlier this year, would prohibit judicial review of any action taken by a government official 'by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'" That version of the bill, however, read, "[T]he 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 entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), by reason of that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." The part that she quotes is correct, but the bill does not prohibit review of actions taken by reason of a government element or officer's acknowledgment -- it prohibits review when relief is sought by reason of the element or officer's acknowledgment itself. I think the bill is clearer than her paraphrased version.

Karl,

The Michael Peabody article demonstrates that he has a good deal of background knowledge about law and history, and the history of the 14th Amendment. However, he repeatedly makes claims about the effect of the bill without explaining why he believes it would have that effect.

There's this from Katherine Yurica:

"...since a judge may assert that God is the sovereign source of law under HR 3799 Constitution Restoration Act), may not that judge decree God’s law as stated in the Bible to be supreme over every law written by mere mortals? By definition the word “sovereign” means: “the supreme repository of power in a political state.” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). So the sentence in HR 3799 (and S. 2082) establishes the right of an individual to assert God’s sovereignty over all laws in the United States. 
 
"If a judge can make this assertion with impunity, what prevents him, should this ill advised law pass Congress, from applying biblical law instead of the law of the state? Of course he could be struck down by the appellate courts in his state—but what if all those courts are packed with Dominionists or the legislative body can impeach any judge in the state for failure to follow God’s sovereign laws?
 
"Let’s take a hypothetical situation. A homosexual or an adulterer is arrested for violating the sodomy laws of Texas. Regardless of the punishment for the crime of sodomy in the statute, the Old Testament portion of the Bible establishes the death penalty. So the Dominionist appointed judge finds God to be the sovereign source of law.
 
"He then finds the defendant guilty as charged and issues the death penalty. All the appellate judges in the state uphold the lower court judge out of fear. If HR3799 (or S. 2082) is passed and becomes the law, the defendant would not be able to appeal to the Supreme Court or any federal court for help because the law prohibits the Supreme Court from hearing a case decided upon the basis of [an] individual's belief that God is the sovereign source of law."

Not to make too big a deal out of this, because the Constitution Restoration Act probably never had a chance of getting out of committee (and if you believe Salon, may have simply been a sop to Moore to keep him in the GOP), but my point in bringing it up was to give an example of the kind of influence that Eric's "tiny group of actual radicals" have within the GOP.

It is true that it is unlikely to make it out of the committee, and that it will never be enacted if the rest of Congress concludes that it means what its critics say it means (which, however, would make it even more difficult for a court to conclude that the bill limits its jurisdiction in the way the bill's opponents believe it would). However, I do not think it serves your purpose of showing the power of the "tiny group of actual radicals." The bill's sponsors in Congress seem to believe it would have the much more limited effect that the text of the bill suggests. If that is what they believe (and even if they are wrong, they are reasonable to believe it), then how can the fact that they introduced the bill demonstrate either their own extremism or the extent of the control that extremists have over them? If Roy Moore handed them a bill that would clearly have had the effect that critics are afraid of, would these sponsors have supported it?

I have a three-part response to Katherine Yurica. The first part is that the meaning of the bill is probably harder to follow than it would have been without the lists and parentheses ("entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's) separating one prepositional phrase from the next. A cleaner, though less legally air-tight, version would deny the courts jurisdiction to review "any matter to the extent that relief is sought against [the government] concerning [the government]'s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." The relief must concern the acknowledgment itself, not some other action that a government official has attempted to explain by referencing God. Second, she asks, "[S]ince a judge may assert that God is the sovereign source of law under HR 3799 Constitution Restoration Act), may not that judge decree God’s law as stated in the Bible to be supreme over every law written by mere mortals?" I don't think so. "The People" have also been called sovereign, but acknowledging their sovereignty and invoking it to justify casting aside United States law are two very different things. Claiming that everything done in the name of the sovereign source of the law is as good as or better than the law itself is not the same thing as recognizing it, and the recognition that the law comes from an authority outside of itself does not exempt people from following it. Third, she correctly states that the bill protects those who acknowledge God as the sovereign source of the law, but the sentence continues: "...acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." If the bill is meant to mean the same thing by "sovereign source of law" as it would have to mean by sovereign source of liberty and sovereign source of government, "acknowledgment" would have to mean recognizing as the truth that God is the sovereign source of the law, because what other meaning could there be in recognizing God as the sovereign source of liberty and government?

If Roy Moore handed them a bill that would clearly have had the effect that critics are afraid of, would these sponsors have supported it?

Of course not. Roy Moore and Herb Titus are not idiots and would never have drafted a bill that clearly spelled out anything like what critics of the CRA purport might be possible. Not only would it NEVER have had a chance to see the light of day, but then guys like Sen Shelby wouldn't be able to play dumb when critics went batpoop crazy.

Of course not. Roy Moore and Herb Titus are not idiots and would never have drafted a bill that clearly spelled out anything like what critics of the CRA purport might be possible.

That is true. I also believe that fewer, if any, of the co-sponsors and original sponsors would even have wanted the bill to pass if they believed it would have the effect that its critics claim it would. It seems that the sponsors' support for the bill (based on their own understanding of its potential effect) has been used as the evidence that they could believably support something as extreme as the effects that the critics believe the bill would have. Some of these critics have made statements along the lines of, "You might think that a bill this extreme would not stand a chance, but look at all of the sponsors!" However, those sponsors support the bill because they believe (correctly) that its effects would be far more limited, and would protect Ten Commandment displays, oaths, statehouse prayers, and not much other than that, so I don't think that their support for the bill tells us anything about their support for the radical changes that the critics believe the bill would cause.

Since the sponsors say that the bill would have the more limited effect, and since the text of the bill supports that interpretation, and since there is almost no chance that a bill passed by a Congress interpreting it that way would ever be re-interpreted to have the extreme effects predicted by the bill's critics (so if the sponsors genuinely want those effects, they have chosen a poor strategy), and, finally, considering that every argument I have seen from critics who explained how they reached their conclusions about the effects of the bill (why they believed it would have deprive the courts of jurisdiction in every case in which an official uttered the magic words, "I acknowledge God" to explain his actions) has resorted to inaccurately paraphrasing the text of the bill, I think we would be safer in giving the sponsors the benefit of the doubt.

Absolutely, give the sponsors the benefit of the doubt, Karl. And if you really believe that Herb Titus only intended to limit the bill to protecting "Ten Commandment displays, oaths and statehouse prayers," please take a few minutes to read this article in the Nation by Max Blumenthal, called "In Contempt of Courts," chronicling his visit to the 2005 "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" conference.

Actually, I don't think it makes a difference what we think Herb Titus ultimately wants to accomplish. Herb Titus cannot be an example of extremists who have managed to get themselves elected to Congress, because he is not in Congress. Regardless of his long-term objectives, he created a bill that only appears to have the effect its critics fear when those critics misrepresent its text.

The Max Blumenthal does not tell us much about the sponsors. However, it does, again, misrepresent the content of the bill. He writes, "If they refuse to acknowledge 'God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government,' or rely in any way on international law in their rulings, judges also invite impeachment." Neither part of his sentence is correct. First, the bill would not require judges to acknowledge God -- it would deny them jurisdiction when relief is sought over a governmental acknowledgment of God. Second, judges would not invite impeachment for relying on international law in any way in their rulings -- they would risk impeachment only if they use foreign or international law to interpret and apply the Constitution. They would certainly be free to use international law in the form of treaties or conventions to which the United States is a party.

Throughout the rest of the article, Blumenthal places unrelated facts and statements side by side in a way that suggests relationships that we have no reason to believe exist. (For example, he uses David Barton's involvement in an older judge-impeachment bill from the 1990s as an opportunity to drop something about a neo-nazi into the article.) And after he misrepresented the content of the Constitution Restoration Act, why should we give him the benefit of the doubt in the next paragraph where he seems to suggest that the Constitution Restoration Act is considered a cure for the grievances listed by a speaker named Michael Schwarz?

Herb Titus cannot be an example of extremists who have managed to get themselves elected to Congress, because he is not in Congress.

I know he's not a legislator, he's just an extremist who wrote some pretty hinky legislation that attracted a number of congressional co-sponsors. Someone should have reminded Senators Shelby and Brownback that when you swim in the mud, you get muddy.

Just out of curiosity. Do you think there's any chance that Sen. Tom Coburn might be on the same wavelength as his chief of staff, Michael Schwartz? The one who runs around telling reporters at conservative Christian conferences, "I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!" No possibility right? How about this: if Coburn doesn't get re-elected in 2010, do you think Schwartz might be interested in working for someone like, say, Russ Feingold?

Regardless of his long-term objectives, he created a bill that only appears to have the effect its critics fear when those critics misrepresent its text.

I'm confused. I thought you said you weren't a legal expert, yet you appear to have no problem suggesting that actual legal experts critical of the CRA are "misrepresenting the text."

And I'm sorry you didn't get much out of the Blumenthal article. My intention in suggesting it was to merely give a flavor of the types of far-right extremists who trumpeted the CRA. The ones I guess that Sen. Shelby wasn't trying to impress. Oh well, I guess one person's interesting "background" or "context," if you will, are another person's "unrelated facts."

I know he's not a legislator, he's just an extremist who wrote some pretty hinky legislation that attracted a number of congressional co-sponsors. Someone should have reminded Senators Shelby and Brownback that when you swim in the mud, you get muddy.

All he has done is co-author a bill that would, if passed, complete no more than a minute sliver (and possibly the most reasonable sliver) of his agenda. It only has sponsors because the sponsors believe (correctly) that the effects of the bill would be much more limited than the critics believe -- and even those meager effects will never be felt, because the bill will not become law. We agreed earlier that it will probably never even come to a vote. For these reasons, if this demonstrates "the kind of influence that Eric's 'tiny group of actual radicals' have within the GOP," then it exposes how little power those radicals actually have.

I'm confused. I thought you said you weren't a legal expert, yet you appear to have no problem suggesting that actual legal experts critical of the CRA are "misrepresenting the text."

First, they did misrepresent it. Specifically, Amy Sullivan and Max Blumenthal misrepresented it, and I explained how in my previous comments. Amy Sullivan may have done this accidentally, but Max Blumenthal's explanation of the bill is so starkly inaccurate that I wonder how he managed to be that incorrect. Second, you do not need to be an expert to understand the Constitution Restoration Act, or to know when someone describing it is misleading. The law it would change is not very complicated, and the bill itself is short and easy to read. If someone paraphrases part of Section 101 and quotes the rest, if the paraphrased part has a different meaning than what it paraphrased in the bill, it is misleading. Here is a link to the text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520: Third, whether I am an expert depends on your definition of expert. I haven't put years of work into studying statutory interpretation, but I have studied law, and I am reasonably familiar with statutory interpretation. However, the canons of statutory interpretation happen to make a lot of sense, and it starts with looking at the text of the legislation. If the meaning of the text is clear, that is also where the examination ends.

Oh well, I guess one person's interesting "background" or "context," if you will, are another person's "unrelated facts."

They are unrelated, because (for example) the fact that a supporter of a similar bill a decade ago had some kind of relationship with a neo-nazi does not tell us the content or potential effect of the bill, nor does it tell us anything about the more recent bill's sponsors, unless we believe in guilt by attenuated association.

First off, I threw in the Max Blumenthal article not because he's any kind of legal expert with any particular keen insight into the CRA, but because he gave a nice overview of the kind of flies who were drawn to it. Sorry for the confusion.

Anyway, in spite of the fact that there are a number of legal eagles who do not find the wording of the bill clear at all: "...not have jurisdiction to review... any matter ...concerning [their] acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." (Any matter? Concerning?), you insist that its meaning is crystal clear and that they are all wrong.

Let me ask you this. Do you think the CRA would limit the power of the federal judiciary specifically in religious liberty cases?

Note regarding the CRA bill co-sponsors: I wouldn't characterize sponsorship as "guilt by association." I think "birds of a feather" is more accurate.

1) Well, now you are misrepresenting the text. The phrase, "to the extent that relief is sought against" makes it a lot clearer. The matter may not merely concern an acknowledgment of God. The matter must involve relief being sought concerning the acknowledgment.

2) The CRA would limit federal courts in certain establishment clause cases, but not in all religious liberty cases.

3) Any sponsor is separated by at least few degrees from the neo-nazi (unless they have a more direct connection than that which was described in the article), and probably have never heard of him.

You, just like the supporters of the CRA, insist that its scope would be narrow and unintrusive, while at at the same time it's heralded by some of its extremist supporters as "the most important legislation of the last 50 years." Yet, based upon your reading of it as someone who is "reasonably familiar with statutory interpretation," you can't seem to fathom why some critics of the bill suspect that there is a much more ambitious agenda behind it...

So I thought it might be interesting to check out the minutes of the hearing on the CRA before the House Judiciary committee. Howard Berman (D-Cali) had concerns regarding who's God gets to be "sovereign source of law": "...all of a sudden we have a bill that applies to school prayer, the 10 Commandments, a number of other things which you lump into an acknowledgment of God because you know you can't establish religion, but looks to me like you get down the road toward establishing a religion, or at least excluding some religions from your definition."

Michael J. Gerhardt, Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School put it a little differently in his testimony before the committee: "I have no doubt that the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (recognizing, inter alia, that congruence requires the federal government to follow the same constitutional standard as the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause requires states to follow). The Court will subject to strict scrutiny any classifications that explicitly burden a suspect class or fundamental right. The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 does both.

First, the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 may be based on a suspect classification. The natural plaintiffs to challenge this law may be people who belong to particular religious faiths which do not believe in paying homage to idols, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists; people who do not want the state to tell them how and when to pray (and may adhere to particular religious faiths); or people, such as atheists, who do not believe in G-d. Each group has a claim to being a suspect class, because each is defined by virtue of its exercise of a fundamental right. Government needs a compelling justification to burden a suspect class, but mistrust of ''unelected judges'' is not a compelling justification."

He had a number of other objections, but this particular one is the one relevant to our discussion.

I think it's interesting that another expert, Arthur D. Hellman Proffessor of Law at U of Pittsburgh opened with this: "I will begin with what is the most radical provision of the bill, section 302. That is the impeachment provision that Mr. Berman and Professor Gerhardt have referred to. It seems to me that this is something the Constitution just doesn't allow Congress to do. Now, the Constitution doesn't say that in so many words, but it does say that Congress cannot dock the pay of judges because they don't like their decisions, not even 1 percent. And the reason the Framers put that in the Constitution is that they thought it was essential to have an independent judiciary. And what they meant by that was a judiciary not beholden to Congress..."

"Most radical provision." Usage of the word "most" indicates to me that the professor felt there were some other radical provisions in the bill, of which this was the "most" radical.

Anyway, let's leave aside acknowledging God as the "sovereign source of law" and the neo-Nazis that you insist on continually bringing up. We're still left with a court-stripping bill. Chief Justice William Rehnquist spoke out against against court-stripping and impeachment threats. And though there may or may not be a constitutional authority for it (Congress, the courts, and the Executive have avoided the question for over 200 years), court stripping is still considereded by moderates as "fringe" or "radical" or "extremist" because, as Judith Resnik puts it in Slate, "Congress wants to raise the breathtaking question of the outer boundaries of its own power to close courthouse doors."

So although the CRA's co-sponsors can claim plausible deniability with regards to critics charges of the bill's possible Dominionist intententions, don't try to tell me they weren't aware of how controversial court-stripping is considered.

Tiny group of radicals, indeed.

1) The fact that someone, at some time, has called the bill the most important piece of legislation in the past 50 years does not demonstrate that even the speaker believes that the bill would make a radical change in the law, or that such a speaker would be correct in believing that. When its "extremist supporters" say that it is the most important bill in 50 years, they may be a) exaggerating to stir up enthusiasm for the bill, b) putting too much faith in its ability to fix what they believe is wrong, or c) anticipating that a bill affecting a relatively small area of constitutional law would have significant social effects (because many people believe that public acknowledgment of God is very important to society itself -- otherwise, school prayer would not, on its own, get people so excited). Of course, even if the "extremist supporters" did believe that the bill would allow government actors to use an acknowledgment of God as an absolute shield against federal judicial review, that does not mean that they are right, if the bill does not say that, which it does not.

2) Since this is not a response to any single point from your latest comment, I will point out here that nothing in your latest comment, if true, would be capable of establishing that the bill would have the effect that you have been arguing all along that it would have, allowing state and local governments or government officials to do anything they want without being subject to federal review, provided that they can invoke God to explain why they did it.

3) To properly respond to these quotes, a link or a date would be helpful. I would be very interested in reading the rest of Gerhardt's analysis, to learn whether there is anything to it.

4) The Berman quote is an appeal to authority. I don't think there is anything to say about it, other than that I disagree. The quote does not even tell me how extensive he believes its effects would be, so I certainly cannot dispute whether those effects, as he understands them, would constitute an establishment of a religion.

5) Again, I would be interested in reading the rest of Gerhardt's analysis. At this point, I do not know how he justified or explained much of what he said in your quote. I have noticed that while he says that he has no doubt that the bill would violate the Equal Protection Clause, using a suspect classification and burdening a fundamental right, he continues by stating only that the bill may be based on a suspect classification. He then attempts to explain why he believes this, though I have no idea why he thinks that the bill would force anyone to pay homage to idols or tell people when or how to pray, or affect the right or ability of atheists to insist that because they have no proof that God exists, they know for a fact that God does not exist. I cannot evaluate his argument without reading the rest of it (if there is more), but even as he claims, early on, to have no doubt in his conclusions, he proceeds to undermine that statement of certainty.

6) Hellman's comment is interesting, and again, I would like to read the rest of it. However, unless the rest of his comment was more concrete and precedent-based, it sounds to me as though he is exploring the possibilities, not reciting established law or predicting an outcome. As a result, it does not tell me anything. There is no question that Congress can impeach judges for some reasons, and it is not clear to me (or to Hellman, based on his comment) that the Constitution prohibits impeachment for judges that decide cases that are plainly beyond their jurisdiction. Additionally, telling me what is, in his opinion, the most radical position, is another appeal to authority. He is not even an expert on the question of what is radical, though he may be an expert on law.

7) However, as I wrote near the beginning of this discussion, I do believe the impeachment provision (along with the jurisdiction-stripping provision) are a bad idea. Nevertheless, again, this does not demonstrate "the kind of influence that Eric's 'tiny group of actual radicals' have within the GOP," nor does it show that the bill would turn acknowledgment of God into a shield from federal review and First Amendment precedent. Regardless of the means that would be used, the actual radicals (keeping in mind that we are only talking about religious radicals) would get next to nothing, considering that they were defined by their goal of aligning U.S. law with the Bible. If this bill demonstrates the extent of their power, they have the power to induce members of Congress to use means that are, in my opinion, objectionable in the long term, but only to simultaneously address two examples of what those members consider judicial excess, of which only one would be of interest to the tiny group of actual radicals.

8) I wouldn't say that I have "continuously" brought up the neo-nazi connection, after I mentioned it once in response to Blumenthal, and twice in response to you (when you insisted that his details were relevant). However, it is a good example of irrelevant details that Blumenthal discussed in order to attempt to portray the bill as having more severe consequences than it would.

9) ...don't try to tell me they weren't aware of how controversial court-stripping is considered.

As it is irrelevant to our discussion, I promise that I won't. The tiny group of radicals, if it can be credited for this bill's sponsorship at all, has managed only to secure the introduction of a bill (that will not become law) that people outside of that tiny group of radicals were willing to support.

10) So although the CRA's co-sponsors can claim plausible deniability with regards to critics charges of the bill's possible Dominionist intententions...

There is nothing to deny. The bill, as I have demonstrated, would not shield government actors from federal review in all but a few establishment clause cases. The sponsors have their own intentions, and I have seen nothing suggesting that their intentions are to do anything other than curb what they consider to be judicial excess.

Two corrections: I should have written, "the impeachment provision (along with the jurisdiction-stripping provision) is a bad idea," and in #8, I placed "continuously" in quotes, when the word that you used was "continually."

Also, something that is very important to this discussion but that I have not properly emphasized in the most recent comments, is that Eric's "tiny group of actual radicals" was defined by the fact that they "think American law should be re-written to align with the Bible." You said that "some of that "tiny group" serves in Congress," and clarified that you were "specifically thinking of the congressional co-sponsors of the the Constitution Restoration Act." This is why I have focused on the sponsors and their intent (along with the text of the bill itself), and it is why I do not believe it matters that denying federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases is controversial -- that fact does not even tend to prove that the co-sponsors are part of a tiny group of actual radicals who think that American law should be re-written to align with the Bible.

Here is the link:
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:aj-a2A6e0ygJ:commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju95803.000/hju95803_0.HTM+If+the+Constitution+Restoration+Act+of+2004+were+law,+the+Massachusetts+Supreme&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8

The bill, as I have demonstrated, would not shield government actors from federal review in all but a few establishment clause cases. The sponsors have their own intentions, and I have seen nothing suggesting that their intentions are to do anything other than curb what they consider to be judicial excess.

As I have said before, I am not a lawyer, yet you still try to engage me as if I were one -- so much of what you write is pure gibberish to me. As far as I'm concerned, you have demonstrated nothing of the sort. You've only demonstrated to me that you appear to know what you are writing about (although I really have no way of knowing).

I have never said the bill definitively does this or that because I can't. I have said that some people who should know claim that it might have done this and/or that. I'd imagine it would have to pass and then it would have to take a trip to the Supreme Court to finally come to a definitive conclusion.

In the meantime, what's a civilian like me to do? Weigh the "evidence?" What evidence do I have? Well, many of the people who say the bill would never do this or that have a vested interest in claiming that. And the extremist writers of the bill are well known for their church/state positions, as are many of the bill's most ardent supporters. So my antennae go up.

Then I read things like this by Sen. Zell Miller,one of the bill's cosponsors, and my antennae go up again:

"...I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Senator 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 Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain ways.

In doing so, I stand shoulder to shoulder not only with my Senate co-sponsors and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama but, more importantly, with our Founding Fathers in the conception of religious liberty and the terribly wrong direction our modern judiciary has taken us in.

Everyone today seems to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that's not so. And I'll bet you most of them will say Well, sure. And some will point out, it's in the First Amendment.

Wrong! Read it! It says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Where is the word separate? Where are the words church or state?"

Granted, the evidence is all circumstantial, so I guess I have to question the wisdom or motives of those who would assure me that the CRA "would limit federal courts in certain establishment clause cases, but not in all religious liberty cases," and of those who would assert otherwise.

Prudence alone makes me go with the latter.

The tiny group of radicals, if it can be credited for this bill's sponsorship at all, has managed only to secure the introduction of a bill (that will not become law) that people outside of that tiny group of radicals were willing to support.

True. The bill remains locked up in committee, languishing forever...or I guess until opportunity knocks, right?

As I have said before, I am not a lawyer, yet you still try to engage me as if I were one -- so much of what you write is pure gibberish to me. As far as I'm concerned, you have demonstrated nothing of the sort. You've only demonstrated to me that you appear to know what you are writing about (although I really have no way of knowing).

You do not need to be a lawyer to read that bill. You certainly do not need to be a lawyer to read, "The bill, as I have demonstrated, would not shield government actors from federal review in all but a few establishment clause cases. The sponsors have their own intentions, and I have seen nothing suggesting that their intentions are to do anything other than curb what they consider to be judicial excess." What is important is to have an average understanding of the function of language, to be able to sort through strings of prepositional phrases, and to recognize that when the bill prevents the review of "any matter to the extent that relief is sought against [the government] concerning [the government]'s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government," it is preventing the review of any matter to the extent that relief is sought concerning the governmental acknowledgment, not concerning just any action that some official claimed that he was doing for God.

And as I wrote in one of my earlier comments, if the Supreme Court decided the effect of this bill on its jurisdiction, is it really believable that it would choose the broad interpretation that severely limits its jurisdiction and effectively changes First Amendment law in a way that the Court itself would not (or else the sponsors would have no need for this bill)?

In the meantime, what's a civilian like me to do? Weigh the "evidence?" What evidence do I have?

Something that reliably informs us on whatever it is offered to prove would be evidence. The best evidence of the effect of a bill is the bill itself. The best evidence of a sponsor's intent is the text of the bill, the sponsor's words, and the sponsor's relevant actions.

And the extremist writers of the bill are well known for their church/state positions, as are many of the bill's most ardent supporters. So my antennae go up.

If we are still talking either about the effect of the bill or the intent of the sponsors (or whether the sponsors are part of the tiny group of actual radicals who want to align American law with the Bible), it is more important to ask what the intent of the sponsors was than to try to determine how far the people who claim to have written the bill would have been willing to go. We have already discussed that Roy Moore and Herb Titus are not in Congress. In interpreting legislation, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of Congress, and they begin with the text of the legislation.

Then I read things like this by Sen. Zell Miller,one of the bill's cosponsors, and my antennae go up again

The Zell Miller quote isn't a big deal. On "separation of church and state," I think the opposing sides are usually just talking past each other. "Separation" could just mean that church and state are not the same unit or that one may not own or control the other, and that Congress may not make laws concerning the establishment of religion or limiting the free exercise therof, or it could mean that there is a strict separation of the two, and that governments may never work with religious institutions when it can be avoided, and that God may not even be officially acknowledged (which, in some cases, means that God may not be publicly acknowledged). If Zell Miller is like most of the people who I have heard objecting to the idea that the "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution, he believes that the Supreme Court's current understanding of the First Amendment is too close to that second understanding of "separation," and may have no problem with the first. I do not know what you mean when you think of "separation of church and state," so I do not know whether that would be more acceptable to you or not.

Prudence alone makes me go with the latter.

Prudence prevents you from believing the sponsors of the bill or the bill itself, to trust instead people who mis-paraphrase the bill itself, and to be willing to conclude on that basis that the sponsors are part of a tiny group of actual radicals who want to align American law with the Bible (which is also part of your reason for not believing the sponsors)?

True. The bill remains locked up in committee, languishing forever...or I guess until opportunity knocks, right?

I doubt very much that it will ever become law, but the point is that even in a Congress supposedly controlled by the "religious right," supposedly populated by actual extremists who want to align American law with the Bible, the supposedly influential forces of radical Christianity failed even to bring this bill to a vote, which appeared only to permit (and would, in fact, only have permitted) the acknowledgment of God by government officials and prevent the Supreme Court from using foreign law to interpret the Constitution. If they ran the country, why couldn't they carry out this minor task? If they couldn't do this at what was supposed to be their high water mark, how can anyone believe that half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate will ever be willing to remove a judge or Supreme Court justice from the bench for a decision on a serious establishment clause case or a free exercise case, just because an official whose actions are at issue claimed to have done it all for God?

You do not need to be a lawyer to read that bill. You certainly do not need to be a lawyer to read...

No but you do need to be familiar with the law to interpret laws. And laws can be interpreted differently by different legal eagles -- that's why we have courts to settle these disputes! And my "average understanding of the function of language, to be able to sort through strings of prepositional phrases," leads me to believe that Rep. Berman of the House Judiciary Committee and Profs. Gerhardt and Hellman disagree with your repeated claim that this bill can only have one meaning...your meaning.

I doubt very much that it will ever become law, but the point is that even in a Congress supposedly controlled by the "religious right," supposedly populated by actual extremists who want to align American law with the Bible, the supposedly influential forces of radical Christianity failed even to bring this bill to a vote

Perhaps you'll allow a little difference of opinion here, Karl? At one point, Sen Shelby scared lotsa ACLU types when he claimed he had the votes to pass the CRA. Maybe he was full of it, maybe not. Either way, here's a little conjecture on my part: I suspect that the blowback from the Terry Schiavo affair caused the bill's sponsors (especially the sponsors!) and supporters to rethink things and pull back. And so we're not hearing so much from the religious right in general. The CRA, however, has not gone away, it still sits there in committee, waiting...

And BTW, I do not believe that the GOP is "controlled" by the religious right any more than I believe that the Dems are "controlled" by the labor movement. But Dems will kowtow to the labor movement, and the GOP will kowtow to the religious right. That's not to say that I don't think there are not elected officials who are not held in thrall to both groups.

No but you do need to be familiar with the law to interpret laws.

In some cases, yes. It is not necessary to have a lawyer's familiarity with the law, however, to read a sentence and understand what that sentence itself says. You would need to know something about First Amendment law to know which rules from which cases would be affected, but I believe that you are capable of determining whether a sentence prohibits review of a matter concerning a governmental acknowledgment of God or whether it prohibits review of a matter in which relief is sought against a government or government actor concerning that government or government actor's acknowledgment of God. You also do not need to read any law other than the Constitution Restoration Act in order to notice when the authors of articles drop a key prepositional phrase from the sentence, or change its meaning in some other way by paraphrasing it in a misleading way.

And my "average understanding of the function of language, to be able to sort through strings of prepositional phrases," leads me to believe that Rep. Berman of the House Judiciary Committee and Profs. Gerhardt and Hellman disagree with your repeated claim that this bill can only have one meaning...your meaning.

I have now read through the link that you gave me, and nowhere in Gerhardt and Hellman's testimony do I find them stating or assuming that this bill would shield from review any action that a governmental actor explains by invoking God. They object to the impeachment and jurisdiction-stripping tactics, as do I, but that has nothing to do with interpretation. No one denies, or could deny, that this bill would deny federal courts jurisdiction in some cases, or that it allows impeachment as a penalty for exceeding this bill's limits on their jurisdiction.

Perhaps you'll allow a little difference of opinion here, Karl? At one point, Sen Shelby scared lotsa ACLU types when he claimed he had the votes to pass the CRA. Maybe he was full of it, maybe not.

But it did not become law, and it did not escape the committee. Besides, the emphasis in my final point in my previous comment should be placed on, "[H]ow can anyone believe that half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate will ever be willing to remove a judge or Supreme Court justice from the bench for a decision on a serious establishment clause case or a free exercise case, just because an official whose actions are at issue claimed to have done it all for God?" With the 2/3 requirement in the Senate, if the bill became law, it would even be a long shot for a judge to be successfully removed for violating this bill under my interpretation of it (and its sponsors' interpretation of it, and the interpretation its text supports). Do you realize how many Representatives and Senators would have to agree with and favor the sweeping, sinister outcome that you are worried about for the impeachment provision to be used that way? It is staggering. The bill, as you believe it could be interpreted, would indeed be extremism, and half of the House and 2/3 of the Senate would have to agree with that. It would be very hard to get that 2/3 in the Senate, because whatever radical change in American voters would make it possible would have to last long enough to hit at least two elections in six years to get the Senate to 2/3.

Maybe this needs to be said, too: Even assuming that some Congress of the future would adopt whatever interpretation supports the way it would like to use the impeachment power, if a court were to review a case in which a government actor's acknowledgment of God is a detail of the case but not the basis for relief (God was acknowledged, but that is not what the plaintiff's complaint is about), for Congress to impeach and remove the judges or justices responsible, the number of people in each house who would have to be in favor of that would be enough to pass a bill that explicitly (as opposed to dubiously) would allow that. (Sure, a 2/3 majority would not be needed in the House to impeach as it would be needed to override a possible veto on a bill that explicitly accomplishes what you are concerned about, but whatever extreme change in American voters would allow 2/3 of the Senate -- which is elected in three staggered shifts and cannot be taken over by extremists by more than 1/3 per election, at the very most -- to support this outcome would surely affect the presidency and the House, either preventing a veto or creating an even greater extremist majority in the House, which would be elected in its entirety in whatever year puts the Senate over the 2/3 mark. Such a change in American voters is almost beyond my ability to imagine, anyway.) You may think that they were trying to change the law with stealth by using ambiguous language, but even if they were, and even if they passed this bill into law, it wouldn't even matter until they had enough Representatives and more than enough Senators to explicitly legislate what you think they were trying to sneak through. This tells us three things: 1) If they really intend for the bill to have the effect that you are afraid of, they would accomplish nothing by passing this bill, and they should know that. 2) In practice, this bill simply could not have the effect that you and the critics are worried about, even if the sponsors did intend for the bill to have that effect. 3) For there to be enough members of Congress to use the impeachment provision in the way that you are worried about, there would also be enough members to pass all kinds of extreme and flagrantly unconstitutional legislation tending to establish a religion and to limit the free exercise thereof.

By the way, if the sponsors are using stealth, they are also also creating legislative history that would make it even less likely than it already is that the courts would interpret it in the way that you are concerned about.

That's not to say that I don't think there are not elected officials who are not held in thrall to both groups.

Do you believe that the co-sponsors of this bill are part of Eric's tiny group of actual radicals who want to align American law with the Bible?

Do you believe that the co-sponsors of this bill are part of Eric's tiny group of actual radicals who want to align American law with the Bible?

I honestly have no idea whether they are part of the "tiny" group, but I do think they are bending over backwards to accomodate some very extreme actors, and I find that troubling.

I need to clarify my last statement.

You, appear to have moved the goalposts with regards to how we are defining "radical." Eric originally referred to the kind of radicals who might, "for instance, require all judges to swear to a Christian statement of faith." I believe the co-sponsors of the CRA could certainly fall under that particular characterization of "radical," because, despite what you continue to insist, critics think the CRA could very well take us down that road.

You asked about radicals "who want to align American law with the Bible." They are a much different group than Eric's.

Karl,

Just wanted to say that I'm impressed with how thorough, logical, and patient you've been in addressing JohnS's arguments. I've enjoyed reading your comments.

This all seems to come down to unverifiable suspicions and fears held by JohnS and those of similar ideological alignments. There are indeed people out there with radical ideas, and you are fully justified to keep an eye on them. The actual amount of power such people are able to exert, however, has been greatly exaggerated--perhaps in some cases from irrational paranoia, but also certainly for raising funds and political support.

Thank you, Eric.

JohnS,

You, appear to have moved the goalposts with regards to how we are defining "radical." Eric originally referred to the kind of radicals who might, "for instance, require all judges to swear to a Christian statement of faith." I believe the co-sponsors of the CRA could certainly fall under that particular characterization of "radical,"

I have not moved the goalposts. Eric initially wrote (I also posted most of this on Sunday so that it would not be lost in this long discussion), "Anyway, the word "fundamentalist" is very much overapplied to Christians. It can seemingly mean anything from simply social conservatives to Biblical literalists to the tiny group of actual radicals who think American law should be re-written to align with the Bible." You responded, "Hey, it hasn't exactly escaped our notice that some of that "tiny group" serves in Congress! And that Fundamentalists formed political coalitions with other conservative Christians intending to, shall I say, assert undue influence over institutions like the Air Force Academy and the Federal Judiciary." In your next comment after that, you added, "We may actually on the same page regarding the 'tiny group of actual radicals,' Eric. I was specifically thinking of the congressional co-sponsors of the the Constitution Restoration Act, which intended to limit the power of the federal judiciary regarding religious liberty cases. Pushing a legislative agenda is one thing, but some extremists have made no secret of their intentions to find a 'constitutional' solution." When you kicked the ball, you might say, the "goalposts" were set where Eric's "actual radicals" were people who want to align the law and the Bible. You read that, and responded that some of them are in Congress, and then clarified that they are the co-sponsors of this bill. You have now said that you have no idea whether they are part of that tiny group of actual radicals, but the goalposts are in the same place as they were a week ago.

Between your comments, Eric did indeed offer the idea of forcing judges to sign Christan statements of faith as an example of what those actual radicals might do. However, it would be a mistake to read this example as a definition for the tiny group of actual radicals, or as the threshold where politicians who are Christians become actual radicals who want to align the law with the Bible. (I have to interject here that, until the end of the comment, it will seem that I am accepting that the bill or its sponsors would make judges sign such statements. However, I am not accepting that.) First, the phrase "for instance" tells us that it is only an example of the kind of radical thing that they would do. Second, since that alone would not align the law with the Bible, their agenda would have to extend beyond the statement of faith if the actual radicals want to align the law with the Bible. Third, I think the sentences preceding the quote from Eric that you offered warn against lowering the bar for what is considered a de-facto theocracy, and by extension, who could be one of the actual radicals who wants to align the law with the Bible. He wrote, "While you're thinking of anyone who pushes a legislative agenda informed by Christian morality (e.g. outlawing abortion), I'm thinking of the small minority of people who think the US should become a de facto theocracy. Not just in the rhetoric of liberals, mind you, but in reality. Such people might, for instance, require all judges to swear to a Christian statement of faith." It would not be a de-facto theocracy in reality if all they had done was force judges to make those statements of Christian faith (though it would be a serious problem, and unconstitutional, even if there were no First Amendment). It would give us a taste of what the actual radicals are trying to accomplish, which is probably why Eric used it as an example.

You asked about radicals "who want to align American law with the Bible." They are a much different group than Eric's.

I have already used this quote in this comment, but if it was missed when I quoted it on Sunday and when he initially wrote it above, maybe I should repeat it again, just to be sure. On August 21, at 3:06 PM, Eric wrote, "Anyway, the word "fundamentalist" is very much overapplied to Christians. It can seemingly mean anything from simply social conservatives to Biblical literalists to the tiny group of actual radicals who think American law should be re-written to align with the Bible." From this, it should be clear that Eric's radicals "think American law should be re-written to align with the Bible." JohnS, keep in mind that it was in response to this original comment on these radicals that you wrote, "Hey, it hasn't exactly escaped our notice that some of that 'tiny group' serves in Congress!" Then, when you wrote, "I was specifically thinking of the congressional co-sponsors of the the Constitution Restoration Act, which intended to limit the power of the federal judiciary regarding religious liberty cases," presumably, since you used past tense to tell us when you were thinking of the co-sponsors, you were referring to your understanding of what Eric meant by "actual radicals" after his first comment, when you first identified them as members of Congress.

I believe the co-sponsors of the CRA could certainly fall under that particular characterization of "radical," because, despite what you continue to insist, critics think the CRA could very well take us down that road.

First, I am confident that I am right about the Constitution Restoration Act. The text is clear (once you sort through the lists of government actors and elements and everything, and sort through the prepositional phrases), and you have not been able to find anyone who understood the bill to mean what you think it does, and who also offered a reason for believing that, but who did not have to resort to misparaphrasing the text at some point, replacing part of a sentence with something that clearly had a different meaning than what was replaced. If that understanding of the bill is correct or reasonable, then why aren't there people out there making valid (and honest) arguments in favor of it? Second, at this late stage, you are now introducing a new danger that is supposedly posed by the bill. How could the Constitution Restoration Act lead to judges being forced to make statements of Christian faith? The bill shields plaintiffs who bring a suit against a government or government actor seeking relief concerning that government or government actor's acknowledgment of God. How would it prevent judges from bringing a suit against the person or entity that forces them to make the statement? It is not an acknowledgment of God to force other people to acknowledge God.

Also, Eric, I agree that a lot of what people believe about the "religious right" and the actual radicals that you wrote about (which some people do not even distinguish between) is based on overgeneralizing (noticing some Christian who really is a radical, and attributing those characteristics to others) and paranoia. It is interesting how people who are separated in some way from another group of people can so easily become suspicious of members of that group and their intentions.

Also, I have realized that I never did respond to JohnS' question, "Just out of curiosity. Do you think there's any chance that Sen. Tom Coburn might be on the same wavelength as his chief of staff, Michael Schwartz? The one who runs around telling reporters at conservative Christian conferences, 'I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!' No possibility right?" I am fairly confident that Michael Schwartz does not believe that himself. I do not think he was serious. I seriously question whether he really wants to run judges through with large, pointed objects. From the information Blumenthal gives us about that encounter, Schwartz could even have been sarcastic, mocking what some people believe about conservatives. I certainly do not trust Blumenthal's article to tell us the whole story, after seeing how Blumenthal characterized the Constitution Restoration Act. He just wanted to drop something in there that would shock people, just like the neo-nazi mention.

But to answer your question, no, I don't think Senator Coburn wants to stab judges with large, pointed objects, either.

Here is a correction. I wrote, "The bill shields plaintiffs who bring a suit against a government or government actor seeking relief concerning that government or government actor's acknowledgment of God." I should have written, "The bill shields government defendants from federal review in cases in which plaintiffs who bring a suit against a government or government actor are seeking that relief concerning that government or government actor's acknowledgment of God."

Fundamentalist? I've tried to be more careful than I used to, but after a lifetime of hearing words such as pinko, commie, radiclibs, nattering nabobs of negativism, tax-and-spend liberal, Ted-Kennedy liberal, pointy-headed liberal and then being told that "progressive left" is a meaningful term (again reminding me of Donald Sening writing, as I understood him, that the "left" can include respectable people, but that the "The Left" never does), then the religious labels don't have a lot of meaning. Most of the labels thrown out against the "left" or "right" whoever that can be, give a sense of whether the donkey is heading east or west, but that's about it.

A year or so I got into a heated discussion with a fellow United Methodist as to whether or not "inerrancy" was central to classical Christianity.

Labels come and go, shift and squirm. "Radical" Barry Goldwater was the hero of the "Christian right" until that portion of the 1964 "right" and its descendants discovered that he didn't have much use for the more conservative religious elements and supported gays in the military. He also favored Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan in the 1976 Republican presidential nomination race and was strongly pro-choice.

In seminary I was considered somewhat "mainstream", while in Oklahoma many would view me as somewhat more liberal.

The challenge is that be it politics or religion, writers and commentators need ways to classify groups and individuals to keep their writings co-herent and shorter, but there is no perfectly fair or accurate way to do that.

Karl

First, you are right - I went back and checked - you didn't move the goalposts. I can see that I was very careless early on with regards to Eric's usage of the term "radicals." He was specifically referring to those on the religious right who would espouse turning the U.S. into a de facto theocracy. You correctly paraphrased de facto theocracy as, at least in the case of the U.S., as aligning "the law with the bible." I skipped right past that to try to make sense of what you said the bill purported. I had a rather different, slightly incorrect concept of what a "theocracy" is, in my head. I blew it, my big mistake.

Anyway, aligning the law with the bible is a very radical thing to espouse, indeed. That's really not something even the most "irrational paranoids" among us fears, I think. For a lot of non-religious-right types, the worst fear is not about radicals/extremists turning the U.S. into Iran, it's about turning non-Christians from being full-class citizens to tolerated minorities.

Once again, I can't comment on your confidence in your reading of the CFA. I'm a layman. Tenants in my complex were recently embroiled in a class action suit against our landlord. The entire dispute boiled down to the interpretation of the legal term "by virtue of," which the tenants' lawyer believed our landlord misinterpreted. So I'm still a little skeptical when you tell me that the legalese in the CRA is perfectly clear...

Regarding your interesting response to my question about Sen. Tom Coburn's chief of staff, Michael Schwartz: You chose to take 'I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!' literally. I always assumed he was speaking figuratively.

For a lot of non-religious-right types, the worst fear is not about radicals/extremists turning the U.S. into Iran, it's about turning non-Christians from being full-class citizens to tolerated minorities.

That would be a problem (assuming that as tolerated minorities, they would no longer be full-class citizens, which I think is implied). If you do not consider yourself qualified to talk about the legal issues (which I have already written about, anyway), I will not explain my interpretation of the bill again, but I will just restate my belief that this bill would not have that effect, and that I would not expect any of the sponsors to do that, either.

So I'm still a little skeptical when you tell me that the legalese in the CRA is perfectly clear...

Sometimes, disputes like that do take place in law, so I will just say this: Even if it is possible to misconstrue the bill, I think that the text actually is clear, that it would be difficult for an impartial or level-headed lawyer who is paying attention to read it as those critics did, and that it is beyond unlikely that Congress or the Supreme Court would ever interpret it that way (because it would require those institutions to become as radical and dangerous to liberty as the most threatening interpretation of the bill).

I always assumed he was speaking figuratively.

If he was serious, that would make a lot more sense than saying something like that literally. I still have trouble imagining someone calling himself a radical, though, and then insisting that he is a "real" extremist, as though someone had challenged his claim that he was a radical, and then stating that he wants to figuratively destroy judges. I would still tend to think that it was sarcasm, or some kind of weird joke.

I think this is this post's last day on the front page, so thank you for this discussion.