From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Siege Mentality (was ACLJ Activities)
Organization: Oedipus Oats -- You and Your Mother Will Love Them
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:24:50 GMT


This was inspired by Michael Kline's recent posting, and quotes from it, but
it's not really about politics.


Mr Kline quotes Jay Sekulow on a recent case involving Operation Rescue; I'll
follow these sections with some questions, and then a little meandering on
the "Us vs Them" feelings.

> The positions that they've taken, consistently, is that when it comes to
> abortion, the rules change. The laws change. I call it "The Abortion
> Distortion Factor." But, the laws change. and they take the Bill of Rights
> and they try to throw it out, they try to throw them out on all grounds.

What did Mr Sekulow make of the Smith Peyote Case a while back?  (It was a
case involving some Native American religious ceremonies which included the
ritual use of peyote; the Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment religious
protections did not apply.)  Also, what did he make of the recent SC decisions
nullifying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in certain drug-related cases?

The reason I ask is that I've seen it differently: ``when it comes to drugs,
the rules change.  The laws change.  Call it " `The War On Drugs' Distortion
Factor."''


> We have reached a new hostility level in religious liberties.  And the
> message needs to go out. The tyrant of judicial tyranny that we're starting
> to see in state courts and federal courts has reached an unprecedented level
> when you have people who are praying silently in a courtroom arrested and
> put in jail, as with the piece Andria Francis had.

Do we know what Mr Sekulow thinks of this recent comment from US Supreme Court
Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

	The 'wall of separation of church and state' is a metaphor based
	on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to
	judging.  It should be frankly and explicity abandoned.

The reason I am asking is that, obviously, the pro-legislation anti-abortion
Christians feel that the government is unfairly oppressing them; however,
there are many people in minority religious groups who feel the exact same
way -- and those people feel that they are being oppressed BY Christians.


About this quote from Pat Robertson:

> And you're going win, and it's going to win big. Well, when that happens
> it's going to establish a new level of rights for Christians, isn't it?

He doesn't say anything about rights for Buddhists, or Native Americans, or
Muslims.  Does anybody know what his opinions are on religious liberty -- in
particular, is he interested in liberty only for his group?

 --

What struck me about all this is an odd parallelism.

I often feel threatened by people on the Christian Far Right.  Several have
said that public school science classes should not teach evolution, or an Old
Earth -- but that public school science teachers should be required to teach a
literal Six-Day Creation.  Others have said that other religious people should
not be permitted to actively try converting other people -- and they apply
that to other Christian denominations.  I've heard at least one person say
that his group thinks the Old Testament laws should be enforced by modern
goverments.

The idea that somebody wants to teach my (theoretical) children the kind of
scientific illiteracy and questionable exegesis that passes for Six-Day
Creation Apologetics, or that somebody wants to lock me up for sharing my
religious beliefs, or that there should be a death penalty for speech (see
Leviticus 20:9), spooks me no end.

Someone once said "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance", but the people
mentioned above are pretty far out in the lunatic fringe -- by hard numbers,
Lyndon LaRouche's supporters are probably a bigger threat to liberty than all
the politically radical Ultra-Fundamentalists combined.  I feel a threat from
the people mentioned above, but in truth it probably isn't large enough to
justify worrying about it (at least, not yet).


But here we have both Pat Robertson and Jay Sekulow speaking as if Christians
are the oppressed minority.  But by whom?  We vastly outnumber everybody else
in the US.

What I can't figure is "who are `they'?"  I'm beginning to suspect that a lot
of the "Siege Mentality" -- the idea that we are being oppressed -- is built
out of nothing.

Just this week there was some discussion of people who are "anti-family", but
nobody could think of any examples.  Nobody said just who was "anti-family",
or what anti-family things they had done.  I don't think anybody knows!  I
think "traditional family values" has turned into a buzzword; it's something
you say to get elected.  Somebody at the Republican National Convention
Platform Committee said on C-SPAN that theirs was "the real Family Values
platform" and the Democrats' platform wasn't -- but she gave no examples to
support the claim.  The question "Where does the Democratic Platform attack
Family Values?" went unanswered; IMnsHO, that's because there's no answer.


I'm sure that all of us, at one time or another, has had the feeling that we
were being attacked by "them".  Some of us probably feel it right now.  If you
fit that description, what I'd like is for you to take a step back, think for
a minute, and see if you can figure out WHO is attacking you, and WHAT they
are doing.  Can you put names and faces on the enemy?  If not, are you sure
that they are really there?

 --

A political footnote:

> Jay: Bill Clinton, service of process will be issued, probably today, and
>     and Bill Clinton will have to testify since it is a criminal case, and
>     we will have the pleasure, privilege, and opportunity to cross examine
>     Governor Clinton.
>
> Pat: Wow! All Right! If I were he, I wouldn't relish that opportunity.

I think these two fellows are overly confident; Governor Clinton has his
failings, but he did get a law degree from Yale, he has been governor for ten
years, and he's been on the Presidential Campaign Trail for quite some time
now -- I doubt a single cross-examination will affect him more than everything
else has.  And there's probably a reason he's referred to as "Slick Willy".

From the sounds of things, these two aren't taking either Mr Clinton's
education or intelligence seriously, and I think that is a mistake.  There's
no chance he's going to walk into the courtroom unprepared, and he has vast
resources (in the form of professional writers, pollsters, media consultants,
and legal expertise) at his disposal.  If I was the lawyer in charge of
cross-examining him, I'd be wary of what I was getting into.  Gov Clinton has
a way of turning things to his advantage; and he may well get the upper hand
on whoever is questioning him.  Mr Robertson's "Wow!  All right!" suggests
that he doesn't consider Mr Clinton a worthy opponent -- which is clearly an
error.  Whatever else he may be, Bill Clinton isn't an airhead.


[ The foregoing should not be considered an endorsement of Mr Clinton's
  politics or policies.  Only an expression of detached admiration for his
  ability to handle media and survive political storms.  Too bad we elect
  presidents for reasons that have little to do with running a country. ] 


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"[Politicans] are all liars anyway."
"Some of them are liars AND scum; some of them are just liars."
                                              -- Michael & Hope Steadman
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU