Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind

The constitution does not mention "God" at all -- although it does refer to "Lord" in the context of "year of our Lord".

The Declaration of Independence mentions "God" exactly once, as "Nature's God". Not exactly a rousing endorsement for the Christian diety.

The founders deliberately avoided anything resembling endorsement of some "official" religion. They were not yet far removed from the religious oppression that led many of their forebears to the new land.

How quickly -- and conveniently -- we forget.

As for Harriet Miers, she not only lacks judicial experience, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that she has any particular experience in constitutional law.

It doesn't mention "separation of church and state" either. But I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who will INSIST that those words actually appear.

Article VI:
"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Regarding Article VI ... At least four states require their governors to swear an oath to god. Maybe more; I only checked out four. Technically, a governor-elect could probably go to federal court to get it overturned, but s/he would never get elected to office again.

Then again, there are "Justices" who interpret the Constitution to mean states can impose a religion statewide.

As if it matters. If this fundamentalist isn't installed, another one will be.

Apparently leading members of the religious right consider Harriet Miers far too "moderate" for their tastes.

Personally, I think she's a straw man candidate. The democrats will filibuster, and then she'll withdraw before any republicans have to actually vote for her. Then we'll get Bush's real choice for the job, making us wish the senate had confirmed Miers. If the dems complain, the republicans will say, "Hey, we offered you a moderate woman -- but she wasn't good enough for you."

Then again, maybe I'm giving Bush too much credit. Maybe he simply can't see any farther than his inner circle of Texas cronies.

I would have agreed with you a couple months ago Rick. But I firmly believe he can not see past his circle of cronies -- the same folks who have circled him since Sammy Sosa was in Texas. These folks have their puppet performing for them for one, and I really think only one, purpose: to make them as much money as possible over the course of eight years by handing them contracts and changing laws -- particularly environmental laws -- to their benefit.

From reports, the relationship between Bush and Miers is genuine, and I have a bit of trouble believing George would set her up as a straw man. The Bushites, certainly, but George, probably not.

Back to religion and government:

If it's true, as some Palestinian leader is claiming, that Bush's real reason for invading Iraq was because God told him to do so, then there's little difference between Bush and David Berkowitz, who went out and killed innocent people because his neighbor's dog told him to do so.

And if divine communication led him to encourage others to manufacture a case for war based on a fabric of lies, then he should be impeached.

Rick..if voices in his head led him anywhere, forget impeachment, he should be comitted.

I'm willing to live with leaders guided by voices in their heads, as long as their heavenly advice is supported by Earthly evidence that can be shown to those of us without the blessing of divine guidance.

As some comedian once said: "Pat Robertson is runnning for president because God told him to...and if God ever tells me to vote for him, then I will."

Or something like that.

This just in:

Jerry Falwell has endorsed Harriet Miers, and says that Democratic opponents would "vote no on Jesus."

To which I would respond: "I'd have to examine his knowledge of constitutional law first -- and maybe ask him how he feels about the rights of those who don't believe in him."