I ran across this one the other day:
That bogus premise is based, of course, on Article VI Clause 3 in the Constitution, the part that reads “. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” My first thought on reading the link title was WTF? How in the world could the reality of marriage equality ever be so nonsensically interpreted? Here are the “nuts” and bolts of their argument:
The right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel has been encouraging public officials from county clerks to governors to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision striking down gay-marriage bans nationwide, and as part of this work is representing Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Liberty Counsel’s main argument in the Kentucky case is that Davis’ religious liberty is being violated because she is being forced to do her job and issue licenses for legal marriages between people of the same sex. . . .
They want, the court filing explains, “to induce irreversible and substantial harm to the religious conscience of Davis.”
“If Davis’ religious objection cannot be accommodated under the circumstances of this case, then elected officials have no real religious freedom when they take public office,” Staver warned. . . .
The brief argues, “There is no constitutional right to have a particular person authorize a SSM license and affix their imprimatur to that permanent public record, especially if that person holds deep religious convictions prohibiting her from participating in and approving of SSM.”
It continued, “Contrary to plaintiffs’ insatiable demands, such individual rights and freedoms so fundamental to liberty are neither surrendered at the entry door of public service nor waived upon taking an oath of office. To suggest otherwise creates a religious (or anti-religious) test for holding office – which the United States and Kentucky Constitutions expressly forbid.” (all highlights mine)
In other words, the freedom to hate and detest someone — anyone — is a religious right. Ergo: to disallow any public official from ‘officially’ practicing his/her “right” to hate, detest, or simply deny rights the public servant enjoys to someone else — for reasons dictated solely by his/her religious beliefs — is ‘expressly forbidden by Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution.
Who could ever have guessed that the founders so strongly supported the right of public governmental officials to practice religiously-driven hate that they included it in the Constitution? Is that corner of the Constitution similarly intended to allow, say, NON-Christian or NON-religious public officials from county clerks to governors to refuse service to anyone whose religious beliefs they might happen to find disagreeable? What would Liberty Counsel’s reaction be if their lawsuit actually served to allow hate-based discrimination in all directions? What if the right to discriminate at will against anyone at all for whatever reason were to become the law of the land?
There remains, however, one further and more fundamental question, one which reads: Can the religious and political far right possibly manage to cough up an even more stupid premise than that one?
The answer is, of course, clear and obvious. HELL YES!
Right. Michael-the-Savage-Weiner read it in an email so it must be true.
Conservative talk radio host Michael Savage is positively convinced that President Obama is inciting an anti-white race war, and now he has definitive proof: An elderly Mayan woman prophesied it, maybe. . . .
“They interviewed an ancient, an old Mayan woman who said she had a dream and she said, ‘I see the future and in the future we will be missing our white brothers,’” Savage said. “That was chilling, that was a shocking, chilling statement. I don’t want to dwell on that too much but the fact of the matter is that unless something drastic is done quickly, how does this all end? How does this end when you have an administration that is siding with terrorists in the case of the PLO, are siding with the burners and the destroyers in Ferguson or in Baltimore, tell me how this ends?”
Fascinating. The whole right wing political scene these days reminds me, for some really ‘odd’ reason, of some lines by TS Eliot, lines that today seem to perfectly define the Republican Party. Eliot wrote,
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion
[. . .]
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
I strongly suggest that those who choose to watch tonight’s Republican “debate” might want to keep those words in mind, use them to see which candidate they most aptly define!