Wednesday, January 19, 2005

I told you yesterday that Roy Moore, the Ten Commandments judge, is the gubernatorial candidate preferred by Alabama Republicans going into the next election. I see now that that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It seems that Tom Parker, a judicial candidate endorsed by Moore, won election in November to the Alabama Supreme Court, and Moore was brought in to administer the oath of office to Parker on Friday, for which he received a round of applause. In the run-up to the election, Parker consorted with neo-Confederate racists, including people who celebrate the birthday of the founder of the KKK; handed out Confederate flags while campaigning; and opposed removal from the state constitution of language mandating racially separate schools.

And if you're not sufficiently disturbed by this marriage of theocracy and old-school segregationism, here's another twist: Moore didn't have to administer the oath to Parker. That was just for show -- Parker had already been sworn in the day before.

By Clarence Thomas.

Theocracy. Racism. The Old/New South. The D.C. GOP. The segs. Thomas. Makes your head spin, doesn't it?

You may have read about that swearing-in -- it was the one at which, according to early reports,

Parker said Thomas told him a judge should be evaluated by whether he faithfully upholds his oath to God, not to the people, to the state or to the Constitution.

--although Parker has since said that what Thomas told him wasn't quite so theocratic.

No word on whether the Klan or Confederate flags were discussed.

(Links via Blog on the Run, Orcinus, and Law and Politics.)


Incidentally, as I was digging through all this, I found a quote at
Orcinus from a Christian-conservative theocrat named Jay Rogers. Rogers writes about the Godly utopia he hopes for:

You may ask, In a biblically reconstructed society: Who will be able to vote? Who will be able to rule? Elections will still be determined by popular vote of the people and legislation will still be voted on by representatives. Communities will have been reconstructed through personal regeneration so that the majority of the electorate will be Christian or will hold to a "Christian philosophy." Therefore, the only people qualified to rule will be professing Christians who will uphold the moral law of God.

... Some have objected that this would lead to the mass stoning of homosexuals and incorrigible children. Reconstructionists must emphasize that what we want is not strong rule by the federal government in determining these matters, but the freedom for individual Christians, families, churches, and local community governments to rule without interference from a centralized state. We believe that Reconstruction is from the ground up. Mass regeneration must precede Reconstruction. As more are converted to Christ, more individuals become self-governing. This leads to stronger families and churches and the ability of local communities to govern their own affairs. Thus the total numbers of cases of sodomy or of uncontrollable children would grow less and less. The state would rule in fewer and fewer cases.

What does this remind me of? Hmmm, let me think. Oh, yeah, I remember: It reminds me of a statement made by Yusuf Islam -- the former Cat Stevens -- when Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses. Here's part of what he said, in what I believe was the first zealous flush of conversion:

Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it must be put to death. Only under certain circumstances can repentance be accepted.

...However, that is not to say I am encouraging people to break the law or take it into their own hands: far from it. Under the Islamic Law, Muslims are bound to keep within the limits of the law of the country in which they live, providing that it does not restrict the freedom to worship and serve God and fulfil their basic religious duties (fard'ayn). One must not forget the ruling in Islam is also very clear about adultery, stealing and murder, but that doesn't mean that British Muslims will go about lynching and stoning adulterers, theives and murderers. If we can't get satisfaction within the present limits of the law, like a ban on this blasphemous book, 'Satanic Verses' which insults God and His prophets - including those prophets honoured by Christians, Jews as well as Muslims - this does not mean that we should step outside of the law to find redress. No. If Mrs. Thatcher and her Government are unwilling to listen to our pleas, if our demonstrations and peaceful lobbying don't work, then perhaps the only alternative is for Muslims to get more involved in the political process of this country. It seems to be the only way left for us.

Not exactly identical, but both of these guys seem awfully eager to take over the government so the stoning laws can be imposed.

No comments: