-----Original Message-----
From: Timmerman, Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 1:30 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Gallup/creationism
Hoping not to sound like I agree with MS, I thought I'd
point out that Bush picked John J. DiIulio to head the White
House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He's
also the Director of the Center for Research on Religion
and Urban Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania.
He has lots of data and was consulted by both Bush and Gore
during the campaign.
And, DiIulio wrote this in the "Weekly Standard" after the election:
"The arguments that ended the battle and 'gave' Bush the
presidency are constitutionally disingenuous at best. They
will come back to haunt conservatives and confuse, if
they do not cripple, the principled conservative case for
limited government."
TT:
You might want to clarify the context of this quote. Given the context of
your message, it seems that he is saying that faith-based initiatives are
constitutionally problematic (separation of church and state, etc.) and are
in opposition to the concept of limited government. Upon second or third
reading (since I couldn't believe that was the point he would be making
given his current position in the Administration), I realized that he was
saying that the arguments before the Supreme Court concerning the election
were in opposition to the Republican's usual stance in favor of States
Rights (and, of course, the Democratic arguments were in opposition to their
normal arguments in favor of a powerful, centralized federal government).
There certainly was no shortage of hypocrisy on either side during the court
battle over the election outcome. It was quite enlightening to note how
quickly both sides could brush away principles (like states rights) in the
battle for victory. I guess that is why we have courts: to make judgments as
to which liar's (oops, I mean lawyer's) arguments happen to coincide with
the truth in each case. Unfortunately, even that didn't work out in the case
of the election since the Supreme Court was divided largely along
ideological grounds. I guess my favorite example of hypocrisy (there were so
many to choose from) was the new-found interest of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in
states rights. With her defense of the Florida Supreme Court and states
rights, she sounded like a true daughter of the Confederacy. I wonder how
many times she has ruled in favor of states rights before this case?
Rick
Dr. Richard L. Froman
Psychology Department
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jbu.edu/sbs/psych/froman.htm
