| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2003 07:00:41 AM |
| Object: |
Regent U church state debate: RECAP |
Some comments of mine, two others who were there and the local Newspaper:
MY COMMENTS:
Howdy
How was it up in the balcony? (grin)
What did you two think of the debate?
My thoughts:
(1) I was sitting about 10 feet from Pat Robertson. Had a clear shot to
bean him with a spit ball had I been inclined. (grin)
I was in the first seat of row Q downstairs and he was in the first seat of
the seats across the aisle/stairs from me four rows in front of me. About
10 - 12 feet away.
(2) The outfit that Ann Coulter was wearing was insteresting considering
where we were at. That was a super mini skirt or pants skirt.
(3) There were some separationist types downstairs where I was at. But not
that many. They clapped hard and but there just wasn't that many. I need to
figure out a way to let local people know about the web site.
(4) The pro religious right audience was a bit rude at times with the cat
calls, laughter and jeering. Even Pat Robertson did it at least once. That
was what caught my attention to him sitting so close to me. It wasn't
terribly bad but it was present and a bit rude.
(5) The three religious right types must have used every code and buzz word
in the religious right's vocabulary. Secular humaniast, Liberal, think I
heard atheist a few times, but they definitely used their special
vocabulary.
(6) The religious right types didn't answer questions well. Now the left
side beat around the bush some too but not as badly and the right side did.
(7) Jay Sekulow might be a real wiz at law but he is historically
challenged when it comes to founding history and church state history.
I really get up tight with people like him that misrepresents or flat out
lies when dealing with history. One always has to wonder, doesn't he
really know or is he misrepresenting or lying on purpose?
At any rate, based on what I heard him say, I could give him a serious run
on the historical side of this topic easy.
(8) After awhile I just began to tune out Sekulow, Coulter and Limbaugh.
It was totally 100% the ultra right, religious right, ultra libertarians
party line. I run into it daily in the newsgroups where I "debate" people,
I get it in emails pertaining to the web site, and on occasion in the web
site guest book.
I thought the three left type Barry Lynn, Nadine Strossen, and Alan
Dershowitz did quite well. especially since on occasion they were rudely
interrupted. No one could reply against Nadine's comment of how many times
the ACLU fought for things close to the hearts of conservatives either. She
should have pointed out that Pat Robertson was so impressed with them he
came as close as he could to copying their name when he created the legal
arm of the Christian Coalition, the ACLJ (American Center for Law and
Justice) ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
You can find the ACLU joining the ACLJ in some cases but seldom if ever
would you find the ACLJ joining the ACLU in a case.
Yet the religious right hates the ACLU.
(9) All seven people, the moderator Catherine Crier and the six on the
panel are lawyers, though Ann Coulter, and Catherine Crier do not practice
law anymore
(10) I frequently watch Catherine Criers program on Court TV at 5 Pm Monday
- Friday She is pretty neat and pretty level headed.
(11) I think left side did well, didn't use the buzz or code words nearly
as much. I think Barry Lynn did really well. So did Nadine. Alan D. didn't
seem to be fully up to his usual. He is a fantastic speaker when he wants
to be. I have seen him do debates with Alan Keyes on Tv and he blew Alan
Keyes away on church state.
(12) The building, the auditorium etc are very very nice
That pretty much sums up my initial thoughts on the debate.
**************************************
THE COMMENTS OF ANOTHER WHO WAS THERE BUT WE GOT SEPARATED IN SEATING:
Here's my brief summary of the debate.
Ann Coulter looks so damn good in black tube sock with the toe cut off. At
least that's what it looked like she was wearing. While I appreciated it, I
wouldn't be surprised if half the xians in the audience wanted to throw a
blanket around her. Of course then she began to spill here bile and the
magic was lost.
As Pat said, nobody won - on stage at least. I think the audience won
because arguments were made that xians (and I) would probably rarely listen
to. I'd say that the Right's slate overwhelmingly used straw man tactics
and appeals to emotion. I ended the evening with respect gained for Jay
Sekulow. My nwgative opinion of Coulter was reinforced. Rush's brother
David turned out to be a far more vicious yet capable speaker than his
bufoonish sibling.
Strossen seemed to deflect most if not all barbs thrown at the ACLU.
Especially when she pointed out supporting the ACLJ in cases that Sekulow
brought up; as well as supporting Falwell in a case and working with Bob
Barr to oppose parts of the Patriot Act.
I thought Barry Lynn and Dershowitz's summations were the best. Dershowitz
came close to lecturing the audience. I can't remember if it was he or Lynn
who chided the audience that seeking government funds for religious
purposes meant they lacked the faith to support themselves. Dershowitz
received the lion's share of grumbles during the debate from the audience
which was hugely on the side of the right.
Dershowitz seemed to get caught in a contradiction in one instance when he
accused the Supreme Court of corruption in the 2000 election decision; yet
he seemed to support the same kind of intervention in other cases. I wish I
took better notes on that point.
Sekulow gave a plug to Dershowitz's book: "The Case for Israel" proving
that these guys will accept any argument that helps them and attack any
argument they disagree with every logical fallacy available. I was
surprised to hear Dershowitz say he was pro-choice but thought Roe v. Wade
was something the Supreme Court should not be involved in.
On a personal note: I had balcony seats but the ushers said to just sit
anywhere and don't worry about the seat numbers. What I didn't find out til
afterwards was that I could have run back downstairs and grabbed a better
seat closer to the stage where you ended up.
I thoroughly enjoyed the debate.
***************************************
ANOTHER WHO WAS THERE:
The debate was well worth the time spent. I thought our side did
wonderfully well. Nice to have such competent speakers represent
Separation. I especially liked Alan's closing with the admonishment to the
"righties" not to get the government involved in their religion(s) lest
they become burdened with regulation--Robertson's original argument when
the faith based initiative came up and before he realized he could pick up
$500,000 if he kept his mouth shut. Wish I could have stayed to meet some
our friends who were responding favorably to our speakers but I had to rush
off to be on time. Hopefully they are already AU members or will find there
way to the cite. Sorry not to be able to speak wih our panelist, too. It
would have been a reare oportunity.
**************************************
THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER:
BEACH -- They snipped, sniped and spewed.
Then they shook hands.
A high-profile version of ``Crossfire'' came to Regent University on
Saturday, with a two-hour political debate on the role of the Supreme Court
featuring three big-name advocates from each side.
Nobody held back.
Ann Coulter, a conservative commentator and best-selling author, said the
Supreme Court had protected ``the right to stick a fork in a baby's head,''
referring to partial-birth abortions, ``and the right to discriminate
against unfavored groups, such as whites.''
Alan Dershowitz, a civil-liberties advocate and high-profile lawyer, said
the court's decision leading to President Bush's election in 2000 ``is the
only case I know of judicial corruption. The court cheated in a fundamental
way. It decided the case solely on the name of the litigant.''
Near the end of the frenetic match of political pingpong, liberal Barry
Lynn summed up the good spirit that managed to prevail: ``In its own
peculiar way, this has been a really fun afternoon.'' The debate was held
to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Regent University, the Christian
graduate school founded by Pat Robertson.
Seated appropriately on the audience's left were Dershowitz, Lynn -- a
frequent critic of Robertson's and perhaps the nation's leading advocate of
church-state separation -- and Nadine Strossen, president of the American
Civil Liberties Union.
They squared off against Coulter; Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the
American Center for Law and Justice; and author and commentator David
Limbaugh, brother of a slightly better-known conservative speaker.
The lefties also had to face the audience of nearly 700, which tilted
decidedly to the right. That became clear at the start, with vociferous
applause and cheers greeting the introduction of the conservative panelists
and polite, but tepid claps for the others.
``I think we sense a direction in this room,'' said the debate commentator,
Court TV's Catherine Crier.
After Dershowitz's attack on the court's election decision, a few
spectators yelled, ``Get over it.''
The topic of the debate: ``Has the Supreme Court overstepped its
constitutional authority?'' Many conservatives say yes, accusing justices
of going beyond the intent of the Constitution's authors in modern
decisions legalizing, for instance, abortion or gay sex. Liberals say those
opinions reflect the core principles espoused by the Constitution. ``The
unelectable, unaccountable Supreme Court has been the primary agent of
furthering the secular liberal agenda,'' Limbaugh said. Coulter said the
court is ``supposed to decide mostly tedious Railroad Act cases.
Apparently, it's more fun to be philosopher kings.''
Strossen, though, said the court's job is to protect the rights of
unpopular minorities. ``When it protects freedoms against what James
Madison called the tyranny of the majority, it is fulfilling its highest
responsibility under the Constitution,'' she said.
The debate offered a few surprises. Lynn quoted Scripture at the start,
urging: ``Let us not bear false witness, and let there be light.''
Dershowitz said he supported a woman's right to abortion but didn't agree
with the rationale behind the Roe v. Wade decision. ``I do not support the
constitutionalizing of that particular right,'' he said.
To that, he won a rare vigorous round of applause.
``Now I'm getting a little worried,'' he responded.
After the debate, one of the liberal audience members, Sam Leiderman of
Virginia Beach, said he doubted anyone's mind was changed.
"But it made each side feel a little better to hear something he or she
agreed with,'' he said.
Robertson, who frequently doesn't mind voicing his opinions, tried to stay
neutral in his post-debate commentary.
He called it a draw.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
