While your points may be valid, I still fail to see how any of that has anything to do with his background as an evangelical. Sure, every action ever done by a politician is motivated, at least in part, by his/her personal beliefs. But I just do not see how this particular action smacks particularly of evangelicalism.
If Ashcroft were an atheist, what would your reaction be?
Quoting the Bible does not strike me as being inappropiate. Bush was acting in a quasi official manner, in that he was speaking as the President of the United States, but the President of the United States was not speaking in any official proceeding. If it had been in a State of the Union Address, that might be different, since that’s an official duty of the President. But I notice in your story that the people that saw it thought it was inappropiate, and those that heard about it didn’t think it was. Perhaps if I had seen it I would think differently.
Polycarp
I’d expect you to lose. 
Well, look at the type of people who do win.
But seriously, I would expect you to bring up your religion whenever it is relevant, but to not make a big show out of it.
saffostarr
[Inigo Montoya]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means[/Inigo Montoya]
The Great Gazoo
Hmm. The problem I see with that is whether that means that he can’t express any political opinions, as someone will undoubtably disagree with him.
BTW, I have found some of the other people’s comments to be rather insensitive:
Duck Duck Goose:
What are you trying to say here? As long as we’re already ignoring the Constitution, we might as well throw it out completely?
It clearly means for there to be freedom from religion. Just because it doesn’t have those words doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Your statement has an undercurrent of “That’s to protect us, not you”.
There’s a big difference between “freedom from religion” and “freedom from being exposed to religion”.
ThunderBunny
Your beliefs are marginalized? What country do you live in? Your beliefs are in no danger of being marginalized, and the idea that atheists are claiming “special rights” for trying to obtain the freedoms enjoyed by everyone else is downright offensive.
No, I don’t see that. Please don’t put words in my mouth. If I wish to tell you that your opinion doesn’t count, I am quite capable of actually doing so. “Government should be devoid of religion” means absolutely that. I have no intention of giving up my rights just to avoid your imagining of slights.
Where “compromise” means “do what we tell you”. If someone starts out stealing $100, and then agrees to steal only $50, that’s not compromise.
Ashcroft’s religious fanatacism informs his entire ethos. This leads him to make decisions based on his faith, rather than on reason.
For example, while trumpeting the virtue of “states rights” in a racist magazine, he turns around and tells the states of Oregon and California to stuff it, if what they want to do does not conform to what he thinks is best for them. So, even if the voters of a state overwhelmingly support legalizing euthenasia or medicinal marijuana, the parternalistic Ashcroft will not let them do it, and state’s rights be damned.
You see, to those who place faith above reason, consistency is no virtue.
I honestly don’t think that he would have made the same decision if his personal religious beliefs didn’t come into play. Maybe I’m asking the impossible for someone of his religious convictions to separate his beliefs from his actions while in the role of Attorney General but IMHO, it just isn’t appropriate.
One thing I will say about Bush. When it came to making a decision about stem-cell research, while he didn’t exactly give it the support it deserved, he didn’t just say no. I have to respect that a little bit. I’m glad it wasn’t Ashcrofts decision.
Where in my story does it say that? My mother is the only person I mention as disagreeing that it was inappropriate, and I didn’t say anything about whether she’d seen it or not. She had, incidentally.
Um. Really minor point, here, but I used “that word” because Phlosphr used it repeatedly in the post that I was directly responding to. I do not think it means what he thinks it means, but I was using his word to respond to his point.
Cite please? What racist magazine is this?
Here is an interview of John Ashcroft in Southern Partisan magazine:
Interview
Here are a few quotes from that interview:
So, you see, Ashcroft is all for states rights when it comes to things like keeping the Confederate flag on top of state capitals, and making abortion illegal, and other things that he agrees with. But, when it comes to things he doesn’t agree with, the states must bow down to the federal government.
He is a hypocrite through and through.
Pre-September 11th, one of the the major US soil terrorist acts outstanding on the books at DOJ was the various clinic bombings and shootings. Didn’t see him order up a task force to protect Americans killed at their legal business there…
Now, he’ll track down any and all of these furriner types. Half right, but I’d say either hypocritical or negligent.
I’m sorry. I was just trying to emphasize that since you had seen it and I hadn’t, the fact that I don’t find it inappropiate doesn’t necessarily invalidate your own intepretation.
themoon:
He did say “I agree with Justice O’Connor: ‘in the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty.’” which implies that he thinks that state rights should win sometimes, and lose other times (if states rights always win, there’s not much tension, is there?).
Well, that’s true. He thinks the states should win when the states are trying to do something he agrees with, and the federal government should win when the federal government is trying to do something he agrees with.
:rolleyes:
Don’t we all?
Are you some sort of robot or vulcan that functions purely on your own logic? Because I have yet to see a single person, let alone a politician, who doesn’t allow their personal feelings play a part in a decision that they make. Your anti-republican agenda is tiresome. Just because you disagree with a person based on their political alignment doesn’t make absolutely everything they do to be wrong. Take me for an example - I’ve voted for one solitary Republican my entire life.
Is :rolleyes: an argument?
Did I say absolutely everything anybody has done has been wrong? Perhaps you should look up the straw man fallacy.
And what is an “anti-republican agenda”? Why do you phrase it like that? I am opposed to many republican positions, and there are a few republicans who are absolutely despicable people, but I do not have an agenda against everything republican. To claim such is another straw man.
The point about Ashcroft is that he is two-faced. When the idea of “states rights” supports his position, he will loudly proclaim states rights.
For a person of faith, there is no problem with being inconsistent, because you are serving a “higher goal.”
Swearing on the Bible- yes, a secular swearing in can be given to a specific witness of a non-Christian faith or none at all, but because everyone else is given the Holy Bible, this act tends to make the jury prejudiced towards this nonconformist. I cannot understand how the US justice system still uses the Bible. It’s ridiculous. They’re in court, fer chrissakes.
As for Gush and Bore (ugh, how much can it be talked about? I don’t even have to deal with them), there were certainly a lot of Christians voting and campaigning (to me, even, before I told them I was Canadian- after which they had a brief discussion about how they loved being able to vote instead of having a queen for a leader. sigh.) for Bush Jr. simply because of his claims of being a strong Christian. In chat rooms, on Christian message boards, people touched lightly on his embarrassing errors and ties with oil companies, instead writing things such as “Only he will save the babies!”, “Bush will get EVILution out of the schools”, retch, etc.
It’s really much more of an ad hominem attack if you really must use a fancy latin phrase, but you’re still wrong. I made no assumptions. You are attacking republicans for being politicians, which is foolish.
I’m sorry, but you’ll have to point out where you showed Ashcroft to have been inconsistent. I understand that he has sporadically proclaimed states’ rights, but I don’t remember where he proclaimed states’ rights across the board and then backtracked on that decision. Or you could show me where he proclaimed federal rights across the board, and then rescinded them in favor of some states’ rights. Either would be fine.
In the meantime, I’ll stick with your quote that The Ryan pointed out, where Ashcroft mentions that there is a balance between states’ rights and federal rights.
Or, if you don’t want to show me where you pointed any of that out, you could just show me where he’s been inconsistent. Because from where I stand, while I disagree with a good number of things that Ashcroft has done, the one thing he hasn’t done is been inconsistent.
No, you are setting up a distortion of what I said, so that you can knock it down. This is the straw man fallacy. And, btw, “straw man” is not Latin, nor is it fancy. I am not attacking Ashcroft because he is a republican, or because he is a politician, but rather because he is a hypocritical sleaze-ball.
OK, I’ll spell it out for you.
If he supports the rights of states in some situations, and the rights of the federal government in other situations, and the only criteria for who should win is his personal preference, then even talking about states rights is stupid. He obviously doesn’t give a whit about states rights – that is the point!
sigh
So, Ashcroft sets himself an “out” by talking about this “tension” between the federal and states power, and you buy into it. Look, he only talks about states rights when it suits his purposes! This is hypocrisy, man.
A modern trend is to use value-free analyses. One isn’t supposed to say,“So and so is right” or “So and so is wrong.” Thus, hypocrisy becomes the primary criticism still available. Hypocrisy has been elevated to greater importance than it deserves, IMHO.
I’m from the old school. I don’t care very much whether or not Ashcroft’s position on Oregon assisted suicide is hypocrisy. More importantly his decision is wrong! wrong! wrong!
Thanks for your answer. It makes sense to me, though I obviously disagree with the conclusions. 
As for the last bit, I did not mean “wore it on his sleeve” to mean pandering. Honestly, I did not know that the phrase implied hypocrisy.
Sua
No, what I was implying is that you are arguing with the wind, and was jibbing you for it (which I shouldn’t have done - sorry). That would be ad hominem. Again, show me where I argued against a distortion of what you said, and I’ll retract.
Please give me an example of a politician who either believes in 100% states rights, or 100% federal rights, with no middle ground, and I’ll retract my statement.
No, Ashcroft is describing the way the government has been working for over 200 years.
Re: the OP
I’m staggered by the number of people who are offended by the use of the 23rd Psalm. Look, the 23rd Pslam may come from a religious text, but it’s also a nice example of the English language. Would you guys be similarly upset if Bush had quoted a passage from Shakespeare or Milton? What if that passage had mentioned a higher power, or the comfort derived therefrom?
The use of literary passages from the Bible is nothing new. Allow me to quote from the inaugural address of that crazed religious extremist, John F. Kennedy:
Are you guys going to castigate Kennedy for imploring the people of the earth to follow the “command” of a religious text?
Re: Ashcroft and state’s rights
I think Munch has it exactly right, and themoon has it exactly wrong. Professing state’s rights as an important element of the structure of our government does not necessarily mean that one believes state’s rights should win in every situation. Failing to be a slavish purist on any given issue does not make one a hypocrite. I believe in free speech, but I also believe the government can prevent my neighbor from shouting political slogans through a loudspeaker in my neighborhood at 2 a.m. Does that make me a “hypocrite”?
I happen to disagree with Ashcroft on the euthanasia question, but I understand that people of good conscience can differ on that front. It’s a pity themoon can’t do the same.
I don’t mean to imply that Ashcroft definitely isn’t a hypocrite, because it is quite possible that he is, but it may be that the reason he does not mention states rights in the Oregon case is because he does not think that killing their citizens is a right that states have. Calling him a hypocrite for this makes as much sense as calling him a hypocrite for saying that he’s for human rights (assuming that he’s said that) but is against abortion. Now, if you could establish that that he does think that this is a state right, but has taken his position on the basis of his own opinions anyway, that would show hypocrisy. I think that it is very likely that this is indeed the case, but I feel obligated to give him the benefit of the doubt.