Jeremy Lott and Patrick Hynes have an article in USA Today called Left, right and religion: A double standard about where the Religious Right came from and why you rarely hear the term “Religious Left.”

Where it comes from (Short version) is this:

“[T]he creation of the religious right was largely a function of the courts and politicians pushing the boundaries the other way.

“Evangelicals were moved to civic activism because the IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of private Christian schools; because the U.S. Supreme Court removed abortion from the political process; because mentions of the Almighty began to be scrubbed from valedictory addresses for fear that someone, somewhere might take offense. Today, the term ‘goddamn’ is treated as protected speech, but remove the ‘damn’ and watch the lawsuits roll in.

The very first comment on the USA Today page where this appears is that “The reason the religious right is villified is that they seek to bend the American will to fit their own mold, and this is reprehensible to most Americans.The “Theocracy” catcalls are well founded and appropriate.”

This totally misses the point, which is that both sides of the debate are trying, (democratically) to get laws passed about what they think is moral. What these people seem to be afraid of is that the Religious Right will pass sodomy laws and abortion laws similar to those in place before 1970. (Which they can’t–the Supreme Court, as Supreme Ruler, has decided that neither subject can be voted on by the American people.)

But isn’t the Religious Left interested in passing laws? Yes, they are. Tax laws, for example. They want Americans to be taxed to pay for their social programs. They wanted guns controlled, welfare unreformed, Cuba recognized, affirmative action entrenched, …and immigration laws unenforced.

They also wanted to boycott pickles, (there’s something you don’t see every day.) All of these are policies which have been rejected by the American people, usually by huge majorities. These policies are “reprehensible to most Americans” and represent the Religious Left seeking to ” to bend the American will to fit their own mold” much more than any hypothetical morals legislation that might be passed by the fearsome Ashcroftian Religious Right. But many of these policies are actually in place in parts of the country where the Religious Left has influence.

The biggest issue for us at VDARE.com is always the Immigration Issue; and we’ve been covering the Religious Left for a long time.

Amazing…What? was published here on February 26, 2001, and America’s National Question Problem: Decaying Protestantism, February 3, 2001, and of course Catholic Bishops And Immigration, by me, May 09, 2001.

In that last, I made a point that John O’Sullivan later picked up here:

C. S. Lewis made the same point in Mere Christianity (I am grateful to James Fulford for the reference) with his usual vividness: “The clergy are those particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to live forever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for which they have not been trained [when we call on them to provide political leadership]. The job is really on us, on the laymen. The application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism and education, must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters; just as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists — not from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and novels in their spare time.” This was strikingly confirmed a few years ago when the Catholic bishops issued a statement on the economy, replete with learned digressions on taxes, growth rates, income distribution, and much else. An enterprising journalist telephoned around and asked them what a marginal tax rate was. Most had no idea. Or, as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus commented: “To put it gently, they did not know what they were talking about.” That is undesirable when instructing the faithful.[The Bishops' Borders, April 8, 2006 ]

My point here is that clergymen don’t make very good politicians, and should stick to telling us the difference between right and wrong, rather than trying to run public policy, a task for which they have no training and are not suited.

That goes for both right and left sides of the church aisle.

When Randy Graf won the Republican Primary in the 8th district of Arizona, I wrote “Randy Graf Wins Primary–Has Normal Views on Immigration.” He’s normal in other ways, too, and this proving a political advantage:

Arizona-8: Ironically, there is one Republican beneficiary — well, sort of a beneficiary — of the Foley scandal. Until now, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) has refused to endorse state Sen. Randy Graf (R), whom Kolbe despises, to replace him. That has been considered a vulnerability for Graf. But suddenly, the retiring Kolbe has been accused of taking a 1996 camping trip alone with congressional pages.

Kolbe’s lack of endorsement could probably now be considered a badge of honor for Graf, whose total lack of fundraising aptitude has forced him to be stingy with his money. Despite being outspent by state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) by a two-to-one margin, he is polling only six to eight points behind — much better than anyone had expected, particularly against a candidate of Giffords’s caliber.Week of October 18, 2006 by Robert Novak - HUMAN EVENTS

Of course, Graf’s “total lack of fundraising aptitude “ might be better termed the business community’s refusal to support an immigration reformer. And as for Republican National Committee support, well… see Patrick Cleburne’s GOP Establishment: House control not worth this price.

This just in: British taxpayers are stuck for a program in which refugees are taught clowning skills to “boost self-confidence” and “adapt to life in Britain.” Really.

Is it any wonder the Islamofascists think that a culturally adrift Britain is toast, and ready to be taken down? (See the recent Guardian story, Britain now No 1 al-Qaida target - anti-terror chiefs.)

Young asylum seekers and refugees are to be given free clowning lessons at taxpayers’ expense to help them adapt to life in Britain, it emerged.

The youngsters aged 12 to 25 will learn slapstick routines, how to tumble, silly walks and how to fall over during a course of nine theatre workshops estimated to cost up to a total of £2,000.

Organisers at the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry say the classes, which will also teach clown face make-up and mime, are designed to boost the self-confidence of the youngsters.
[ Free face clowning classes for refugees, Daily Mail 10/17/06]

Elsewhere in Britain, a citizen was recently fined for un-PC free speech: Man convicted for anti Muslim banner.

The words in bold red paint stated: “Kill all Muslims who threaten us and our way of life. Enoch Powell was right.”

Father of two Gary John Mathewson, who was arrested for displaying the banner, told a court: “This won’t stop until there is a Muslim president in the White House.”

It’s at least good news that Enoch Powell hasn’t been entirely forgotten, now that his infamous speech of 1968 has been proven prophetic.

Escondido is the first city in the state of California to pass a law that would impose fines and revoke the licenses for landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. (I wrote about the city council vote a few weeks ago here.)

It’s really quite simple isn’t it? We already have laws prohibiting the rental of property to illegal immigrants and this new ordinance just kicks it up a notch…kudos to the council for having the guts to do it!

Never missing an opportunity to kick Americans in the teeth, the ACLU vowed yesterday to challenge the legality of this measure in court.

Before I continue and in the interest of fair play, I feel compelled to disclose the following:

I hate the ACLU…I hate them more than I hate Susan Sarandon, her husband Tim Sarandon, the movie Titanic, hybrid cars, vegans and the California Teachers Association…combined.

(By the way, I still have no idea what a vegan is…they are supposed to be different from vegetarians but I’m not sure in what way…)

This is one of the “rights” the ACLU claims to protect:

“Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.”

ACLU website…send then some email if you have time!

The city of Escondido is not denying anybody’s right to due process. Those who wish to rent property in Escondido need only prove their identity and legal presence in the United States…this is hardly a new concept. If they arbitrarily selected persons for eviction without giving them the opportunity to prove their eligibility that would be an infringement on their rights.

Great…the ACLU will file their little complaint, the city of Escondido will be forced to spend a fotune defending themselves only to have some lame, liberal judge rule (unjustly) against the city.

Hmm…they’re called the American Civil Liberties Union which seems to mean they are United to end American Civil Liberties.

And what a good job they’re doing!!