.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Monday, September 12, 2005

Feinstein the "Historian"

During her opening remarks today at the hearings of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, Senator Dianne Feinstein said she was going to question the Supreme Court nominee on '‘the constitutional provision of providing for the separation of church and state.' She then went on to cite, as an example of religious persecution, the Jews who lost their lives in Budapest during the Holocaust, calling it a tragedy that '‘occurred in the name of religion.'
"There are three issues at work here. Number one, Feinstein shows an appalling ignorance of the Holocaust. Two, she blames Catholics - —the very ones who came to the rescue of Jews in Budapest - —not Nazis. Three, she fails to understand that had the First Amendment provision on religious liberty been operative in Nazi Germany, Hitler would not have been able to use the power of the state to club Christianity."
Senator Feinstein then ran out of the proceedings immediately after her remarks to meet up with a CNN crew to do an interview. (How pathetic is this?) Presumably, she went out to CNN to continue her history lessons with them, and undoubtedly they came away impressed with her knowledge of world history.


  • As I have mentioned before, unlike many on the right I do not object to the phrase 'separation of church and state' on the grounds that it does not appear in our Constitution; neither do such notions as 'checks and balances' and 'separation of powers'.

    But just once, I would like to hear a liberal articulate their view on religion without using it. I doubt they could. The phrase itself is their argument. What intellictual indolence!

    BTW, "constitutional provision of providing"? What a wordsmith!

    By Anonymous Anotmo, at 3:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home