24 Responses to “Tom DeLay Resigns”

1. John Says:
   April 4th, 2006 at 11:51 am

   Wow, talk about a straw man argument. I don’t “hate” Bush or DeLay, though I think both are/were poor choices for their jobs.

   I don’t think that because they are religious. I think that because they don’t understand that basing government policy on religion leads to chaos (see Northern Ireland, India, Pakistan, the entire Middle East) and oppression (see the Spanish Inquisition for starters). I think that they have pursued economic policies that are damaging to middle class Americans. I think that they have cynically used “values” issues to motivate a wedge of core voters and keep people distracted for a disastrous war, mounting debt to China, the poor state of American health care, our economic unpreparedness for the future, and a variety of other issues that have big impacts on the quality of life of future Americans.

   Yet so many conservatives try to start some kind of “culture war” by saying “They hate them because they’re Christian” (when most of the people opposed to them are also Christians). Why not talk about issues?

2. Kaybeedub Says:
   April 4th, 2006 at 12:18 pm

   A “Man Of Faith”? The only thing Hot-Tub Tom has any “faith” in is his a)talent for separating people from their money, and b)making folks (in his own party, no less!) skeered of him. I don’t know which is funnier to watch, that self-serving, “Poor Me” interview on the Fair-And-Balanced News Channel, or the calf-scramble of GOPers vying to take his place on the November ballot; funny how most of these folks didn’t have the fortitude to take Bug-Killer on in the March primary!

3. Michael Says:
   April 4th, 2006 at 1:46 pm

   John, I *do* believe that people hate them because they are religious, partly because of comments left here and comments I’ve seen on leftist websites like Daily Kos. The rationale for invading Iraq was not made on religious grounds, yet lefties continue to say that it was. And why? Because Bush and DeLay are people of faith? They didn’t use their faith as justification.

   Your religious examples stink, by the way. More oppression was caused by lack of religion - see Mao Tse Tung and Stalin, for starters. Oppression is oppression.

   Clinton invaded Bosnia against U.N. support, but because lefties liked him, nobody objected. Clinton was not the professed man of faith Bush was. So why hate Bush’s actions but not Clintons? The difference is primarily their faith.

   Kaybeedub, yes, “man of faith,” somebody who unabashedly claimed Jesus as his savior. I didn’t say he was perfect, only a man of faith.

4. bob Says:
   April 4th, 2006 at 4:26 pm

   Dear Michael,

   I hope you learn there is a difference between ‘being a man of God’ and being ‘religious.’ One cannot mearly say they are a Christian and not act as Jesus Christ taught us. This called being a hypocrite. There is a difference. While it is always best to give someone the benefit of the doubt, it is clear Tom Delay only served Tom Delay and not our Lord Jesus Christ. One must act like a Christian to be a Christian.

   Best of Luck

5. sean Says:
   April 4th, 2006 at 5:24 pm

   What an entirely typical right wing cop out! If it weren’t so sad it would be funny.
   Eventually the corruption rife within Delays administration will put him behind bars where he and all of you hypocrites of the neocon variety belong.
   The only way Delay get’s into the Whitehouse is if he buys a tour ticket after he gets out of Club Fed for his thieving criminal ways.
   I hope he gets the cell right next to Abramoff.
   You lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.

6. John_S Says:
   April 4th, 2006 at 11:26 pm

   Tom Delay’s MO is the reason most people didn’t like him. I’ve read that many Republicans were genuinely afraid to cross him. When you are the Whip or the Majority Leader, that fear is a good thing but don’t expect people to be all warm and fuzzy about you. Delay was effective at what his job entailed; to round up enough Republicans to push through something with just enough votes (see the 3 hour Medicare Part D vote). Arm twisting is sometimes necessary to get a few Congressmen to switch their votes, but it’s a lousy way to make friends.

7. Grumpy Says:
   April 5th, 2006 at 12:25 am

   If Tom “Grease Ball” Delay represents christianity then I must have been reading the wrong bible all my life. I missed the section about catering only to the wealthy and forgetting the poor, and the section about do only what lines your pocket with silver. Tom Delay was nothing but a thug. He felt that Congress was his mafia and he was the God Father. Anybody who thinks Tom “Grease Ball” Delay cared about anything but himself needs a labotomy. RIP Tommy Boy.

8. John Says:
   April 5th, 2006 at 7:44 am

   From the dawn of human history until the 18th century, religion and government have worked hand in hand. It’s a long history of oppression. I would say that our country, as one of the first secular democracies in the world, has shown that separating faith from government provides greater freedom for people off all (or no) faiths. I’m not sure why you think my examples “stink,” since you didn’t rebut any of them. You pointed out that secular governments can be oppressive. Well, no kidding. That doesn’t change my point; people who want to oppress others will find all kinds of ways (economic, religious, etc.).

   I’m not sure what your point is; are you suggesting that we would be better off abandoning the experiment that started when the founding fathers wrote the constitution and becoming some sort of religious republic?

9. Michael Says:
   April 5th, 2006 at 8:40 am

   Goodness, I struck a nerve.

   Bob - What actions has Tom taken that tells you he is not a Christian? Indictments don’t count - many court experts say that the charges eventually will be dismissed as a partisan accusation. And convictions against some people that used to work for him don’t count, I’m talking about Tom himself. Has he blasphemed? Killed somebody? What is your accusation?

   sean - Lots os name calling, no sustance. Thanks for playing.

   John_S - I agree with you, that Tom can be heavy handed. He also showed recently to have a poor grasp of the increases in discretionary spending, saying publically that this congress has reigned spending in.

   Grumpy - I find Christians who call people names and wish ill on them to be poor examples of Christians.

   John - My point was that criticizing a government for oppression because some people are religious does not recognize the fact that a) the “oppression” is not cause by religion any more than it’s caused by a lack of religion, b) our government is not oppressing the American people, and c) just because some people in government are religious doesn’t mean our government is religious or a thoecracy. And our founding fathers were very much pro-religion; the “separation of church and state” so many atheist are fond of quoting is not found in the Constitution, though a similar phrase prohibits the US government from supressing religion. Many Christians, including me, believe that many liberals attempt to use the government to prohibity the free expression of Christianity in public places which is precisely what the Constitution prohibits.

10. John Says:
    April 5th, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    So are you asserting that the conflicts in Northern Ireland, which became violent because Catholics were locked out of much of society, had nothing to do with religion? Or that conflict between religious groups in India has nothing to do with religion? Or that the problem of countries who base their law on Islam and therefore have ideas like executing people who convert to Christianity have nothing to do with religion? Or that the Spanish Inquisition, where people were tortured and executed if their beliefs didn’t conform to those of the church heirarchy, have nothing to do with religion? I’m really confused about what you’re trying to say here.

    You should read some of the words of the founding fathers. The proper role of religion in American government was a big debate at the founding of the country, and the founders were quite insistent that there should be no official church - and in fact were highly suspicious of church heirarchies and organized religion in general. (They were mostly Deists.) Thus you have Thomas Jefferson commenting at great length about the dangers of churches having the power of the government behind them.

    It’s lots of people, not just atheists, who are fond of quoting the “separation of church and state” phrase, which as you note is not from the Constitution but rather from Jefferson (”Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”) in a speech to the Danbury Baptist Convention in Connecticut in 1802.

    Characterizing the court battles of religious symbols in public as “prohibiting the free expression of Christianity” is highly disingenuous, however. The court battles have been about government sponsorship of such expressions, not about individual expression of any religious belief; whatever you think about those decisions (I have mixed feelings about them myself), your description of them is rather misleading.

11. Michael Says:
    April 5th, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    John -

    Para 1: No, I’m saying that there are as many examples such as Stalin and Castro and Mao and PolPot. Marxist idealogues have killed tens of millions this century, dwarfing any examples of religious persecution. Most persecutions are done for political, not religious reasons. Focusing on religion as the primary source of persecution is to voluntarily equip blinders as to the true cause of persecution.

    Para 2: I have read them, thanks. I note that there is no church or single religion in danger of taking over the government. Using Judeo-Christian values to establish a framework of laws is not the same as a theocracy, and even the deist Founding Fathers relied on such values. It is false that most were deists. Thomas Paine was atheist, Jefferson and Franklin were Deists. Washington, John Adams, Ethan Allen, John Witherspoon, Patrick Henry and most others believed in either Jesus or an active God in founding our nation. If anything, Virginia Baptists from Virginia were most responsible for the First Amendment.

    Para 3: Thanks for the history lesson.

    Para 4. That is incorrect; many recent court cases revolve around private individual being prohibited from expressing their faith by public officials. Government sponsorship isn’t the issue; government supression is. Examples just this week include a school that asked for student’s free expression of environmentalism in art format. One student showed Jesus kneeling by a flower. The school censured the art saying that depiction of Jesus was not allowed. Nobody in their right mind would consider this to be government sponsored religions, but others were rightly concerned about government trampling the rights of a student to incoporate his religion into a personal expression.

    I’ve addressed your comments, but I’m going to try to limit future comments to Tom DeLay. After all, that’s why my post was about.

12. Michael Says:
    April 5th, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    A followup to your paragraph 4 deserves a post of it’s own. You can find the new post here.

13. John Says:
    April 5th, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    Let me just clarify one thing. I commented that mixing religion and government leads to strife. You countered by saying that non-religious government be oppressive (I don’t disagree, and never said I did) and that my religious examples “stink.” You haven’t elaborated on that, so I’m not sure what you meant. The conflicts I mentioned aren’t caused by religion? They aren’t really conflicts? It’s not clear.

    None of which, incidentally, addresses my initial point.

    By the way, I agree with you about self-expression; though I think you’ll have a hard time finding a court agreeing with the school in the example you give. Unfortunately, institutions sometimes go well beyond the law in setting policy, and anyone who values freedom of expression should defend that student’s right to incorporate their religious beliefs into a project where personal expression is being asked for.

    Incidentally, the ACLU, favorite bogeyman of the right, is quite consistent in defending individual’s rights to express their religious beliefs. Based on your viewpoint you should make a donation to them :).

    But let’s get back to Tom DeLay. This all started with the assertion that “lefties” (as if there were a real “left” in the US! - let’s say liberals, that’s a little more accurate) “hate” him because he’s a “man of faith.” I challenged that, listing a bunch of policy areas that make me dislike him.

    And that’s an important point. Saying “It’s because he’s religious!” is a straw man argument. While I am sure you can find a Daily Kos post or various blog comments that say that, most Americans - and most Democrats, and most liberal-leaning Texans - are not that extreme. Turning the discussion into “thos atheists hate us Christians” pretty much makes discussion impossible, which is a bad thing for everybody.

14. Michael Says:
    April 5th, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    John, I’m not advocating a theocracy. However, “mixing government and religion” is not the same as a judeo-christian based value system. That’s what the U.S. system was based on until the flower generation came to power.

    I’ve addressed “stink” twice now. Government oppression is independent of religion and is often worse without religion.

    Here’s the story about the kid drawing Jesus. I think a court will find for the child, but that didn’t stop the initial government oppression of the child’s religion.

    The ACLU has a terrible track record of standing up for the rights of Christians. That’s why the LLI often has to file suit against the ACLU to protect freedom of religion.

    What policy, precisely, did Tom Delay propose that you object to? I didn’t say *you* hate him for religious reasons, but there are people in my office that say, “I don’t like him because he’s trying to cram his religion down my throat.” When I press them for an example, though, they can never provide one. Ergo, not a straw man argument, it’s an argument based on personal observation.

15. Sean Says:
    April 5th, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    I like the part sean where I belong in prison……bring it on.

16. Courtney Says:
    April 5th, 2006 at 4:51 pm

    Being the political unsavy person that I am (and I like it that way), I can only point out personal experience about my personal dislike for DeLay. And none of it based on religion. I strongly dislike the comments he made about my alma mater and comparing it to the “higher morality” school of Baylor.

    Disliking people only because of their religion (or lack thereof) is childish and short sided. Religion (or the pretense of religion as the case may be) does not a good person make. It is actions that count.

17. Michael Says:
    April 5th, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Courtney, no problem disagreeing with somebody; I don’t care for Tom DeLay’s fiscal responsibility. But that doesn’t explain the rampant hostility toward DeLay from liberal websites and the media.

18. John Says:
    April 5th, 2006 at 5:50 pm

    My big problem with DeLay is that in his role in Congress he’s been responsible for pushing through some very, very bad administration policies.

    My biggest worry is the administration’s fiscal policy (of which DeLay was a champion) because it’s pushing massive debt onto future generations and it’s financing the government on foreign debt, which is ultimately a danger to both our economic and national security. These policies are paving the way for the US to suffer declining economic significance, declining living standards, and ultimately look more like a third-world country 100 years from now. That’s a hell of legacy to leave our kids, and there’s no reason for it. I look at my 3-year old nephew and worry about what kind of place we’re leaving for him.

    DeLay was a major force behind the “K Street Project” which basically has been strongarming lobbyists into increased partisanship, poisoning the political climate in the capital even more.

    I could go on, but my point is this: my problems with DeLay have nothing to do with him being a religious person. And when I talk to like-minded people I hear the same things. We don’t like DeLay because he’s part of a movement that’s destroying the security and stability of the United States.

    I am sure you can find people who do have a problem with his religion, but to then assert that’s the “only reason” you can think of that people don’t like him is just silly.

    As for my examples: no, you haven’t commented on them at all. I gave examples of places where the confluence of religion and government has had very ugly results. You haven’t challenged any of those examples, just said that they “stink,” and also said that other things can have similar bad results. None of which addresses my point in the least.

19. Michael Says:
    April 6th, 2006 at 8:46 am

    While I disagree with your assessment of DeLay, I can certainly understand disagreeing with him on political reasons. By the way, DeLay’s tactics were no less onerous than the tactics of the Democrats when they had control of the House. The difference is the Republicans were more respectful as a minority party. The K-Street Project was an attempt to dismantle 40 years of House Democrat liberal lobbyist efforts. I think DeLay was successful on that point.

    And I’ve made the same rebuttal 3 times. Given that the worst oppression was not religious based, it is not a foregone conclusion that religious influence in government is a primary cause of oppression. If anything, religious influence moderates oppression from non-religious political opponents. If you disagree with me, that’s fine. If the point escapes you for the 3rd time, I’m done explaining it.

20. Courtney Says:
    April 6th, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Michael, if you’re not happy with DeLay’s fiscal responsibility and you fault Bush for the same, why would you want DeLay as president? Personally, I think fiscal responsibility should be one of the top concerns for our nation, both in the government and in our personal lives.

21. Michael Says:
    April 6th, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    Are there *any* fiscal conservatives in Washington? I’ll vote for that person.

22. Courtney Says:
    April 7th, 2006 at 7:47 am

    Good point.

23. John Says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    Your points doesn’t “escape” me, it’s simply not logical. Consider:

    Me: A often leads to B.
    You: C leads to B. Therefore, A doesn’t.

    Logical lapse. Sorry.

    Have you ever lived in a country where the mix of religion and politics have caused problems and even violence? My family has. It’s not a good time.

24. Michael Says:
    April 8th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    You: A often leads to B.
    Me: B also happens because of C, D, E, and F. A is not a significant cause of B.

    Sorry to hear of your past. Thank God you weren’t in an atheist country instead, it could have been much worse.

Leave a Comment