The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

There is an inconsistency from leaders of the Religious Right between a belief in states rights, or minimal federal government, and a drive for control and domination of a nation. As a member of the Federalist Society and leader of the Religious Right, Attorney General John Ashcroft espouses the value of state's rights. His effort to overturn the state of Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law, however, demonstrates how quickly he will intervene in a State's democratically legislated law when this law conflicts with his religious beliefs. Much of the work of the Justice Department is now focused on overturning state laws.

Ashcroft is interfering with the right of states to not use the death penalty. He has directed federal prosecutors in New York and Connecticut to seek the death penalty in a dozen cases in which they had recommended lesser sentences. Click Here.

Ashcroft is trying to destroy California's proposition 215, a state law that legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. Read the New York Times article, February 1, 2003. Click Here.

Ashcroft is not only interfering with democratically legislated State laws. He is also interfering with academic freedom. He is investigating a case at a Texas University where a Biology professor refuses to write references for students who don't believe in evolution. The University lets professors decide for themselves what criteria to use for making references, but the Justice Department has declared that issues of "religious freedom" will be a priority for their department. It is shocking that the Justice Department would use precious resources to make "religious freedom" a priority.

We can't talk about John Ashcroft without talking about civil lIberties. People for the American Way has this report on Ashcroft's tour in defense of the Patriot Act. . Click Here.

The Ashcroft Justice Department not only demands the harshest prison terms, but actually goes out of its way to track federal judges who do not give them. At the same time state lawmakers are following the opposite track, openly advocating less time for the same crime and giving judges more discretion in choosing punishments. "Rethinking the Key Thrown Away," New York Times, Sept. 28, 2003. Click Here.

We saw the members of the United States Supreme Court, who are the strongest advocates of States' Rights, intervene in Bush vs. Gore rather than let Florida decide the meaning of its own election laws.

The Bush administration is even joining in a lawsuit to prevent the state of California from setting its own automobile emission standards because California's standards are tougher than those of the federal government. It appears that states' rights apply when the federal government imposes regulations on corporations, or upholds the separation of church and state. When states attempt to address problems of pollution or global warming, then "states' rights" are not applicable.

The words in the Texas Republican Party Platform "unfettered by government" are echoed in the Federalist Society's push for deregulation. The effort to defund the federal government with lavish tax cuts supports the efforts of corporations to end an era of government regulation and oversight. The most significant result of government "fading into the background", in recent time has been the massive looting of public corporate assets no longer overseen by a financially starved and indifferent Securities and Exchange Commission.

While advocating local control and minimal federal government, churches of the Religious Right are using a federal mandate to bypass local zoning ordinances. Hundreds of new megachurches are springing up in suburbs across the country in conflict with local zoning laws. They sprawl across vast amounts of land, and compete with local businesses by building hotels, gyms, day care, bookstores and amphitheaters in addition to churches and classrooms. They create constant traffic on quiet country roads, add fumes and noise in sleepy neighborhoods.

Yet, these same megachurches rely on federal law to avoid zoning ordinances, so local citizens are helpless to question their impact. To make matters worse, local residents have to bear an increase in taxes to pay for the megachurches' impact on infrastructure since the new complexes are tax-exempt. It's possible that as the Religious Right increases its dominion over courts and the federal government, those advocating states' rights will support a strong central government, and those supporting a strong central government will campaign for local control.

The Los Angeles Times provides a good article on the subject of Bush and States Rights written by staff writer Elizabeth Shogren. Click Here

This article, "The States' Rights Principle" by Gene Karpinski, Executive Director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, says "The record shows that the Bush administration trumpets states' rights when strong federal law displeases its campaign contributors but quickly and conveniently abandons this principle when the interests of its corporate cronies are threatened by state governments acting to safeguard the environment and consumers." Click Here. (printed in TomPaine.com, 9/18/03)