Way cool . . .

Liberal Originalists? Whatever works . . .

In this article ("Rethinking the Constitution's Original Intent" - WSJ.com) about a movement among some Liberal legal scholars' toward Originalism (i.e., interpreting the Constitutional based on what was intended in its original text), there is this revealing statement about this "movement."

Professed Liberal Originalist Douglas Kendall provides some historical context for Liberal Originalism and refers to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who, ostensibly, represented the ideals of Liberal Originalism but ultimately threw in the towel:

"Black was the great progressive textualist, and once he lost the battle, the court decided that avenue is closed," says Kendall. Other justices of the 1950s and '60s, including William Brennan and William O. Douglas, "were less concerned with having the correct test as getting the right answers," he says.

(emphasis added). Yep. "The end justifies the means."

Religious freedom in the U.S.A.

On James Madison's birthday, a fascinating op/ed on his view of so-called "separation of church and state": Madison and Religious Freedom - WSJ.com

Madison and his evangelical allies had a completely different concept. They wanted to promote religion. They just believed that the best way to promote religion was for government to leave it alone.

This basic approach has made America one of the most religiously free and religiously vibrant nations in the world.

Indeed.

Fowler on renewing the "Tennessee Plan"

2/19/2009 - Is Following the State Constitution a Bad Policy? - Opinion - Chattanoogan.com:

"As a former legislator, I know that it is sometimes hard to know what the best policy is and how to balance competing policy values. But it is always a good policy for the legislature to follow the plain, common sense language of the state’s constitution, and it is always bad policy to disregard it. When our fundamental, supreme governing law ceases to be just that, then we are in trouble."

Adoption from A to Z

If you're interested in learning more about adopting a child, you can meet representatives from almost every Middle Tennessee adoption agency (including the Department of Children's Services) and attend seminars hosted by adoption experts at the Middle Tennessee Inter-agency Adoption Coalition's annual conference, Feb. 21, 2009.

Follow this link for more information or to register. The price for the conference, including lunch, is $25 per person (or $35 per couple).


(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the co-chair of IAC . . .)

The Power (and Peril) of Praising Your Kids -- New York Magazine

This article about the impact of praise on children is fascinating, and it resonates. Enjoy . . .

"How Not to Talk to Your Kids--The inverse power of praise." -- New York Magazine:

Re. the "innocence" of Steve Henley . . .

I previously posted (here) about one of the vigil-ants at the Steve Henley execution--Michael McCormick. McCormick purports to be "innocent" of murder after 17 years on death row . . . Henley purported to be innocent all the way up to his lethal injection.

Well, I've looked into the facts of the Henley case, and I'll sleep soundly tonight. You can reach your own conclusion his capital convictions:

State v. Henley
774 S.W.2d 908
Tenn.,1989.
April 10, 1989

In summary the evidence showed that Fred and Edna Stafford lived on Pine Lick Creek Road in Jackson County, just a short distance from the farm, owned by Henley's family, where his grandmother lived. On the day of the Staffords' death Henley had visited his grandmother and obtained some mechanical parts for some work he was doing. Flatt was with him. Earlier in the day they had been driving about, tending to business affairs of Henley's. During that time they had consumed some beer and also had taken some drugs, referred to in the record as Dilaudids. According to Flatt, as they passed the Staffords' residence Henley commented, “there was some people that lived on that road that owed his grandmother or grandfather some money, and they done him wrong, his grandparents wrong years before, and he was going to stop and see about collecting some money off them.” Henley let Flatt out of the truck just before he reached his grandmother's house. When he returned five or ten minutes later he had a .22 rifle with him. They stopped fifty or seventy-five yards up the road where Henley loaded some more shells into the rifle. He also filled a plastic jug with gasoline from a five-gallon can he had in the back of the truck. They proceeded on toward the Stafford residence. When they reached there Mr. and Mrs. Stafford were standing on the left-hand side of the road looking at a small bridge where some construction work had recently been done. Henley stopped the truck, jumped out and told them, “I want your money, if you don't give it to me this man in the truck here, he's going to kill me.” He then directed them to go to the house. Mr. Stafford said, “Steve, if you want money or something, I got $80, maybe $100, you can have it.” He forced them on to the house at gunpoint and told Flatt to bring the .22 rifle as he followed behind them. When they got within 20 or 30 feet of the house he told Flatt to give him the rifle and go back to the truck and get the plastic jug of gasoline. Flatt did as directed. As he reached the porch he saw Henley begin to shoot. He first shot Mr. Stafford then turned and shot Mrs. Stafford a time or two. While she was laying on the floor moaning and groaning he threw the rifle to Flatt, took out his pistol and shot her again with the pistol. He told Flatt to pour out some of the gas. Flatt endeavored to do as he was told and poured out a small amount. When he could not finish Henley took the container of gas from him and finished pouring it out. He then directed Flatt to light it. When Flatt said he could not he struck the match and as the flames went up they ran to the truck.

The house burned to the ground. The bodies of the Staffords were found in the ashes. All that remained of Mr. Stafford's body was part of the right leg and the trunk area. The body of Mrs. Stafford was similarly burned. It was determined that Mr. Stafford died from a gunshot wound to the chest with the bullet passing through his heart. Mrs. Stafford's death was caused by burns and inhalation of noxious gases from the fire. It was the opinion of the medical examiner that Mrs. Stafford lived a minute or longer after the fire began.

. . . .

Defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence on his conviction for first degree murder and for aggravated arson. He says there is no evidence independent of the testimony of Terry Flatt, who was an accomplice as a matter of law, to corroborate Flatt's testimony. He also says that in the absence of any proof of a criminal agency which caused the burning of the Stafford home, he cannot be convicted of arson.

. . . .

The State clearly showed that a crime had taken place. Fred Stafford died as a result of a bullet passing through his heart. Edna Stafford died as a result of burns from the fire and inhalation of gases from the fire. A spent .22 rifle shell was found in the ashes near where Fred Stafford's body was lying. This cartridge was fired from a Marlin .22 rifle, located by law enforcement officers where Flatt testified defendant had hidden it and another weapon after the homicide. This rifle was never positively identified as the murder weapon because of its condition when it was found. David Henley, defendant's brother, testified it was similar to one he had acquired some four or five months before and had left in his grandmother's house for her protection. This rifle had a loose part on the end, as did the State's exhibit and the bluing was scratched off the sight in the same way. The rifle was no longer at his grandmother's house. Ronald Leonard identified the State's exhibit as an automatic .22, Glenfield rifle, made by Marlin, which looked just like a rifle he had traded to David Henley. At the time of the trade the Allen screw securing a ring holding the magazine in place was loose. The ring would slide off and on occasion the rifle would jam when fired. Defendant himself noted the similarity between the State's exhibit and his brother's rifle. He endeavored to place the weapon in the possession of Flatt whom he had left by the roadside while he went to visit his grandmother. This of course was a question for the jury. There was evidence of bad feelings between defendant and the Staffords over a car wreck which he believed was due to the Staffords' fault. The gas can in defendant's truck from which Flatt testified he filled the plastic jug had to be refilled on the weekend following the burning of the Stafford's house. A near neighbor of the Staffords saw defendant drive past, apparently on the way to his grandmother's. Sometime later she heard a loud noise, “maybe an explosion or something real *914 loud. Louder than a gunshot.” A minute or two after that she saw defendant's truck come back down the road. Shortly after that her husband saw smoke coming from the direction of the Stafford house. They went together to see about it. When they arrived there was fire all over, it looked like it was boiling inside. Defendant denied knowing anything about the fire until the next day although a police officer corroborated Flatt's testimony that, on the night of the fire, he told defendant about the fire when he encountered them on the road and stopped to ask directions to the Stafford house. An arson investigator with the State Fire Marshall's Office investigated the fire. He suspected arson although there was no physical evidence of that fact. He did not make any test for accelerants because there was a total burn-out and it was his opinion any accelerant would have been burned away.

"Innocence" is all relative, I guess

It is always interesting to look at the backstory related to news reports surrounding Death Penalty cases. Death Penalty opponents sure know how to work the media.

In this report about TN's execution Of Steve Henley, ("Henley executed, maintains innocence in final words," Nashville City Paper) there was this tidbit towards the end, ostensibly bolstering claims by Henley, Henley's family and Death Penalty opponents that Henley could_be_innocent:

"For those at the vigil, the presence of Michael McCormick – a Tennessee man who spent 17 years on death row before being acquitted and released in 2007 – served as testimony to a legal system that sometimes makes mistakes.

“I’m here to support Steve. I’m here to support all of [those on death row]. I knew them for 20 years,” McCormick said. “The system can fail. People can be executed for crimes they didn’t commit. People need to keep that in mind.”"

Well, I haven't researched Henley's claims of innocence yet, but I encourage you to read the facts--FACTS, from Michael McCormick's case. Yes, he may have been acquitted after being on death row for nearly 20 years, but you can judge for yourself whether he was "innocent."

Supreme Court of Tennessee,
at Knoxville.
STATE of Tennessee, Appellee,
v.
Michael Lee McCORMICK, Appellant.
Sept. 25, 1989.
778 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn. 1989)

OPINION

DROWOTA, Chief Justice.
This is a direct appeal from the first degree murder conviction and capital sentence imposed upon Michael Lee McCormick for the shooting death of Donna Jean Nichols. The sentence is based on the jury's unanimous verdict that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant. T.C.A. § 39-2-203(i)(6).

Defendant vigorously challenges the sufficiency of the proof of both his participation in the killing and the aggravating circumstance found by the jury. He also contends the introduction of incriminating statements he made to an undercover officer violates his constitutional right to counsel under the fifth and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution. In addition to other evidentiary issues, he raises two issues regarding the constitutionality of the statute under which he was sentenced. After review of the record and the law, we find no error, and affirm the conviction and the sentence.

At about 2:00 a.m. Thursday, February 14, 1985, the body of the victim was discovered in a parking area along Brainerd Road in Chattanooga. The witness, Arlinza Mobley, immediately notified the police and related that he had been gathering cardboard and boxes discarded from businesses in the area when he came upon another vehicle. He saw the taillights of the vehicle come on, and it sped away, leaving what appeared to be a pile of rags. Mr. Mobley then saw a “steaming” body lying in a pool of blood.

Two head wounds were apparent, as well as one on the hand. One spent shell casing was on the ground nearby. An autopsy later that morning showed that Jeanie Nichols had been shot at very close range, the bullet entering behind her right ear, severing the brain stem, and exiting through the left temple. Death had been almost instantaneous. No projectiles were found in the body. The victim's blood alcohol content showed she was very intoxicated.

Through information on a personal check found in the victim's pocket, police learned her identity and a description of her car. At 4:46 a.m. the car was found in an auto service parking lot that was frequently used by customers of the adjacent Beach Club, a singles' night spot. The victim's pocketbook, its contents intact, two spent projectiles and two 9 mm shell casings were recovered from the front passenger compartment. These casings and the one found at the scene were fired from the same gun, either a 9 mm or .45 calibre weapon. Faint smudges of blood stained *50 the covers of the front seats, and a thick film of blood covered the frame and exterior panel below the passenger door. A substance appearing to be brain tissue was visible on the carpet of the passenger side.

The victim was at home until approximately 9:30 on the night of the 13th. At 9:45 she met a man she dated frequently, and they had drinks at Merv's restaurant. When they separated at 11:30, Jeanie Nichols was driving the car later found near the Beach Club. She announced she was going to “hit” Brainerd Road, by which her companion understood she planned to visit various night spots in the area.

Over the following week police learned about, and later established at trial, a connection between Defendant McCormick and the victim. Defendant was a friend of Nichols' younger brother Hap, with whom she shared an apartment in their grandmother's home. According to Hap, he and Defendant became acquainted at Dalton Junior College, where he was enrolled as a student and Defendant worked as a media technician until 1984. The two men regularly consumed drugs together and had committed a burglary at the college and stolen electronic equipment. When the victim completed her pharmacy degree and moved to Chattanooga in 1984, she discovered these activities and McCormick's identity. She insisted that the stolen equipment be moved from the house and that her brother end his association with Defendant. Hap Nichols related all this to Defendant at the time, as McCormick later admitted, and he removed the equipment. According to family members, Jeanie was very proud of her career, had worked her way through school, and had undertaken to straighten out her brother's life.

At 9 o'clock on the morning of February 14, Defendant telephoned his ex-wife to report the Nichols' murder. He claimed that he had been dating the victim and that he had bought her a drink at 9:30 the previous night at a club called “Faces” and tried to cash a check for her. He also claimed he had been questioned by the police, although this was clearly untrue.

It was also learned that Defendant had visited at the home of a former girlfriend, near his parents' home, from 9:30 to 11:10 p.m. on February 13. He was driving his employer's red truck, and he left saying it was too early to go home. This witness reported that Defendant was intoxicated and behaved in a bizarre fashion and he spent some time removing something he had hidden under her house.

At this point McCormick was questioned by Detective Dudley of the Chattanooga Police Department. He acknowledged his acquaintance with Nichols but denied he had seen the victim since her return to Chattanooga. He said he had met a childhood friend at Bennigan's on the evening of February 13. They had a few drinks and left in separate vehicles for the Brainerd Beach Club. He had left the Beach Club at 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. and gone straight to his parent's home, where he lived. When confronted with the contradictory information police had gathered, Defendant admitted the call to his wife, but insisted he fabricated the story to engender sympathy and jealousy. He first denied involvement in the burglary to which Hap Nichols had confessed, but he said Hap's sister was present when he removed the stolen items from their home. He claimed confusion about the date of his visit to his former girlfriend, but did not deny it. He denied possessing a gun, saying he did not trust himself with one. Defendant invoked his right to counsel, and the remainder of the interview was not admitted at trial.

Defendant consented to the gathering of samples of hair, saliva, etc. and to a search of his house and vehicles. With one exception, nothing of interest was found. A hair collected from the interior of the victim's car was determined to have features similar to his, and could have come from the Defendant.

Shortly after this interview and search, Defendant left town and spent some time in Arizona. He returned, was convicted of the college burglary, and served a sentence followed by parole.

Defendant's account of his whereabouts on February 13 was confirmed in part by *51 the childhood friend, who had seen him at Bennigan's and later at the Beach Club. This witness left the Beach Club before 10 p.m.

It was also learned that McCormick and the victim had been seen together. An employee of the Revco Drug Store, where Jeanie Nichols worked at the time of her death, testified she and the victim had gone out together during this time. She reported three disturbing encounters she witnessed between Nichols and McCormick during the three weeks before the murder. Twice he had come to the pharmacy counter with another man and engaged the victim in conversation. On February 7 he and another man had approached her at a bar, and they had talked privately for a long time. Each of these conversations left the normally talkative and cheerful victim in a depressed mood.

Almost two years after the murder, January 21, 1987, Chattanooga Police arranged for Defendant to meet Eddie Cooper in a Georgia parole office. Cooper was an undercover officer posing as a parolee. The two moved into a motel apartment together, and over the next four weeks Cooper gained Defendant's confidence and included him in several purported transfers of stolen cars.

Early on, Defendant asked if they needed to go armed in these transactions and said he had a .45 calibre handgun. He conversed about murderers he had met in prison and professed to know about contract murder, but he made no mention of the Nichols killing. Cooper then hinted he had been offered twenty thousand dollars to perform a murder in Knoxville.

On February 9, Detective Dudley staged the arrest of a customer in a bar in the presence of Defendant and Cooper, and he spoke to Defendant. Defendant was visibly shaken. Cooper demanded to know whether Defendant was under suspicion, in light of their mutual illegal activities. Defendant explained about the burglary conviction and the murder investigation. Over the next few days Cooper pursued the subject, ostensibly concerned about their safety and Defendant's trustworthiness. When asked why anyone would kill a woman, Defendant replied, “For instance, a woman knew more about you than you wanted them to know, possibly enough that would put you in the penitentiary.... There's some things you just don't tell on yourself.” He claimed he had refused one thousand dollars to kill Jeanie Nichols, but he knew the murderer. According to him the motive related to the drug inventory at her place of employment and she “was going to spill her guts.” Defendant also said Nichols had been shot three times with a 9 mm or .45 calibre weapon, once in the temple, once behind the ear, and once in the hand. He stated the gun “wasn't two inches from her head.” Later he said he did not know why she had been killed.

Cooper pretended to be friends with a local probation officer who had information about the murder, and on February 11, Defendant insisted that Cooper confirm that the murder weapon was a .45. He said, “I think I know where one is [but] it wouldn't be that one. I can guarantee that.”

On February 16, Cooper exchanged a large sum of money with another man in Defendant's presence, admittedly a ruse to suggest that he had engaged another accomplice for the Knoxville “contract.”

On February 17, 1987, the Defendant unexpectedly began to confess to Nichols' murder. Cooper managed to record the conversation, which was played for the jury along with several previous conversations. Defendant said that he had killed Nichols but not for $1,000.00. Supposedly, she was “holding out” some drugs. He claimed that he had killed her “over some money” and said he had been paid $3,500.00 but did not name who had paid him. He and Nichols had met at the Beach Club and left together. He had then killed her, dumped her body in Eastgate, parked her car at an automatic transmission business near the Beach Club, and driven away in his van. In one cryptic remark, he implied that the time of the murder was 10:37 p.m. He also said he had taken the gun apart and thrown the pieces into four or five different rivers.

*52 The Defendant's parents testified that Defendant, who was an adopted child, had a serious drinking problem and had been living with them at the time of the murder. They testified that he had come home that evening between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m. Shortly thereafter he went out again for a few minutes but did not take a vehicle. He returned around 12:10 a.m. and remained with his mother in the living room from 1:00 to 2:00 a.m., and he retired at 3:00 a.m.

At the sentencing phase the State presented no further proof. In mitigation, Defendant's father described his son's serious drinking problem, which had begun at age 14 or 15. It became worse, and was complicated by marijuana use, after his discharge from the Air Force in 1974. He had twice entered treatment programs, but in 1984 when he returned home after his divorce, the drinking had become constant. Defendant's alcoholism was corroborated by the trial testimony of various acquaintances. In addition, counsel argued Defendant had no significant criminal history. T.C.A. 39-2-203(j)(1), (8).

Tortured Liberal indignation

What Congress Knew About 'Torture' - WSJ.com

Hippocratic Oath v. "Conscience"

Interesting article about Rights of Conscience in the healthcare profession, First Things » Blog Archive » The Hippocratic Oath, Persona Non Grata. From the post:

To keep from so throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I suggest that we consider at least two crucial distinctions in determining what would be a protected refusal to provide a requested medical intervention; first, between elective and non-elective procedures, and second between treatments and patients. Thus, doctors should be permitted to refuse elective procedures—that is, interventions not immediately necessary to save the patient’s life or prevent serious physical harm—if their conscience so dictates, whether it be rhinoplasty, abortion, or assisted suicide. To prevent care refusals from being a mere cover for discriminatory attitudes, the requested procedure should generally be what violates the conscience, not bias against the patient. In this way, for example, an oncologist should not be able to refuse to treat a lung-cancer patient because the patient smoked or was a member of a racial minority.

Hat tip: ADF Alliance Alert

Hamas living by the sword

Hamas leader Rayan lived by the sword. ("Bodies of Hamas leader's children paraded as group promises 'painful' revenge for their deaths"). From the end of the article:

[Rayan] was preaching in a local mosque on the day before he was killed and said: "Our only language with the Jew is through the gun."

Abortion extremism

Who are the extremists on abortion?

A new Harris Poll finds a plurality of Americans want all or most abortions to be illegal and overwhelming majorities of Americans want more abortion limits in law. The nationwide poll showed just 9 percent said abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy -- Barack Obama's position.

Obama's Jihadist challenge

This article about the recent military conflict in Gaza reminded me of an Obama statement way-back-when threatening unilateral military action against Pakistan--a statement for which many people (even Conservatives) criticized him:

The Gaza Strip is just a microcosm of the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. Unless and until nations such as Iran and Syria are forced to end state sponsorship of terrorism, any victories we or the Israelis achieve will be short-lived. The longer we and the rest of the civilized world deny that fact, terrorism will succeed.

I haven't paid close enough attention to see if Obama ever recanted the comment, and I'm not sure whether he was serious anyway.

Auld Lang Syne - "Days Gone By"

Auld Lang Syne - Lyrics and MIDI:

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
And here's a hand, my trusty friend
And gie's a hand o' thine
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne

Happy New Year!

Inconvenient Truthiness

I enjoyed this "global climate change" post from Drew Thornley. Dude brings up some interesting points. From the post:

The Summer 2008 issue wrongly imagines a global warming crisis and blames it on CO2 released by combustion of fossil fuels:

“Houses, roads and airports buckle because the permafrost is no longer permanent.” The permafrost melts because the ground is heated by the structures themselves, not by CO2.

Polar bears “are drowning.” Like humans, polar bears occasionally drown because they spend a lot of time on the water. Polar bears survived warmer periods than the present, and their numbers worldwide are the highest in decades.

“The reefs are bleaching.” Some are, especially when people dump raw sewage on them. CO2 is not the problem. Reef corals evolved hundreds of millions of years ago when both temperatures and atmospheric CO2 were significantly higher than they are today.

“Kilimanjaro’s snow is melting.” A recent retreat was a function of reduced precipitation, not higher temperatures. As of May 2008, the Tanzanian government reported that snow cover on the mountain is increasing.

The “polar ice cap is retreating.” Which one? Antarctic ice sheets and sea ice are growing. The retreat of ice in the Arctic likely has been caused by ocean floor volcanic activity since 1999, wind patterns that have blown ice into warmer waters and heat-trapping soot from industry in Asia.

Sea levels are “rising.” So they are, at the same rate as they have been for decades.

Storms are “frequent and destructive.” No more than usual, except that we have put massive new coastal development in harm’s way.

Temperatures are “increasing.” Not since 1998 they’re not. After a very active period in recent decades, solar activity has begun to settle down, taking temperatures down with it even as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb.

Gregory A. Inskip ’77
Delaware

Merry Christmas!

George C. Scott's rendition of Scrooge's change of heart:



Another favorite Christmas movie denouement--I love when Jimmy Stewart can't help but kiss that loose banister ball.

A man who didn't want to be lionized

With the ensuing hubbub about Frost/Nixon, it is interesting to consider the story of Mark Felt (aka Deep Throat). (Pat Buchanan--"On the Death of Deep Throat") From the article:

. . . the passing of Mark Felt, associate director of the FBI in the later Nixon years, lately exposed as "Deep Throat," the source for the Woodward-Bernstein stories, calls forth some rebuttal to the tributes lavished upon Felt as the honest lawman who saved our republic.

When the Watergate break-in was traced to the Committee to Reelect the President, Felt was put in charge of the FBI investigation. Almost immediately, he began to leak to Woodward.

Felt, it is said, was justified, as the White House was interfering with his investigation. False.

This is a moral cloak belatedly cast over more base motives.

While I think that Richard Nixon abused his power as president, I think Felt's story--when considered in proper context, well illustrates some selective lionization by the MSM.

Liberal myths about Dubya

Though George W. Bush wasn't on the ballot this go 'round, his unpopularity in and of itself may have been enough to ensure a Democrat win in the '08 Presidential race, but Liberal post-election gloating merits a little fact-checking . . . RealClearPolitics -- Facts About the Real Bush Record.

Well, I'm offended that . . .

Barney Frank is getting nationwide coverage of offense taken (here) concerning previous moral views held by others (in this case, Rick Warren).

My turn now?

Demagoguery (not) made easy

In this intriguing op/ed from Bill Kristol (about how "social conservatives" can do more than simply protest for the next for years) is this salient point:

And the selection of Rick Warren may turn out to have significance beyond short-term political maneuvering. One can see this from the hysteria on the left and among gay activists. They sense that Obama isn't willing to sign on to their campaign to delegitimize, to cast out beyond the pale of polite society, anyone who opposes same-sex marriage--and in particular, anyone (like Warren) who supported Proposition 8 in California, the initiative that overturned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, Sean Braisted is really struggling to reconcile Obama's choice for Inauguration Invocator in Chief with Obama's "inclusive" campaign for president. Nashville for the 21st Century: To Invocate or Not To Invocate, That Is The Question.

But Sean mistakenly equates Obama's seeming tolerance of Warren's views on homosexual acts with hypothetical tolerance of, say, opposition to religious intermarriage. As commenter Goldnl notes, many Jews disagree with "religious intermarriage," and whereas homosexual acts are named as sin in the Bible, religious intermarriage is merely labeled as unwise.

But Sean also mistakenly asserts that Obama's exclusion of Jeremiah Wright way back when disproves that the Warren Decision is evidence of Obama's inclusiveness when it comes to filling invocation slots. Sean is in the clear minority in believing that conscientious opposition to homosexual "marriage" is the same as Wright's racist theology. As Kristol points out,

The left senses that the invitation to Rick Warren is a blow to their effort to establish a soft tyranny of "correct" opinion, to enforce society-wide political orthodoxy, on social issues. They're right. This isn't the time for conservatives to snipe at Obama's motives. It's time to welcome him into the American mainstream, to salute the president-elect's progress from Reverends Wright to Warren.