Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) bristles
By on Jul 12th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) bristles
that the Voting Rights Act unfairly targets the South because of its past: “Do we treat the British any differently because of the Stamp Act? If we’re going to do that, then let’s go back to the Indians and say they butchered Custer.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
STFU…these people are dispicable………
The discourse in this country thanks to Fox News, Rush, and Ann Coulter has gotten to the point where common sense, honest and overwhelming popular legislation like the VRA cant even be agreed upon in our supposed civil society……..
July 12th, 2006 at 4:34 pmI am soo tired about ill-informed and functionally illiterate House members saying stupid things. How do these people get elected? I could find 5 people on our local school board more qualified to make our nations laws.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:35 pmI tell ya, they should have let the south secede…
July 12th, 2006 at 4:40 pmoh my god……………
July 12th, 2006 at 4:42 pmVRA makes it such that a community can’t change a voting law unless the feds ok it, thus miring Southern states voting in layers of bureaucracy – perhaps one reason Gore lost in 2000. The law is likely antiquated in parts and needs modernized (see Ohio)
July 12th, 2006 at 4:44 pmvoting rights! how utterly absurd. as i have said, ‘when liberals pass by a graveyard, they see potential voters.’ if you think for one moment we are going to extend voting rights to the unmentionables in the south, especially, then, i wonder where all you have been for the past six years!!! hahahahaha…
if there is going to be any voter fraud in this country, my party will do it, thank you very much.
now, shooo, you progressives…leave us alone, and take your precious civil rights and put them where the moon don’t shine!
kisses,
ann
July 12th, 2006 at 4:46 pmsounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the crypt today, eh, ann?
July 12th, 2006 at 4:48 pmand of course, ann knows so much about voting and voting districts
July 12th, 2006 at 4:53 pmMore Redcoats Republicans trying to undermine democracy.
These guys think if you can’t win a majority fair and square you should be able to cheat to get your desired outcome.
That’s certainly aint “Freedom on the March,” and it’s just shameful. They seem to hate America so much, why don’t they go ahead and try to secede again?
July 12th, 2006 at 5:01 pmhe’s NOT a Georgia peach
July 12th, 2006 at 5:10 pmEverybody calm down. He’s taking specifically about Section 5.
Section 5 should be repealed. It unfairly singles out a number of geographies (8 whole and most of a 9th states, 53 counties, and 14 “towns”) for preclearance. Either everyone should submit to preclearance or no one should.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:14 pmonce again – what to do about the south:
The Pap Attack – Dumbing Down Dixie
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/media_source_PA.asp?srcid=10
it’s only a minute or so… get riled…
July 12th, 2006 at 5:14 pmGood god, what a frickin’ whiner…
July 12th, 2006 at 5:16 pmWhat were the Ten Commandments again, Lynn…?
July 12th, 2006 at 5:19 pmZooey – What does that have to do with it?
July 12th, 2006 at 5:21 pmLynn Westmoreland is the genius who, after advocating displaying the ten commandments in court houses and other government buildings, could only list 3 of his precious 10 commandments when pressed for them by Stephen Colbert
Comment by Alison Harstedt — July 12, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
on another thread… hope you don’t mind i took the liberty, allison…
July 12th, 2006 at 5:22 pmdid he get even 3 of them? that was hilarious… or sad…
you mean THIS lynn westmoreland???
July 12th, 2006 at 5:23 pmThe only unfair thing here is modern day Jim Crow laws.
If you don’t want to be singled-out from the other states don’t break the law.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:25 pmThat’s rich.
Doesn’t mean he’s not right about repealing Section 5 of the VRA!
July 12th, 2006 at 5:25 pm“did he get even 3 of them? that was hilarious… or sad…” – - He was prompted by Colbert or he wouldn’t have had even three. It was like Colbert asking him to spell “cat” and he had to spot him the ‘c’ and the ‘a.’
July 12th, 2006 at 5:26 pm#15 – Chase, see James’ link in #17. :-D
Too frickin’ hilarious…such a pompous, self righteous ass…
July 12th, 2006 at 5:27 pm#18 – That’s not fair. Those in power now weren’t in power during the Jim Crow era.
What’s more, the practices they employed have long since ceased.
What ‘modern Jim Crow laws’ are you talking about? Or is that just silly rhetoric?
July 12th, 2006 at 5:27 pm#19 – You may correct, Chase, but still…you gotta laugh your ass off about that one…
July 12th, 2006 at 5:30 pmYeah, that’s pretty damn dumb.
I don’t know if I can do it on the spot, but then again I don’t go around saying it should be posted (although I don’t see the harm).
July 12th, 2006 at 5:31 pmyes, georgia is quite progressive…
georgia, texas, and mississippi—an axis of conservative evil if ever there were one!
keep carrying the water for westmoreland, and the ‘good ol boys’ chase…
July 12th, 2006 at 5:40 pmthese guys are just afraid they’ll lose their power because Republican policies are failing so badly — so they want to use every dirty trick they can to keep minorities from voting in November.
a last desperate gasp of a dying philosophy — if you can’t win fair and square, just cheat.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:42 pmI tell ya, they should have let the south secede…
Comment by madashell — July 12, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Agreed. I live in a blue state and we’re sick and tired of supporting the redneck red states and their inbred lunacy.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:54 pmthese guys even have the gall to fly confederate flags in their houses of government! and they sit around wondering why they are “singled out.” gimme a break.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:58 pmCan we PLEASE go to war with the south again?
July 12th, 2006 at 6:02 pm“…then let’s go back to the Indians and say they butchered Custer.”
July 12th, 2006 at 6:03 pmYeah, after Custer massacred my people, jackass.
He was stupid enough and vain enough to march into that field anyway
I think anyone who makes a comment about Custer like that should not be trusted to protect minority rights.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:17 pmConfederates: the most dangerous and destructive terrorists we have ever had to deal with.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:31 pmCracker filth is cracker filth is cracker filth.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:41 pmChase, The problem with displaying the 10 commandments are many people don’t believe in your christian god. Remember our basic right to freedom of religion? This country has many religions, and your vies should not be imposed upon any one.
It’s call seperation of church and state.
Simpy Chase, a wise man once said you’re either part of the problem or part of the solution, Sadly you’re part of the problem, and you don’t even see it. Because you like to believe your above others because of your religious beliefs.
Perhaps my views of the great Flying Spaghetti monster should be displayed there too then?
http://www.venganza.org/
July 12th, 2006 at 6:55 pm#34 – My religious beliefs? Might want to recheck that.
I’ve been to church, oh 5 times in my life. I might best be described Deistic.
I do, however, recognize the role of Judeo-Christian beliefs in the foundation of our nation. Even more, I recognize those same values as the fundamental basis of our entire system of laws. I see no problem in posting them in public offices whatsoever.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pmComment by Chase
I suggest you go to google and do some reading on the writings of the founding fathers .. not just Thomas Paine either, but he would be a good start. The 10 commandments is common sense, has nothing to do with whether people can live together in peace…. the Constitution and Bill of Rights takes care of that, and “religiousness” was frowned apon. Were there many “religiousness” type people around back then? Yep… they just were not the founding fathers. If they were the wisdom of seperation of church and state would probably not be in there.
“Religiousness” type people cant see beyond the benefits for their own religion when they consider whether having “religion” controling/representing governent is a good thing. So maybe you have only been to church 5 times … all that shows is you totally under estimate the cult like mentality that swearing allengience to a church causes. Letting those type of people think they can get away with forcing themselves on others will only lead to disaster.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:23 pmI apologize for calling you a christian. But you’re still wrong.
That’s my(our) tax dollars at work. Yes I’ll agree the commandments are a good basis of some laws, but do we really need it posted to remind us how to simply be a good humans? Morality was around long before the 10 commandments. I would prefer googles commandment of “Do No Evil”. And not being a christian or knowing the commandments, any of them referring to the christian god, or jesus have no place in our “public places, including congress”
You should realize that some people of non christian beliefs can be offended by some’s view that theirs is the only view. Which is why I brought up the FSM, because just because something is popular, doesn’t make it right, or better.
You should also not want our tax dollars displaying anyones beliefs. Our taxes should be used to better this country, and how does displaying them in houses of politics make this a better country? It will only piss off some other religous sect. Then we waste more money to get them removed.. Simply let’s just not go there.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:26 pm#36 – I’m well aware of the Founders’ views on religion.
It flies in the face of your characterization.
I haven’t heard anyone I consider serious argue for a close tie between any church (Christian or otherwise) and government. Even the most religious people I know understand the importance of keeping the church and state separate (if only because they don’t want the politics of government encroaching on their religious institutions and practices).
What the Founders recognized was letting religious morality inform your political positions. Does this mean you require everyone to attend church on Sunday? Of course not – that is the idea reflected in the Free Exercise Clause. The also recognized that the government should not provide a preference, or offer protection to any single religion or sect – this is reflected in the Establishment Clause.
Go read the Declaration again. Is all that talk of “the Creator” and “Divine Providence” a mistake? Hardly.
But you know all this Gerald. You’re obviously an educated man and I have great respect for you and your opinion in this forum. I do, however, disagree with your view here. I think you are letting your personal hostility toward religion misguide your historical perspective.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:36 pmChase: “I see no problem in posting them in public offices whatsoever.”
Chase, if you post parts of the Hebrew bible in public places, you are overtly endorsing the Hebrew Bible. Since we are, by law, not a Christian nation, we can’t have a governmental endorsement of the Christian religion. Besides, if you’re going to post the first 10, why not post the next 30. You know, the ones about who to execute if your slave gets killed by your neighbor or what is the recompense for a female slave being killed.. things like that.
July 12th, 2006 at 7:54 pmChase
July 12th, 2006 at 7:58 pmAs the great philosopher Jesse Ventura once said, religion is just a crutch for weak minded individuals. That said, the most destructive and monstrous religions on the face of the planet are the three monotheisms, Judaism and its two dreary spin-offs, Islam and Christianity. I don’t want anything that has to do with these disgraceful, murderous, hypocritical philosophies inserted into social polity.
Chase, in the entire Articles of Federation, God is mentioned twice and it’s in the vein of “God only knows.” God is never mentioned in the Constitution, but Article 6 does plainly state that all treaties are the law of the land. The Treaty of Tripoli states that we are not a Christian nation. It was signed by the Senate in the late 1700’s, so the signees included almost all those involved with the constitution. There were no no votes. And, just so you know, most of the founders were not thinking of the Christian God when they said “creator.” Most of them were deists and were informed by the Enlightenment, not the Bible.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:00 pm#39 – I never saw the other 30. Can you send me a list of the “40 Commandments”?
What an absurd argument you have there.
And the reason you wouldn’t post a similarly ethical Islamic or Buddhist list is because, surprise, our nation wasn’t founded on those principles.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:00 pm#40 – Then I suggest you move elsewhere. May I suggest Europe. They are, recently, quite anti-religious.
Wait. They are also steeped in religious history. How about Latin America? Nevermind, that’s silly.
Um, North Korea! They don’t put up with this silly Christian shit.
Enjoy!
#41 – It’s just absurd (something you’re adept at) to say the Founders were not religious. They believed in the virture of a state-chruch separation but they allowed their beliefs to be informed by their religion.
And PS, Creator means Creator. That’s just silly to say otherwise.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:05 pmthey allowed their beliefs to be informed by their religion
in case anyone is interested, many of our founding father were deists.
Deism: Deism is a term coined in the philosophe movement and applies to two related ideas: a) religion should be reasonable and should result in the highest moral behavior of its adherents; b) the knowledge of the natural world and the human world has nothing to do whatsoever with religion and should be approached completely free from religious ideas or convictions.
more on enlightenment ideas here
July 12th, 2006 at 8:40 pma most informative article:
Our Godless Constitution
July 12th, 2006 at 8:48 pmBrooke Allen
I agree, and think that the restrictions should be applied to ALL states, not stripped from the law.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:59 pmThe first four are nothing but religious. The first commandment says “Thou shalt have no other gods but me.” This is not a benign document; the text itself actively promotes the Christian (or Jewish) faith. Since government is expressly forbidden from actively promoting any faith, they should not be posted on government property. It’s not a hard concept.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:11 pmChase has said
I am quite sure he is NOT correct. The legal system has two historic basis, the Roman law inherited from the Roman Republic and Empire which predates Christianity and Common law which is British and German and also predates Christianity.
Also there is odd and end case law and legislative law but thats later and the product of a more sophisticate legal system. The closest the U.S. had to large scale religious theocracy is Massachussetts and New Haven, a failed colony in New England. Where Church attendence was mandated and Quakers driven out of the colony. Not something we want to emulate.
Can anyone speak authoritatively on this? Zooey don’t you know lots of lawyers?
July 12th, 2006 at 9:27 pm#48, et al – Maybe worth reading: Judeo-Christian Roots of America’s Founding Ideals and Documents.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:39 pmChase;
July 12th, 2006 at 9:56 pmI think we are comparing apples and oranges. I am arguing legal history and you are talking about ideals of the founding fathers.
The founding fathers did not write American law. American law traces most of its legal descent from British common law which traces its roots and ideas back to the preChristian era. There is Jewish law, oodles and oodles of it but I don’t know that it had influence on modern law. Of course I can be wrong.
So my question is can you show evidence not opinion that modern American law was based on the 10 commandments?
I am a lawyer, and you’re half correct. Roman law is important in Civil law, but less so in Common law, which is what we live under. Common law mostly developed in England, under Catholicism. However, the laws were not based on Catholic teachings, but on England’s unique civil law necessities. The Ten Commandments have never been considered a basis for law, simply because they are substantive, not procedural. The basis of Common law is the how, the what is filled in later. Big, broad statements like these are nice, but can’t serve as the basis for a workable legal system.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:10 pm#50 – I doubt it.
I look at things like “thou shalt not murder” and I say, well, there’s one. But I realize prohibitions against killing others date back as far as civilization. Suppose the same goes for stealing, etc etc.
I guess in the end, I don’t care either way. But then again reading the 10 Commandment’s above, I don’t see what’s so bad about them. Most are a pretty good idea.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:10 pm#51 – Well put. Thanks.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:12 pmMy post was a response to #48. Sorry.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:12 pmMaybe in fifty years they can say this, but not yet. Give it a few more generations. Damn, he’s comparing this to shit that happened 100-200 years ago?
July 12th, 2006 at 10:39 pmChase,
There is nothing wrong, with the 10 commandments. Most of them are pretty good ideas. The problem is that they actively promote a particular religion, which is strictly prohibited by the Constitution.
I read through your link, Chase, and while there were some interesting points (like keeping the Sabbath holy in Art. 1, Sec. 7), most are a stretch. There are two mistakes that are commonly made by people promoting dominionsim that are present here. The first is that correlative relationships are often mistaken as causative. Examples here include the “sins of the father” and nobililty provisions. The authors of the Bible and the Constitution were in similar political environments when these were written (out of control monarchies), so it is understandable that they would have similar ideas.
The second mistakes is one that particularly annoys me, and that is quoting the Declaration of Independence. While this was an important document, IT HAS NO LEGAL EFFECT. It was a political statement, not a legal document. I cannot stress enough how much this annoys me, because it is usually used to undermine the text of the Constitution by pretending the two are of equal legal value. The Constitution is the most elegant piece of law ever written, and by raising another document to its level is insulting to the Founders.
This is indicative of a view of constitutional law that I find particularly misleading: Originalism. The Founder’s new damn well how to draft a law. When they left a provision vague, it was intentional. They meant for the interpreters of the document (SCOTUS) to fill in the blanks by balancing precedent and the present needs of society. In other words, the vague spots were intended to give the Supreme Court the flexibility it needs to protect the rights of the citizenry. Instead, Originalists use out-of-context political statementsof the Founders (who had to run for office, too) to make the vague spots more restrictive then the constitutional text. It’s absurd.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:16 pmAlso, my grammar sucks.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:17 pmZooey don’t you know lots of lawyers?
Comment by Skeptic
I do, god help me. ;)
What Matt M. said…very sensible.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:37 pmI live in Georgia, and Westmoreland is one of the dumbest GOPers in this State > lol.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:56 pmI never saw the other 30 [commandments]. Can you send me a list of the “40 Commandments�
What an absurd argument you have there.
Comment by Chase — July 12, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
It is not absurd.
It has long been noted by Bible scholars that there are at least 3 sets of commandments in the Bible. Here they are:
Exodus 20:1-17
Deuteronomy 5:6-21 (the “standard” set)
Exodus 34:12-26
Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are very similar but are not identical. Exodus 34 is somewhat more strange: It seems to talk about animal sacrifice.
As a final note, there are two stories of the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:28 amMatt M. Thank you. I read about common law in the Wikipedia article you referenced and was most struck that it stood in opposition to Church or Canonical law when codified by Henry I, so its as secular a law as was possible in that era.
July 13th, 2006 at 1:28 pmThat comment about “the Indians butchering Custer” tells you all you need to know about the endemic racism that undermines the modern GOP.
Never mind the fact that Custer attacked them, not vice versa.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:09 pmWhen idiots like Westmoreland understand why proudly displaying billboards in the South that brag
“Birhtplace of the Civil Rights Movement”
(no kidding) then maybe we’ll talk about the Voting Rights Act. Seriously, if all you have to say about your region is that it was so awful to minorities that it was ground zero in civil rights abuses, then you are too stupid to be treated like the rest of the country.
July 13th, 2006 at 2:29 pm#65
July 13th, 2006 at 2:50 pmI am not a religious man but I have heard that the different sects of Christianity have slightly different 10 Commandments. I will search. But if people like Chase are complacient in showing hte 10 Commandments in public buildings then who gets to choose which 10 commandments are displayed?
I’m originally from Georgia and thought I’d heard it all, but that depth of ignorance leaves even me completely gobsmacked.
July 13th, 2006 at 4:37 pmPerhaps the Congressman would also like to apologize for those smallpox ridden blankets we gave the Native Americans? Or for trying to stamp out any evidence of their life before occupation, but wrapping their evil ways in ‘christian charity’, doing the ‘Lord’s work.’ Spare me.
July 14th, 2006 at 5:17 amTwo notes:
1) The full second commandments comdemns any graven image of anything at all and goes on to state that anyone who violates that commandment will have his children punished for four generations. That’s hardly a foundation for our American law.
2) In Exodus, following the Decalogue, are further commandments, including instructions for how to sell off your daughter as a sex slave.
July 15th, 2006 at 6:25 pm