Right-wing symposium calls for 'morally justified revolution'

[quaoar]

The right likes to accuse the left of treason. Yet they throw around words like "unworthy of loyalty" and "extra-political confrontation." Even "morally justified revolution"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12037180/#060327

All of the participants in the First Things symposium--it was called "The End of Democracy? The Judicial
Usurpation of Politics"--permitted themselves radical rhetoric. Robert H. Bork denounced the nation's "judicial oligarchy" for spreading "moral chaos" throughout the land. The Catholic theologian Russell Hittinger asserted that the country now lived "under an altered constitutional regime" whose laws were "unworthy of loyalty." Charles W. Colson maintained that America may have reached the point where "the only political action believers can take is some kind of direct, extra-political confrontation" with the "judicially controlled regime." And in a contribution titled "The Tyrant State," Robert P. George asserted that "the courts ... have imposed upon the nation immoral policies that pro-life Americans cannot, in conscience, accept."

But it was Neuhaus himself who did more than anyone else to push the tone of the symposium beyond the limits of responsible discourse. In the unsigned editorial with which he introduced the special issue of the magazine, Neuhaus adopted the revolutionary language of the Declaration of Independence to lament the judiciary's "long train of abuses and usurpations" and to warn darkly about "the prospect--some might say the present reality--of despotism" in America. In Neuhaus's view, what was happening in the United States could only be described as "the displacement of a constitutional order by a regime that does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people." Hence the stark and radical options confronting the country, ranging "from noncompliance to resistance to civil disobedience to morally justified revolution."

[Atman]

1. You pointed out the answer yourself...

"morally justified revolution."

When THEY do it, it is in the name of God, (The Almighty Dollar?) and therefore "morally justified." When anyone else acts out, they are acting out without their moral guidance, and thus must be stopped. It's the perfect "crime."

[baby_mouse]

2. How very interesting.

That's treachery, my dears. That's the death penalty and summary execution, that game.

So you're going to subvert the democratic process and force the rest of the country to comply with your "moral" code at gunpoint?

That game has rules, very simple rules, my pets. Your being American won't change them at all...

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. How is this not treason? n/t

[lwcon]

4. FWIW: Linking to previous thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2538857&mesg_id=2538857
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Sinti]

5. Despotism in America

Actually, I see this happening also: "the displacement of a constitutional order by a regime that does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people." Anything that gets in their way they throw out the window, and come up with some creative interpretation of the law to excuse their behavior. The only problem is, it's their own folks that control every aspect of the game here. It's kind of crazy for them to complain about the rules when they made them up in the first place. ;)

[quaoar]

6. Welcome to DU