We are a group of friends and acquaintances -- a merry band of pranksters indeed -- who have been arguing about politics on-and-off, then really on, then a little off... since 1998. On email. But that meant literally thousands of emails a year. That was too many. So here's the blog dedicated to carrying on that spirit of political and pop culture argument and dialogue. You might think of us as "schmoliticians", because while we take politics seriously, we try not to take ourselves quite so.
the rest of America does not take the Religious Right seriously on any day other than Election Day (where they can muck things up through their sheer numbers). I mean, come on!
posted by Pete @ 5/29/2007 03:25:00 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Point of clarification: As Ms. Mallory was "not represented by an attorney at the hearing" it might be reasonable to infer that she was acting alone, and not as a representative for any organization or religious denomination. Pat, James, and the late Jerry, at least know to show up to court with a lawyer.
I'd classify her as a lone, independent actor.
Further, I wonder how many right wing "think-tanks" or other such institutions declined to support her case? There's no shortage of fundraising opportunity with the groups that want to put the 10 commandments everywhere - where were they here? Perhaps they thought she was crazy too.
Final analysis: Crackpot had her day in court, justice prevailed: the system still works.
True, that does appear to show an inkling of common sense and rationality. Will it last?
Ms. Crackpot...er...Mallory mused that she might need to bring a whole new case in federal court. Putting res judicata aside for a moment, might the groups you mentioned above crawl out from beneath their respective rocks to bask in the sun of media attention on the cuckoo du jour?
We shall see. I suspect you're right that this is too whack job, even for them. Giving them a bad name, actually. Well, worse...
I wonder if none of the major religious right groups wanted to get involved since this seems to be a "been there, done that" issue. As the article points out, Harry Potter is the most contested text of the 21st Century. I don't think this case really broke any new ground and therefore probably wasn't worth the effort for the Dobsons of the world.
One thing I didn't understand from the article--apparently Mrs. Mallory used separation of church and state as an argument against including Harry Potter in the library under the premise that witchcraft is a practiced religion. However, she goes on to say that God needs to be put back in schools. Isn't that a contradiction? If God were put back in schools, that would eliminate the separation of church and state, thereby making it okay to have Harry Potter in the school library, no?
Good point about the contradiction, Rob. I just watched a news interview with said crazy, and it's obvious to me why the Religious Right have no interest in championing her cause: She looks and speaks like an honest to god lunatic. When you get down to brass tacks, though, it is nothing more than a public citizen, who was likely unable to find legal council because her arguments have no legal merit, who has nothing better to do with her time.
Post a Comment
<< Home