The Right is quick to try to legislate morality-sometimes.
Today's SCOTUS vote has the Right wetting their collective pants for joy. From The Corner:
John McCain said:Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.Here's what Mitt Romney said:Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.And here's what Rudy Giuliani said:The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it.
And the Right, as portrayed by the Bush Administration, is still pushing abstinence, with pretty sorry results:
WASHINGTON — Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress.
Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex at about the same age as other students _ 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.
The federal government now spends about $176 million annually on abstinence-until-marriage education. Critics have repeatedly said they don't believe the programs are working, and the study will give them reinforcement.
However, Bush administration officials cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the study. They said the four programs reviewed _ among several hundred across the nation _ were some of the very first established after Congress overhauled the nation's welfare laws in 1996.
So clearly the Right wants to legislate morality.
So my question is, why is the Right so dead set against legislating morality when it involves gun ownership? From The National Review after the '04 election:
President of the United States: The people of the United States defied the United Nations, and reelected their pro-rights president. President Bush's reelection helps ensure that the 2006 United Nations conference on small arms will not become a back-door path to destroying the Second Amendment. President Bush will almost certainly sign any pro-rights legislation that passes Congress. After lawsuit reform, the most important bill would be the restoration of Second Amendment rights to citizens of the District of Columbia.
Setting aside the chronic mis-read of the 2nd Amendment, the mass delusion of the Right-wing pundits historically, and especially after Virginia Tech, is somehow less than Christian:
Is it too early to ask: “What if?” What if that bill had passed? What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?
As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.
I still don’t understand how he managed to be so lethal while shooting randomly. 32 killed, 20+ wounded; how often does any sort of attack result in more dead than hurt? The cops did say that he lined some students up and executed them sequentially, but that’s strange too. He’s one guy, with (let’s assume) 10 guys in a line in front of him. After he shot the first two or three and the rest realized what was about to happen, wouldn’t they have rushed him?
Note the common thread: Blame the victims, because if they only had the good sense to pack heat, they might be alive.
So let's re-cap: Legislate for abortion bans, for abstinence, against gun control.
Here's what the Bible says:
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Now, don't get me wrong. No one except a saint truly lives that way, turning the other cheek. But for the Bible-thumping Right-wingers to put such faith in legislating for violence boggles the mind.
But then, I remember, the Iraq war is wholly owned by these guys. I guess the operative phrase is still:
it became necessary to destroy the town to save it