Now We Have to Worry About Violent Hare Krishnas? »« Creationist School Shuts Down

Poor, Persecuted E. W. Jackson

E.W. Jackson, the Republican candidate to be the next lt. governor of Virginia, continues to strike the martyr pose and claim that when we quote the extremist and ignorant things he has said in the past, we’re persecuting him — and, bizarrely, violating the Constitution. On the Bryan Fischer show, he said:

It’s a sad commentary on our media and culture today that anybody that expresses a Biblical worldview is marginalized and, frankly, not too put too fine a point on it, persecuted for doing so. And I think that’s a sad commentary.

But look, it’s an attack ultimately on every church-going, Bible-believing Christian out there who holds to a traditional worldview and frankly, I think one of my goals is to champion their right to hold their views without being persecuted for it…

I think Americans are tired of being told that holding to Judeo-Christian values somehow makes you can idiot, as you put it, makes you backwoods, makes you ignorant and unless you buy into the sort of contemporary morality of the day, you are a person to be shunned.

Our Founding Fathers believed that there should never be a religious test and yet that’s what we’re seeing today. We’re seeing people apply a religious test and they’re saying anything you believed or said as a minister disqualifies you from serving as Lt. Governor because you hold to these Biblical views.

Comments

  1. fulcrumx says

    Calling out people for bad ideas that are shown to cause harm is not ‘religious’ persecution. it is just plain warning people of the consequences of bad ideas. I bet that wrapping bad ideas and ignorance in religious cloth is a bad idea for the religion too.

  2. says

    I don’t hold his views against him because they’re Biblical. I hold his views against him because they’re stupid. That his Biblical views are stupid is a bigger problem than mere elections can fix.

    Although, again, as usual, I have to applaud the GOP for their continued laser-focus on the economy. Apparently gays and unpoliced uteri are what’s holding the country back.

  3. abb3w says

    He fails (perhaps willfully) to understand that the “no religious test” clause is a limit on the government, not on private action.

    Furthermore, the “religious test” was only a limit on the Federal government in the era of the Founding Fathers. Several (most?) of the states had religious tests in place in that era, and founding father John Jay advocated particular ones for New York state elective/appointed office. Arguably it was the impossibility of agreement as to what tests should be used that contributed to a ban. Even today, while Torcaso v Watkins said such tests violate the 14th Amendment’s incorporation of the 1st’s ban on religious establishment, incorporation of the “religious test” clause has never been directly addressed by the SCOTUS.

  4. John Pieret says

    As Modus notes, nobody is applying a religious test, they are, in Jackson’s case, applying a moron test.

    And, in furtherence of that test, the “religious test” the Founders outlawed was a legal bar from holding office unless you professed belief in a certain religion. There is (some may say unfortunately) no bar of Fundamentalist Christians from holding public office. But individual voters can choose whether or not to vote for a candidate based on his/her religious/nonreligious views, as I’m sure Jackson would agree … if the candidate was a Muslim or an atheist.

  5. Chiroptera says

    I think Americans are tired of being told that holding to Judeo-Christian values somehow makes you can idiot, as you put it, makes you backwoods, makes you ignorant….

    He has a point; correlation is not necessarily causation.

  6. eric says

    We’re seeing people apply a religious test and they’re saying anything you believed or said as a minister disqualifies you from serving as Lt. Governor because you hold to these Biblical views.

    Not anything; just the stuff so stupid it would disqualify ministers or even non-ministers from serving as local dogcatcher.

  7. billgascoyne says

    No problem with *holding* religious views. Legislating those views, on the other hand, *is* something of a problem…

  8. kantalope says

    You can vote for him because he is a nut…but you can’t vote against him because he is a nut, because fairness.

  9. Doug Little says

    It’s a sad commentary on our media and culture today that anybody that expresses a Biblical worldview is marginalized and, frankly, not too put too fine a point on it, persecuted for doing so. And I think that’s a sad commentary.

    Good old fashioned christian privilege in full swing with this one. What about all those other world views that are marginalized like say, for example, the KKK.

  10. Nomad says

    #11 nails it. I’ve said this before, this guy is trying to pull off a pretty audacious maneuver where he gets to base his entire platform on his religious views and yet because they’re religious views he thinks they can’t be criticized. If he gets away with it I fear a new low bar will have been set for the would be theocrats of this nation.

Leave a Reply