This week we are offered further proof by the Idaho Statesman that, contrary to his claims that he is not Gay, Republican Larry Craig has had a number of liaisons with other men. Then, on the front page of the Sunday Times online is an article pointing out that the biggest news regarding Condelezza Rice is not that she is orchestrating the Arab - Israeli peace talks in Annapolis, MD., but the rumors that she is a closet Lesbian.
On the Democratic side, well-known homosexual Congressman Barney Frank recently told Charley Rose that being homosexual causes him no political problems at all as he functions in Congress as current chairman of the Financial Services Committee. In fact he said, it is normally that case that he has to remind those he is working with that he is a homosexual. It is of that little consequence.
This is a problem unique to the Republican Party. It centers on their exploitation of religious hatred of homosexuals in order to get elected to office, followed by the hypocrisy of either going home and practicing the very behavior they attempt to criminalize, or as was the case when Republican Congressman Mark Foley was exposed as a closeted homosexual preying on Congressional Pages, Foley's homosexuality was well known in the Republican Party and concealed by them.
In fact, the Republican hypocrisy on homosexuality is is made starkly clear by the efforts of then Congressman Larry Craig as he attempted to have Congressman Frank expelled from the House or censured because Congressman Frank had unknowingly rented his basement to a homosexual prostitute to had run a prostitution ring.
Think about it - would you rather have a meal with the witty and interesting Barney Frank or with the undistinguished and sad Sen. Larry Craig? And why should questions of Condi Rice's sexuality be of any importance at all as she attempts to once again bring peace the Arabs and the Jews who have spent over half a century fighting about Jerusalem?
Don't give me the crap about homosexuals attempting to recruit children to their lifestyle. That fiction is a fig leaf designed to conceal the true hatred that those who espouse it carry with them. No one in their right mind would choose to be pilloried as it done to homosexuals in our society. But even if it were true, the laws the Republicans are attempting to pass declare that the crime is to be homosexual, not to recruit children. They are laws designed to declare someone a criminal for what they are, not what they do. Fortunately, our society is outgrowing that primitive, hate based fear of others who are different.
The hypocrisy of the conservatives works in the short term to build turnout and draw votes in the heat of a political campaign, but in the long run, has been furiously building 'blowback' for the hypocritical Republican Party and for conservatives.
Showing posts with label Craig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Craig. Show all posts
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Conservatuives and their personal Hells
What is it about these conservatives and their personal Hells? Sen. Larry Craig has just exposed his form of Hell to the nation on Nationwide TV. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has similarly exposed his personal Hell and denial in his recent book "My Grandfather's Son : A Memoir."
Each obviously has a conflict between who they are inherently (Craig = 'Gay' and Thomas = 'Black.' I suspect that Thomas feels that being labeled 'Black' is being labeled 'inferior.') and who society wants them to be. Craig has entered deep denial, and Thomas has become a very angry person, but the cause for each is the conflict between who they are inherently and who or what society generally will permit them to be.
Each has also entered politics. Their form of politics in each case has consisted of a rejection of the loosening up of the very elements of society that they each previously found so much pain with. Craig rejects the way society has recently approved of openly Gay homosexuals and Thomas rejects the entire Civil Rights Movement. Both are practicing what Bill Buckley once stated to be his goal - to stand athwart the movement of history and yell "Stop!"
Each of those two live in their own personal form of Hell, and I guess they have learned to accept it as long as it is not disturbed or disrupted. Each represents the older ways of coping with social inequity.
So when society moves to accommodate their difference in a way that was not available to them as they were growing up, it must expose just how very painful it was to come to grips with their personal conflict with the earlier less liberal social prescriptions. They each achieved personal social acceptance before society moved to recognize the pain it was inflicting. Sen. Craig dealt with a total rejection of his homosexuality, and Justice Thomas dealt with the rejection of the Civil Rights Movement by the powerful and wealthy men he desperately wanted to be accepted by. Each made extensive, difficult and painful personal accommodations in order to be accepted socially. Each achieved their goal, which justified the cost they paid.
Now society is changing so that people who face the conflict between society and who they are personally no longer requires such massive cost in order to be socially accepted. Society gives the rewards they paid so much for at much lower personal cost now. Their personal success in coming to grips with the social inequity - clearly at great personal effort and cost - becomes something that is no longer recognized for the great achievement that it was. Their effort and the price they paid is robbed of value to them.
Assuming this is true, and the mechanism I describe if obviously speculation, it certainly would show why both men would want to be conservatives, standing athwart the movement of history and yelling "Stop!" That conservative reaction which each so clearly displays is also extremely self-centered, showing no empathy for others who are liberated from the need to fight the battles they previously fought. But the self-identity they each have built that allowed them to overcome the challenges they faced has its severe penalties built in, and can no longer be changed or abandoned without paying the price of total psychic collapse.
That psychic collapse would mean abandoning the very social acceptance and success that they have each fought all their life to achieve. The price of leaving their personal versions of Hell is abandoning everything they have won to date.
Neither is willing to pay that price, and both are angry. So both are conservatives who are using their personal power to try to return society to the world in which they succeeded at such great cost. They have each created their own personal Hell, and the want to force everyone else to enjoy it the way they do.
That's the conservative way.
Each obviously has a conflict between who they are inherently (Craig = 'Gay' and Thomas = 'Black.' I suspect that Thomas feels that being labeled 'Black' is being labeled 'inferior.') and who society wants them to be. Craig has entered deep denial, and Thomas has become a very angry person, but the cause for each is the conflict between who they are inherently and who or what society generally will permit them to be.
Each has also entered politics. Their form of politics in each case has consisted of a rejection of the loosening up of the very elements of society that they each previously found so much pain with. Craig rejects the way society has recently approved of openly Gay homosexuals and Thomas rejects the entire Civil Rights Movement. Both are practicing what Bill Buckley once stated to be his goal - to stand athwart the movement of history and yell "Stop!"
Each of those two live in their own personal form of Hell, and I guess they have learned to accept it as long as it is not disturbed or disrupted. Each represents the older ways of coping with social inequity.
So when society moves to accommodate their difference in a way that was not available to them as they were growing up, it must expose just how very painful it was to come to grips with their personal conflict with the earlier less liberal social prescriptions. They each achieved personal social acceptance before society moved to recognize the pain it was inflicting. Sen. Craig dealt with a total rejection of his homosexuality, and Justice Thomas dealt with the rejection of the Civil Rights Movement by the powerful and wealthy men he desperately wanted to be accepted by. Each made extensive, difficult and painful personal accommodations in order to be accepted socially. Each achieved their goal, which justified the cost they paid.
Now society is changing so that people who face the conflict between society and who they are personally no longer requires such massive cost in order to be socially accepted. Society gives the rewards they paid so much for at much lower personal cost now. Their personal success in coming to grips with the social inequity - clearly at great personal effort and cost - becomes something that is no longer recognized for the great achievement that it was. Their effort and the price they paid is robbed of value to them.
Assuming this is true, and the mechanism I describe if obviously speculation, it certainly would show why both men would want to be conservatives, standing athwart the movement of history and yelling "Stop!" That conservative reaction which each so clearly displays is also extremely self-centered, showing no empathy for others who are liberated from the need to fight the battles they previously fought. But the self-identity they each have built that allowed them to overcome the challenges they faced has its severe penalties built in, and can no longer be changed or abandoned without paying the price of total psychic collapse.
That psychic collapse would mean abandoning the very social acceptance and success that they have each fought all their life to achieve. The price of leaving their personal versions of Hell is abandoning everything they have won to date.
Neither is willing to pay that price, and both are angry. So both are conservatives who are using their personal power to try to return society to the world in which they succeeded at such great cost. They have each created their own personal Hell, and the want to force everyone else to enjoy it the way they do.
That's the conservative way.
Sullivan on Larry Craig's exquisite Hell
Larry Craig was interviewed by Matt Lauer on his exposure as a deep-in-the-closet homosexual. Andrew Sullivan reports on what he saw in the interview.
As we grow up, we each create the conscious identity that we use to identify our self in our memories and our dreams. When we devise an identity that is constructed to conceal a core portion of our very existence from society, we create a set of tensions that will fill our entire lives with pain and rob us of all real joy forever. Larry Craig has designed such a self-identity and built his entire life around the lies that self-identity is based on. As Andrew Sullivan says "He cannot break free of it at this point without psychic collapse. And so, even though it becomes absurd to everyone around them, the Craigs keep going. They have no choice, apart from total breakdown."
Sullivan, of course, understands this. He is both explaining Sen. Craig's Hell, and explaining why he, himself, came out of the closet.
Why on earth they decided to subject themselves to prolonging this agony is a question worth asking. And the answer, I think, is: they have to. At this point in their lives, to allow the possibility that Craig is indeed homosexual, that he has sustained, lived, internalized a fundamental lie for his entire life, and involved his wife and children in that lie, would be to destroy themselves. [Snip]Sen. Craig's denial of the obvious does nothing more than expose both the obvious (he is a deeply closeted gay) and his deep, deep denial of that obvious fact of his own life.
He grew up in a different time, and a different place, where even the possibility of being gay was inconceivable. I don't think he even thinks of himself as gay, or has any idea what being gay might actually mean. I think he thinks of his sexual orientation as a "lifestyle" (to use that hideous term Lauer kept referring to) that can be overcome the way one overcomes smoking or poor eating or sexual compulsion. And he constructed an identity in opposition to this "lifestyle" early, out of pain and defensiveness and terrible fear. He is now wedded to this life he created - more than to his wife, which is why she was kept in the dark for two months after the arrest, as he went through the terror of feeling caught finally in his own contradiction. He cannot break free of it at this point without psychic collapse. And so, even though it becomes absurd to everyone around them, the Craigs keep going. They have no choice, apart from total breakdown. [snip]
Craig was seeking in that toilet stall a connection, a shard of intimacy, that the world would not give him, or that he could not give himself. No one should have to live without that intimacy and dignity - no one. Living a life like that - a deeply lonely, compromised, painful interior existence - is a very sophisticated form of hell. No human can keep it up for ever. No human should have to keep it up for ever.
As we grow up, we each create the conscious identity that we use to identify our self in our memories and our dreams. When we devise an identity that is constructed to conceal a core portion of our very existence from society, we create a set of tensions that will fill our entire lives with pain and rob us of all real joy forever. Larry Craig has designed such a self-identity and built his entire life around the lies that self-identity is based on. As Andrew Sullivan says "He cannot break free of it at this point without psychic collapse. And so, even though it becomes absurd to everyone around them, the Craigs keep going. They have no choice, apart from total breakdown."
Sullivan, of course, understands this. He is both explaining Sen. Craig's Hell, and explaining why he, himself, came out of the closet.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Novak - Republicans knew about and concealed Larry Craig's behavior
According to Bloomberg, (see Think Progress for the TV clip.) Bob Novak has stated that the Senate Republicans have known that Larry Craig is gay and that he has long practiced his toilet-stall behavior.
It amazes me how blatantly those Republicans hide and support their closeted gay politicians and still run on an anti-gay platform to satisfy their social conservative base. The level of hypocrisy demonstrated by the leaders of the social conservative so-called 'values voters' is the flip side of the same coin.
It probably shouldn't surprise me, though. Those politicians and social conservative leaders are themselves particularly nasty pieces of work. Our society no longer reacts viscerally in fear of an uprising of Blacks, so they have had to find new enemies to pretend were existential threats to America so that they could hang onto power. What have they found? Gays, Muslims, and immigrants. Oh, and they have never stopped being afraid of poor and sick people.
If there really were an interventionist God performing miracles, every time they called themselves 'Christians' their tongues would burst into fire.
It amazes me how blatantly those Republicans hide and support their closeted gay politicians and still run on an anti-gay platform to satisfy their social conservative base. The level of hypocrisy demonstrated by the leaders of the social conservative so-called 'values voters' is the flip side of the same coin.
It probably shouldn't surprise me, though. Those politicians and social conservative leaders are themselves particularly nasty pieces of work. Our society no longer reacts viscerally in fear of an uprising of Blacks, so they have had to find new enemies to pretend were existential threats to America so that they could hang onto power. What have they found? Gays, Muslims, and immigrants. Oh, and they have never stopped being afraid of poor and sick people.
If there really were an interventionist God performing miracles, every time they called themselves 'Christians' their tongues would burst into fire.
Friday, September 07, 2007
At last we begin to get Republian defenders for Larry Craig
OK. I previously commented on the political aspects of the Larry Craig Affair, and I really thought it was over. I forgot to factor in the "It's all the Democrats' fault!" crowd. Fortunately, Rick Perlstein found these choice comments by Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan.
Ann defends Sen. Craig by stating that liberals are practicing gay-bashing (but calling it hypocrisy) and besides, Sen. Craig didn't really do anything. He was set up.
Pat has a less coherent argument. Sen. Craig was set up, and it is all a great smear job by the Idaho Statesman, a newspaper running a witch-hunt and looking for anything in Sen. Craig's entire life that would discredit and smear him. The problem is less about Craig's character than it is about the character of those investigating him. Again, it is all the liberals fault. But then Pat goes on into the land of confusion where only someone who rode the Nixon rocket into the ground during Watergate and still believes it was a Democratic coup-de-etate could go: "Democrats Oops his fellow Republicans - who stripped Craig of his seniority and filed ethics charges against him (Safe to do, unlike David Vitter, Larry Craig will be replaced by another Republican.)
But it is still the Democrats fault for not coming to Republican Sen. Craig's defense and defending him from his fellow Republicans when they have attacked him.
Then Pat's final paragraph channels Richard Nixon. Pat quotes him as saying "Count your friends when you're down, Nixon always advised." I guess when writing about Republican nastiness and corruption you can never to wrong quoting Richard Nixon.
As for me, I admit to not knowing what the fuss is all about. Sen. Craig's situation is not a particularly pleasant one, but it is made a great deal worse by the gay-bashing which Republicans have been practicing to attract social conservative voters, and by their perception that the Mark Foley scandal had in their defeat in keeping control of the House of Representatives in 2006.
Because of those perceptions, a homosexual Republican politician always runs this kind of risk. They have to stay in the closet (like Lindsay Graham appears to) and don't learn what forms of behavior are socially acceptable when trying to find a sex partner. Then when they do go over the edge, they are treated much more harshly than heterosexuals like David Vitter are. Vitter may be promiscuous, but since he is heterosexually promiscuous, so his inappropriate use of prostitutes can be excused with a wink-and-a-nod.
I feel sorry for Craig's family, but any homosexual Republican politician is automatically playing with fire. It is sad on a human level that Sen. Craig got burned. But I also don't like Republican behavior and the lack of empathy they demonstrate for anyone they don't know, so I don't feel too very sorry for him.
Ann defends Sen. Craig by stating that liberals are practicing gay-bashing (but calling it hypocrisy) and besides, Sen. Craig didn't really do anything. He was set up.
Pat has a less coherent argument. Sen. Craig was set up, and it is all a great smear job by the Idaho Statesman, a newspaper running a witch-hunt and looking for anything in Sen. Craig's entire life that would discredit and smear him. The problem is less about Craig's character than it is about the character of those investigating him. Again, it is all the liberals fault. But then Pat goes on into the land of confusion where only someone who rode the Nixon rocket into the ground during Watergate and still believes it was a Democratic coup-de-etate could go: "
Republicans immediately denounced him, stripped him of all his seniority rights, and ordered an ethics committee investigation and a study of whether more immediate action should be taken...So you see? It was - the[Here Pat leaves consistency and focus to the jackals. Unlike the way Pat started, blaming the liberals for castigating Craig, now they have another crime they are guilty of. Silence when Craig is attacked by his fellow Republicans.]The silence of most Democrats is understandable. If you belong to a party that declares homosexuality a moral lifestyle, that perhaps should be elevated to the level of matrimony, then what would Craig be guilty of, other than being horribly indiscreet?
But it is still the Democrats fault for not coming to Republican Sen. Craig's defense and defending him from his fellow Republicans when they have attacked him.
Then Pat's final paragraph channels Richard Nixon. Pat quotes him as saying "Count your friends when you're down, Nixon always advised." I guess when writing about Republican nastiness and corruption you can never to wrong quoting Richard Nixon.
As for me, I admit to not knowing what the fuss is all about. Sen. Craig's situation is not a particularly pleasant one, but it is made a great deal worse by the gay-bashing which Republicans have been practicing to attract social conservative voters, and by their perception that the Mark Foley scandal had in their defeat in keeping control of the House of Representatives in 2006.
Because of those perceptions, a homosexual Republican politician always runs this kind of risk. They have to stay in the closet (like Lindsay Graham appears to) and don't learn what forms of behavior are socially acceptable when trying to find a sex partner. Then when they do go over the edge, they are treated much more harshly than heterosexuals like David Vitter are. Vitter may be promiscuous, but since he is heterosexually promiscuous, so his inappropriate use of prostitutes can be excused with a wink-and-a-nod.
I feel sorry for Craig's family, but any homosexual Republican politician is automatically playing with fire. It is sad on a human level that Sen. Craig got burned. But I also don't like Republican behavior and the lack of empathy they demonstrate for anyone they don't know, so I don't feel too very sorry for him.
Larry Craig is toast. He's gone. He's no more. He is an ex-Senator
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) has really found himself in trouble. He pleaded guilty in early August to misdemeanor disorderly-conduct charges that came from his arrest in June by an undercover police officer in a men's restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
When this became public, he then announced that he intended to resign from the Senate by September 30 of this year.
Then, for reasons that are not clear, Sen. Arlene Specter convinced his to change his intent (no resignation had been submitted) and fight the charges. (See the video at Talking Points Memo for the back story on this.) Such a fight would require that his guilty plea to the court in Minneapolis be somehow withdrawn, a process that is not likely to succeed and also that the Senate Republicans not go forward with the Ethic complain they filed against him. But even if it did succeed in withdrawing the plea and halting the Ethics investigation, the real issue would center on what the voters in Idaho want him to to.
Now we have a poll on those voters. It is not pretty. According to New Survey USA Poll:
Three term Senator from Idaho Larry Craig has reached the end of his Senate career, and is unlikely to have any further career in politics.
When this became public, he then announced that he intended to resign from the Senate by September 30 of this year.
Then, for reasons that are not clear, Sen. Arlene Specter convinced his to change his intent (no resignation had been submitted) and fight the charges. (See the video at Talking Points Memo for the back story on this.) Such a fight would require that his guilty plea to the court in Minneapolis be somehow withdrawn, a process that is not likely to succeed and also that the Senate Republicans not go forward with the Ethic complain they filed against him. But even if it did succeed in withdrawing the plea and halting the Ethics investigation, the real issue would center on what the voters in Idaho want him to to.
Now we have a poll on those voters. It is not pretty. According to New Survey USA Poll:
What should Craig do?TPM Election Central also says "When asked to rate the respect they have for Craig on a scale of one to 10, the largest percentage, 30%, choose one."
52% Leave Senate
29% Serve Out Term, Don't Run
17% Serve Out Term And Run Again
2% Not Sure
Three term Senator from Idaho Larry Craig has reached the end of his Senate career, and is unlikely to have any further career in politics.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Craig withdraws intent to resign from Senate
And we thought it was all over last week. The minute that word got out that he had pleaded guilty to a charge that he was trolling for sex in a Minneapolis Airport men's room, the Republican Party in general came down on him with as many feet as they could find. Unlike Louisiana Sen. David Vitter who admitted on TV that he had paid prostitutes for sex and was in touch with the D.C. Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Sen. Craig had been arrested for sending classic signals in the men's room trolling for male sex.
The Republican reaction was perfectly clear.
So last Saturday Sen. Craig announced his retirement from the Senate, to be effective September 30.
Or so we thought.
Apparently Sen. Craig only announce his intent to resign at the end of September, and as Sen. Specter points out on FOX News, an 'intent to resign' can be withdrawn.
Go see the video at Talking Points Memo for what Paul Harvey used to call "The rest of the Story." Josh Marshall has some really good Washington insider background data for you in the video.
Sen. Craig may have decided to unresign, but he is up for reelection in 2008 in Idaho. It will be interesting to see if he even enters the primary race for his own seat. Or if he does, how the Idaho Republican Party will treat him.
What can I say? I really enjoy watching Republicans boil one of their own in oil. It's more fun when the victim fights back, too.
The Republican reaction was perfectly clear.
Sex with prostitutes = "OK."The Republicans even performed the extremely unusual act of filing a Senate Ethics complaint against Larry Craig, a member of their own Party.
Homosexual sex in a public men's room = "Senator! Begone! And do not again darken our Senate building!"
So last Saturday Sen. Craig announced his retirement from the Senate, to be effective September 30.
Or so we thought.
Apparently Sen. Craig only announce his intent to resign at the end of September, and as Sen. Specter points out on FOX News, an 'intent to resign' can be withdrawn.
Go see the video at Talking Points Memo for what Paul Harvey used to call "The rest of the Story." Josh Marshall has some really good Washington insider background data for you in the video.
Sen. Craig may have decided to unresign, but he is up for reelection in 2008 in Idaho. It will be interesting to see if he even enters the primary race for his own seat. Or if he does, how the Idaho Republican Party will treat him.
What can I say? I really enjoy watching Republicans boil one of their own in oil. It's more fun when the victim fights back, too.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Gays get out! A call to purge the GOP of homosexuals
The Idaho Values Alliance, a long time supporter of Idaho Republican Sen. Craig, is now asking for his resignation. They start off by saying that he should resign IF he is homosexual, but then they continue
So why should they be purged? Because people like the Idaho Values Alliance consider them "Sinners." Says who? Some power-hungry political leaders who use religion as their base of power, that's who.
I strongly suspect that Ralph Reed is gay, and I don't like him. But my dislike is based on his efforts to impose religion on our secular government. I rather respect Lindsay Graham because he is a man who learns on the job and does not seem to demonize his opponents. I objected to his role in the effort to convict Bill Clinton in the Senate impeachment trial, and I dislike his support for a number of Republican policies, but those are political judgments, not judgment on him as a "Sinner."
I very much respect and like Barney Frank from Massachusetts. He is often described as the smartest man in the House of Representatives, and his ability to get off a great quip is legendary. Why should we remove people like Barney Frank and Lindsay Graham from government service just because someone has read a book that answers all questions and rejects them? Biblical Inerrancy, besides being bad religion, is also a rotten way to run a government.
Apparently, however, the people in the Idaho Values Alliance think it is the source of all good government and are willing to destroy the political career of Sen. Craig from Idaho over the issue.
Government is not religion, nor is religion a good basis for government. Religion is too inflexible to be allowed to ever have the power to govern people on any basis. Religion can observe, advise and recommend, but never govern. The result of religious government is always war.
In the meantime, if the GOP conducts a purge of homosexuals, all they will do is drive them deeper into the closet or destroy the careers of some people, occasionally good and occasionally bad (like all the rest of us.) As a Democrat the only good thing I see coming from that is a weakening of the Republican Party and ultimately the rejection of the social conservatives by the rest of that party.
It strains credulity to think that the senator can provide an explanation for his guilty plea if he did nothing more than accidentally brush someone’s foot with his shoe and pick up a piece of paper off the floor.So - if he is homosexual he should resign, and the evidence as they see it make it extremely unlikely that he is NOT homosexual. But they continue to say
The Judeo-Christian tradition says that the standard for identifying the truth is that “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact is confirmed.” The senator’s guilty plea, when added to the officer’s testimony, satisfies the biblical standard for confirming the essential truth of what happened, and unless the senator can provide a compelling and convincing explanation for his plea, we will need to regretfully accept that the fact of his behavior has been established. It seems unlikely that he can “unring the bell” his guilty plea has sounded.
One larger issue must be addressed. The Republican Party platform clearly rejects the agenda of homosexual activists. The Party, in the wake of the Mark Foley incident in particular, can no longer straddle the fence on the issue of homosexual behavior. Even setting Senator Craig’s situation aside, the Party should regard participation in the self-destructive homosexual lifestyle as incompatible with public service on behalf of the GOP.This is a call for the purge from the Republican Party of such people as Sen. Craig, and very likely Ralph Reed or Sen. Lindsay Graham.
No member of the Republican Party in the 1860s could represent his party and be a slaveholder at the same time. Nor can the Republican Party of today speak with authority and clarity to the moral issues that confront our society and at the same time send ambivalent messages about sexual behavior. It is time for the Republican Party to be the party that defends the American family in word, deed, and by personal example.
So why should they be purged? Because people like the Idaho Values Alliance consider them "Sinners." Says who? Some power-hungry political leaders who use religion as their base of power, that's who.
I strongly suspect that Ralph Reed is gay, and I don't like him. But my dislike is based on his efforts to impose religion on our secular government. I rather respect Lindsay Graham because he is a man who learns on the job and does not seem to demonize his opponents. I objected to his role in the effort to convict Bill Clinton in the Senate impeachment trial, and I dislike his support for a number of Republican policies, but those are political judgments, not judgment on him as a "Sinner."
I very much respect and like Barney Frank from Massachusetts. He is often described as the smartest man in the House of Representatives, and his ability to get off a great quip is legendary. Why should we remove people like Barney Frank and Lindsay Graham from government service just because someone has read a book that answers all questions and rejects them? Biblical Inerrancy, besides being bad religion, is also a rotten way to run a government.
Apparently, however, the people in the Idaho Values Alliance think it is the source of all good government and are willing to destroy the political career of Sen. Craig from Idaho over the issue.
Government is not religion, nor is religion a good basis for government. Religion is too inflexible to be allowed to ever have the power to govern people on any basis. Religion can observe, advise and recommend, but never govern. The result of religious government is always war.
In the meantime, if the GOP conducts a purge of homosexuals, all they will do is drive them deeper into the closet or destroy the careers of some people, occasionally good and occasionally bad (like all the rest of us.) As a Democrat the only good thing I see coming from that is a weakening of the Republican Party and ultimately the rejection of the social conservatives by the rest of that party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)