Monday, September 25, 2006

The Betterthanyou Family Reunion

The Family Research Council sponsored a "Values Voters Summit" this week in Washington. Everybody was there, from Tony Snow to James Dobson to Anne Coulter to ...

One blogger called it the Cavalcade of Wingnuts.

The New York Times had a reporter there, who wrote about the disaffection that the nuts are feeling with the Republican Party these days:
... Mr. Pence argued that in the end, Republicans were still preferable to Democrats. Like many arguments, though, his was about picking the lesser of two evils.

“My first inclination was to sit this one out,” Dr. Dobson said in an interview, adding that he had changed his mind when he looked at who would become the leaders of Congressional committees if the Democrats took over. Christian Conservatives Look to Re-energize Base

They're gloomy, yes, all of this hasn't turned out very well for them, has it?

Hey, it sounds like some of these "values voters" might have a sense of right and wrong, after all:
Even in this crowd of nearly 2,000 Christian conservative activists, some balked at one tactic recommended to turn out church voters. In a workshop, Connie Marshner, a veteran organizer, distributed a step-by-step guide that recommended obtaining church directories and posing as a nonpartisan pollster to ask people how they planned to vote.

“Hello, I am with ABC polls,” a suggested script began.

Some attendees complained that the script seemed deceptive, Ms. Marshner said in an interview afterward. She said that such disguised calls were a common campaign tactic, that it was just a suggested script and that she never recommended answering a direct question with a lie.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who played host to the conference, said he was “upset” to learn of her instructions and condemned any deception.

It's OK to lie about who you are, just don't answer a direct question with a lie. Indirect question? No problem. Pulling stuff out of ... thin air? Cool.

Did you see that in there about "obtaining church directories?" You might remember the controversy in the 2004 elections, when the Bush-Cheney campaign was caught asking people to give them their church directories after the IRS had sent them a strongly worded letter warning them not to involve churches in their politicking. Churches can lose their tax-exempt status if they participate directly or indirectly in political campaigns.

"Mister Perkins, are you in favor of using deception to win elections, or against it?" What do you think the answer to that question is? C'mon, some things are just not supposed to be said out loud, in public, with reporters around.

I think this will be an interesting thing to keep an eye on:
Several organizers at the event lamented that opposition to same-sex marriage, a major catalyst for Christian conservative turnout two years ago, had lost some of its emotional resonance. Massachusetts remains the only state to recognize same-sex marriage. Sixteen states have passed constitutional amendments banning such unions, and eight courts have ruled against the idea.

“Sometimes success brings complacency,” Mr. Perkins said.

To revive some of the emotions around the issue, several organizers said they were taking up the argument that legal recognition of same-sex marriages would cramp the free expression of religious groups who consider such unions a sin — an idea much discussed at the conference.

Listen, I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing that will be a hard one to win... I suppose any religion can tell its members what to do, but I can't really see that a relationship between two people who go to a different church is really any of their business.

The problem is, really, that nobody cares. Nobody can figure out how two guys starting a family can possibly be any kind of threat to their own marriage. So, yes, the issue has sort of lost it's attractiveness, once people had a chance to think about it.
“That is an issue that wasn’t around two years ago and one that is absolutely moving to the very forefront,” said the Rev. Donald Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian broadcaster and advocacy group.

Although that idea may seem far-fetched to many liberal or secular-minded voters, legal scholars across the political spectrum agree that authorizing same-sex marriages could present legal questions for some religious groups. A Roman Catholic group in Massachusetts, for example, recently stopped offering children for adoption rather than provide them to gay couples.

Oh, that'll show 'em. Punish the orphans. Good job, Jesus must be proud of you.

Oh, and one more quote that I ... found interesting:
Others looked abroad. In a pre-election letter to 2.5 million supporters, Dr. Dobson is breaking away from his traditional field of child psychology to argue that foreign terrorists are a threat to families.

I don't know, there's just something about that.

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Netroots Hit Their Limits

Liberal online activists are finding you can't move elections with just modems and IM

By BY PERRY BACON JR.

Posted Sunday, Sep. 24, 2006

You've heard the story: the Netroots, the Democratic Party's equivalent of a punk garage band--edgy, loud and antiauthoritarian--are suddenly on the verge of the big time. The gang of liberal bloggers and online activists... Moderate Democrats say it with remorse, conservatives with glee, but the conventional wisdom is bipartisan: progressive bloggers are pushing the Democratic Party so far to the left that it will have no chance of capturing the presidency in 2008"

September 25, 2006 2:12 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

New York Times,

Although that idea may seem far-fetched to many liberal or secular-minded voters, legal scholars across the political spectrum agree that authorizing same-sex marriages could present legal questions for some religious groups. A Roman Catholic group in Massachusetts, for example, recently stopped offering children for adoption rather than provide them to gay couples.

Then Jim writes,

Oh, that'll show 'em. Punish the orphans. Good job, Jesus must be proud of you.

Cheap shot, Jim.

While it is true that the Catholic Church did this, it is not a complete account of the matter...the Catholic Church in MA choose not to be a part of a process that is believed to be contrary to church teachings, and voluntarily withdrew. There are other agencies in MA that continue to provide the service offered.

Jim, you wouldn't force the Catholic Church to violate its own teachings now, would you?

September 26, 2006 8:03 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Orini, I grew up singing "Jesus loves the little children, all the little children of the world." I'm married to a Catholic, and sent my kids for years to Catholic schools -- I was a Boy Scout leader for the church pack. I know that Catholics, more than anybody, love kids. So I would expect them to follow Jesus' advice and try to take care of those that have lost their parents.

Not this time. Theological technicality; no mommies for these babies, not if there're going to be two of them.

JimK

September 26, 2006 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Rice challenges statements by Clinton on terror

Secretary says administration aggressively pursued al-Qaida before 9/11

NEW YORK - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue al-Qaida, saying in an interview published Tuesday that the Bush administration aggressively pursued the group even before the 9/11 attacks.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post.

The newspaper published her comments after Clinton appeared on "Fox News Sunday" in a combative interview in which he defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and said he "worked hard" to have the al-Qaida leader killed.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Rice disputed his assessment.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false — and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said.

Rice also took exception to Clinton's statement that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for incoming officials when he left office.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida," she told the newspaper."

September 26, 2006 9:57 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

Orini, I grew up singing "Jesus loves the little children, all the little children of the world." I'm married to a Catholic, and sent my kids for years to Catholic schools -- I was a Boy Scout leader for the church pack. I know that Catholics, more than anybody, love kids. So I would expect them to follow Jesus' advice and try to take care of those that have lost their parents.

And they do...but the State of Massachussetts left Catholic Charities with no choice. There were one of two options. First, allow an agency under the direction of the Catcholic Church in Boston to violate Catholic teachings by being a party to same-sex adoptions. Or, second, to maintain the integrity of those teachings and religious freedom, to cease operation of Catholic agency that facilitates adoptions and in an orderly manner transition adoptions to other social services agencies that can perform this same function without the violation of religious conscience.

Not this time. Theological technicality;

There is that word that you love to use,"technicality." Sorry Jim, it is not any kind of technicality...and if your wife is indeed Catholic, then she should be able to explain the reason why this is so. Keep in mind, some Catholics form their social and political views from Church teachings, while others form their religious views from their social and political opinions. The former are known as Catholics in Communion with Rome; the later are known as "cafeteria catholics".

no mommies for these babies, not if there're going to be two of them.

There is no reason that any other of a number of social agencies would not be able to take care of these adoptions, so I am not sure why you would have a problem with this resolution...unless, of course, you want to force YOUR views on religion that you seem to be at odds with. But that can't be since we all know that modern liberalism is about tolerance of diversity...right?

Here are some links that better explain the Archdiocese of Boston's position,

http://www.rcab.org/News/
releases/2006/statement
060310-2.html

and,

http://www.rcab.org/News/
releases/2006/statement
060310.html

September 26, 2006 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The thing that Orin so conveniently omits is that the 42-member board at Catholic Charities actually voted unanimously to continue placing children in the homes of gay and lesbian families. It was the Catholic hierarchy that put a stop to it alright. But then as a gay Catholic myself I know about bigotry and mistreatment of gay and lesbian people promulgated by the Vatican. I guess the CC board members were "cafeteria Catholics" --who show Christian charity.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/national/main1361889.shtml

--Ron

September 26, 2006 2:24 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Ron writes,

The thing that Orin so conveniently omits is that the 42-member board at Catholic Charities actually voted unanimously to continue placing children in the homes of gay and lesbian families.

"conveniently omits"? Hardly...I did not even know that that was the case...then again, it is not relevant in this instance. There could have been 142 members of the board of Catholic Charities voting to continue the practice, and it would not have mattered in the least (except perhaps to put on display for all to see that far too many Catholics do not know the faith they claim as their own).

Fortunately the Catholic Church has gaurdians that understand that the Church represents principles that are not up for a vote.

It was the Catholic hierarchy that put a stop to it alright. But then as a gay Catholic myself I know about bigotry and mistreatment of gay and lesbian people promulgated by the Vatican.

Oh really? Wow, that ought to be a major news flash to several members of my parish that are gay and lesbian...members that actively participate in the life of the parish (sorry, I can't say what they do). Still I am sorry that you feel mistreated.

I guess the CC board members were "cafeteria Catholics" --who show Christian charity.

There are two rules of Christian Charity. First, love. Second, truth. While the CC members affirmed the former, they did so at the cost of the latter. Those that don't like the rules it would seem tend to favor the first rule, while those like the Church hierarchy will honor the first rule, but only if it does not compromise the second rule.

September 28, 2006 5:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orrin wrote: There are two rules of Christian Charity. First, love. Second, truth. While the CC members affirmed the former, they did so at the cost of the latter. Those that don't like the rules it would seem tend to favor the first rule, while those like the Church hierarchy will honor the first rule, but only if it does not compromise the second rule.

I am afraid to say that the hierarchy does not honor the rule about the truth either. Otherwise, it would not have persecuted Galileo, the Jews, women, usurers, gays, and many others through the crusades and the inquisition. It has a real problem adapting to change, including scientific and social progress. That is why it periodically apologizes for past mistakes when it ignored the truth -– sometimes centuries later. It has continued to inflict great suffering through yet another divisive tactic of denigrating a whole group of people.

It is far better to be a cafeteria Catholic like the good board members at Catholic Charities in Massachusetts.

-Ron

September 28, 2006 11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orrin wrote: "There are two rules of Christian Charity. First, love. Second, truth. While the CC members affirmed the former, they did so at the cost of the latter. Those that don't like the rules it would seem tend to favor the first rule, while those like the Church hierarchy will honor the first rule, but only if it does not compromise the second rule."

I am afraid to say that the hierarchy does not honor the rule about the truth either. Otherwise, it would not have persecuted Galileo, the Jews, women, usurers, gays, and many others through the crusades and the inquisition. It has a real problem adapting to change, including scientific and social progress. That is why it periodically apologizes for past mistakes when it ignored the truth -– sometimes centuries later. It has continued to inflict great suffering through yet another divisive tactic of denigrating a whole group of people.

It is far better to be a cafeteria Catholic like the board members at Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, who courageously and unanimously voted to continue the practice of placing adopted children in gay and lesbian families.

-Ron

September 28, 2006 11:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home