Patrick writes.
Using the outers’ logic, it is now legitimate to throw this time-hallowed tradition out the window, and for conservative Christians to inject their personal moral and theological views into their voting decisions, and in deciding who gets to continue in public office. Is that the road they really want to go down?
Go down the road? The religious right not only built the road of imposing personal morality and theological views on everybody, but they paved it and put in a multi-lane express highway. There is no Republican party without Christianist theocrats like Falwell, Dobson, Perkins and their acolytes like Bush, Ashcroft, and beyond. Patrick has followed politics for a long time, he knows the history of the conservative movement up and down, but then he simply discards that in order to make an untrue point.
Great catch, Oliver… it seems Ruffini lives on a planet where the 2004 election never happened:
Obviously, I must be imagining all the calls for the Catholic clergy to deny the Eucharist to Kerry or any other politician that was pro-choice in the 2004 campaign. Must be the Oxycontin I took several weeks ago when I slipped and broke my wrist I guess.
Damn you Hillbilly Heroin!
The truth is that as painful as outing is, being in the closet is much worse for everybody. Ruffini et al are not defending anything other than the closet. Because without the closet, there’s no power.
That’s a pretty selective reading, even for you, Oliver.
Christian conservatives hold certain policy beliefs, but almost never personalize the issue like the outers do. If they did, they’d never even consider voting for Mitt Romney (for his Mormonism), or have countenanced the presence of Dick Cheney (pro-gay rights, gay family member, etc.) on the ticket.
The outers say that gay Republicans must “vote gay” or else. That’s like someone holding a gun to an African American Representative’s head and telling them to “vote black.” Or telling Keith Ellison he must uphold Shari’a law. Or telling a Catholic he or she must oppose abortion and contraception every time. Or telling Mitt Romney he must support the positions of the LDS in office.
If Rogers’ “logic” of identity groups always voting for their groups were applied consistently, we’d live in a theocracy, with the Christian majority legislating directly from Leviticus. That’s to be expected, though, from a group that routinely taunts Michael Steele as an “oreo” or a “tom.”
People are allowed to have certain beliefs ultimately informed by their backgrounds. But to legislate based solely on one’s personal attributes or religious beliefs is a bad idea.
but almost never personalize the issue like the outers do
Again, I must ask, what planet do you live on? Surely not the ones where we hear ad infinitum about the gay agenda, or the baby killing leftists, etc. etc.
Or telling a Catholic he or she must oppose abortion and contraception every time.
See Kerry, John or to a lesser extent Giuliani, Rudy.
That’s to be expected, though, from a group that routinely taunts Michael Steele as an “oreo” or a “tom.”
Well, except nobody ever did. Michael Steele got his ass kicked because he carried water for Republicans against the interests of black Americans. Nobody forced him to be a Republican. Boo hoo.
But to legislate based solely on one’s personal attributes or religious beliefs is a bad idea.
You were part of the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign. You understand this, right? You weren’t hit on the head at some point? You worked for Bush/Cheney – the poster boys for legislating based on religious beliefs.
I think you’ve set a new high water mark for cognitive dissonance Patrick.
“Christian conservatives hold certain policy beliefs, but almost never personalize the issue like the outers do.”
What?! If by “almost never” you mean “most of the time”, then I could agree. But otherwise I would have to chalk this up to pure delusion.
You know as well as I do that Christian right would never endorse an atheist, that they regularly accused Keith Ellison of sympathizing with Muslim terrorists and widely ridiculed him for wanting to take his swearing-in photo with the Quran instead of a Bible. Pat Robertson himself called Mormonism a crazy cult.
It’s certainly true that they will let certain principles lapse in Republicans that they would otherwise lambast in Democrats, but that’s more about political expediency than it is an attempt to remove their religious beliefs from the political arena.
or have countenanced the presence of Dick Cheney (pro-gay rights, gay family member, etc.) on the ticket.
Whoa, whoa. Dick Cheney? Pro-gay rights?
You sure we’re talking about the same thing?
One of the big questions at the “debates” are how a candidates faith would dictate his policy. Now you’re saying that isn’t important.
Again, what color is the sky in your world?
The goal posts stay right here, Patrick:
This is what the GOP has counted on since the days of Reagan. For Ruffini to pretend otherwise is plain silly.
Geez, I know an older catholic lady who saw Bush as evil incarnate, a man who relishes in death and killing, an unbalanced man. She was ordered by her priest not to vote for Kerry and she didn’t. Just one example but a true story. When the Bishop’s flap their narrow minded one issue gums, they get the press. In fact priests all over the country ordered it.
I agree with Scoobie: Senator Orrin Hatch and The Real Republican Family Values Outrage
Craig is a piker when it comes to claiming one thing and doing another when compared to other hypocrites on the right.
Actually, it’s a shame that conservatives have to tie their hopes to “conservative” leaders. The conservative leaders I have seen so far like to go on and on about their conservative beliefs in specific regard to abortion and gays, but then they pander to industry at the expense of worker safety, consumer safety, and soldier’s lives. How Christian is that? It would be nice to get a leader into office that cares, and is anti war, and is good with business, and is anti abortion, but if that’s not an option, better to get someone in there who truly cares about people, and leave it to the people to make the best decisions on how to run their personal lives.
Amen to that.
better to get someone in there who truly cares about people, and leave it to the people to make the best decisions on how to run their personal lives.
Guess you’ll be voting Democrat, then, yes? Obama’s your guy.
We’ll see. I like Obama’s presence. A President who can act like a President is always a good thing. I still don’t know a whole lot about his politics or promises, though. Don’t have a good feeling about Clinton, or anybody else running.