« John Kerry's Viet Nam flashback | Main | There goes another conspiracy theory... »

Do Republicans stand with bigots?

Did you know that liberalism causes pederasty? I didn't. Thank goodness that we have Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., to alert us to this political health hazard! From The Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON -- Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, refused yesterday to back off on his earlier statements connecting Boston's "liberalism" with the Roman Catholic Church pedophile scandal, saying that the city's "sexual license" and "sexual freedom" nurtured an environment where sexual abuse would occur.

"The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people's behavior," Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.

"If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.

Santorum, a leader among Christian conservatives, was responding to questions about remarks he made three years ago on a website called Catholic Online. In those comments, Santorum said, "It is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm" of the clergy sexual abuse scandal.

Say what?

"I was just saying that there's an attitude that is very open to sexual freedom that is more predominant" in Boston, Santorum said yesterday. Reminded that the sexual abuse occurred across the country, Santorum said that "at the time [in 2002], there was an indication that there was more of a problem there" in Boston.

For those who haven't heard Santorum, recall that he also linked homosexuality to bestiality and isn't afraid to invoke Hitler analogies. From the same Globe article:

Santorum has startled Washington in the past. In a 2003 interview with the Associated Press, he linked "man on child" and "man on dog" sex with homosexuality, describing them as deviant behaviors that threatened traditional marriage. Earlier this year, he apologized for comparing the Democrats blocking President Bush's judicial nominees to the Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler.

At least he apologized for the Hitler reference. But liberalism = raping kids and homosexuality = bestiality? A-OK!

What wing of the Republican Party does this man represent?

Lean Left's KTK speculates that Santorum is just reaching out to the religious Republican base ... which, as KTK notes, means that either Santorum actually believes this stuff or he's just catering to the bigots in his own party. Neither thought is really appetizing.

Santorum is certainly free to spew his toxic rhetoric the body politic if he chooses to do so. The First Amendment makes no exception for politically odious speech. But that speech is still disturbing on several levels.

First, it's disturbing that they would be uttered so publicly, and then reiterated in such a public forum. This indicates that Santorum's brand of bigotry has become at least as socially acceptable as alcohol-induced vomiting at an undergraduate kegger. If Santorum's attitudes are so socially acceptable, it says something about the depths of the American body politic ... or at least the portion of the body politic that would claim Santorum.

Second, it is disturbing that these attitudes emanate not from a fetid ideological swamp like Free Republic, but from a man who is the third highest-ranking member of the Republican Senate majority. Not only that, but if Santorum retains his seat in the 2006 election, then may very well be the Republican Party's standard-bearer in 2008.

Think about that. An unrepentant, reactionary bigot could become the face and voice fo the Republican Party. Troubling, no? At other times, I would dismiss Santorum as far-right wingnut of no great import, but his proximity to the leadership of the Republican Party requires that his words and actions be carefuly scrutinized.

And I know the perfect people to scrutinize them.

In my short tenure as a blogger, I have earned a reputation as a "reasonable" liberal because I have no truck with the Michael Moores of the Democratic Party. I am not shy about condemning fellow liberals who spew utterly ridiculous filth into the body politic.

Turnabout is fair play.

I want to hear from some reasonable Republicans, from some thinking conservatives. Does Senator Rick Santorum represent them? Are they willing to condemn his rhetorical excesses and the bigotry behind them? Will I hear or read about some Republican who is willing to say that Santorum is a bigot?

If not, I must draw one of two conclusions:

  1. That the "reasonable wing" of the Republican Party purposefully stands with bigots and tolerates Santorum's insanity for the sake of political expediency; or,
  2. That the "reasonable wing" of the Republican Party actively endorses Santorum's views.

I look forward to an answer.

Cross-posted from Pennywit.com, where Pennywit blogs regularly.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Do Republicans stand with bigots?:

» Swanky Conservative linked with Santorum - two times is not a charm

» ThoughtsOnline linked with Liberalism=pedophilia? Where's the evidence?

Comments (117)

My oh my we are wordy today... (Below threshold)

My oh my we are wordy today aren't we?

You are giving Santorum much too much credit for representing anything of importance in the Republican party. He is a Senator of little political import who polls tell us will probably lose his next election. He represents his own views and is a proxy for the people of his state who sent him to Washington. That's it, man.

Now can we get back to killing terrorists?

I wouldn't give Santorum cr... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

I wouldn't give Santorum credit for being a bigot, I don't think he is that principled. I think he is just another dumbass demogogue.

Pennywit, I don't know much... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Pennywit, I don't know much about Santorum, but I'll let my previous remarks speak for me.


So what exactly are you pis... (Below threshold)
Mark Flacy:

So what exactly are you pissed off about?

Even better; how does what Santorum said (which you quoted) mean liberalism *causes* pederasty? If deviant behavior XXX is tolerated, then why not deviant behavior YYY? For all we know, the percentage of potential pederasts in the population is and has been constant. The norms of society would keep them pretty much in check. The norms are gone and you're seeing more deviant *behavior*.

As for homosexual marriage, once you've started to re-define marriage then why not re-define it again? I think that he's also brought out polygamy as a possible consequence of expanding the definition of marriage. Believing that's where we will end up is scarcely bigotry nor is it equating homosexuality with beastiality.

Regardless of your personal... (Below threshold)

Regardless of your personal beliefs (and I'll certainly say that I find most arguements based off the slippery slope one to be ridiculous), this moron's just trying to get attention, same as Durbin and everyone else that fall to stupid ad hominem attacks of this caliber.

Pathetic, particularly from a senator.

Santorum's an idiot of no p... (Below threshold)

Santorum's an idiot of no particular standing. Wake me up when someone in a leadership position for the Republicans is spouting that sort of idiotcy as opposed to a guy who chairs a subcommittie or two out of longevity.

When you get just as pissed... (Below threshold)

When you get just as pissed off at Teddy Boy...or John Fn Kerry, Dick for short Durbin and the Clinton Mafia....and post just as vehement of an article against them, then most of us will take you seriously when you bitch about Santorum. And this is comment is coming from someone who is not a Christian, yet a Republican.

It is all so easy to twist... (Below threshold)

It is all so easy to twist people's words to mean something they do not.

Also, I forget the exact number but it was something like out of the 150 or so abuse cases in the Church brought to trial, something like 144 were from the Boston area. It was the vast majority anyway. So I think Santorum has a point there.

Robert:I have a fe... (Below threshold)


I have a few things. Perhaps you would like my thoughts on the spin/counterspin cycle.

Or perhsps my thoughts on the Conyers "mock impeachment" hearings.

Or maybe my open letter to the Carnival Barker of the Apocalypse.

Or maybe you'd like to see my distaste for gotcha blogging, particularly the attacks on Jeff Gannon?

Also, I note parenthetically that Santorum is the chairman of the Republican Senator Conference, which makes hi mthe No. 3 pooh-bah in the GOP Senate hierarchy.


Ah the slippery slope. Is t... (Below threshold)

Ah the slippery slope. Is there anything it can't do, Mark? Whatever happened to opposing ideas based on their merits, not purely theoretical linkages to future, more unpopular law changes? Presumably you would say the same thing about making alcohol legal leading to more heroin abuse or, in Muslim countries, allowing women to dress in non-Burqa attire leading to moral decay.

The slippery slope is all about stating what you personally find offensive (sexual freedom) and then speculatively linking it with behavior that most people find offensive (pederasty). That's what Santorum is all about, and apparently what you're all about as well. Pity.

Pennywit:Thanks, I... (Below threshold)


Thanks, I will read them all.

Hi Pennywit, I'll go... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Hi Pennywit,
I'll go on record as stating that I think Santorum is a disgusting political opportunist of the very worst sort (from this example, the Accuweather situation already mentioned, and previous rantings of his), and if he were to run in a hypothetical Presidential election, I think the Republican Party would be very disappointed in my vote.
Not being a regular commenter here, I don't know if anyone will care, but I'm sure Pennywit has seen me around and about at Dean's World.

I tried for years to link l... (Below threshold)

I tried for years to link liberalism with dishonesty, then I realized liberalism is dishonesty. You've proven it once again. Trying to make Santorum seem like some kind of spokesman for the right is not one bit less dishonest that linking homosexuality with pedastry. Now if you want to talk about true party spokesmen that say crazy things, look no farther than your side.

RightWingSparkle,Y... (Below threshold)


Your numbers are way off. The Catholic church has spent over $1B settling abuse claims and only $378M of that went to the Boston settlement. As other examples. "A $120 million compensation fund announced last week by the Diocese of Covington, Ky., is the biggest settlement so far. And last December, the Diocese of Orange, Calif., agreed to pay $100 million to 87 victims. " So is Covington, KY the second most sexually free place in the US?

In addition, how about this:
"McChesney said the data and a report issued a year ago covering the years 1950 to 2002 show that 11,750 alleged victims have reported abuse cases to the church.
"Most of these cases occurred between 1965 and 1974," she said. "What that tells us is that the number of cases that are occurring now appear to be going down. The 22 cases that occurred last year is a far fewer number than would have been reported in the 1970s." So, how does this fit with Santorum's theory of moral decay?

Finally, how is it that Santorum's judging Boston to have such "sexual freedom"? Why not Los Angeles or New York City or Philadelphia? How do you measure that, anyway?

Ummm bullwinkle,Li... (Below threshold)

Ummm bullwinkle,

Liberalism is dishonesty? You talk about an ignorant statement, they don't get any more ignorant than that. There are more books that have well-documented evidence of Republican's/rightwingers that lie FOR A LIVING that I can't keep track. In many cases the "source" is unassailable. The difference that I see between liberals and conservatives (and I'm talking about the new breed of conservative not "true conservatives") when it comes to truth is that when the right attacks a liberal, liberalism or a Democrat they have to make shit up (Swift Boat vets etc.) but when the left attacks a conservative, right-winger etc., there is so much documented evidence and material that they don't know where to begin.

Your problem is that you've been lied to so often and for so long that you live in their reality now and you have completely lost touch with the truth.

The Catholic cover-up of th... (Below threshold)

The Catholic cover-up of this issue is about as disgusting as Santorums' mindless grandstanding, and about as sane as thinking there is no connection between homosexuality and pedaphillia.

A politician appealing to t... (Below threshold)
Ron Wright:

A politician appealing to the radical right. In one world a "politician" and not a Statesman that are full and far between now when we need some.

Yes, I'm a Republican but I have little use for the radical right or the left.

OH Where have Abraham, Martin, and John Gone!

See my comment over at Just One Minute:


Link Here

Does Senator Rick Santorum ... (Below threshold)

Does Senator Rick Santorum represent me? Uh, nope. Forget Michael Moore. Does Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, etc. represent you? Idiots come in all stripes.

Now, if Santorum said that the same liberalism (not necessarily in Boston) contributed to or caused high teenage pregnancy rates, the spread of sexual diseases, etc. I might have to agree.

bullwinkle,How's R... (Below threshold)


How's Rocky?

I believe that pennywit said "Republican party", not "the right" as who Santorum represented. Seeing as he spoke at their last convention, has been elected three times on their ticket, and is the third ranking Republican in the Senate (behind Frist and McConnell), why can't he be taken as a spokesman for the Republican party? How far down the ladder can you go with the Republicans before you hit the crazy wackos who no longer represent the Republicans? Is Tom Delay a spokesman for the Republicans Party? Bill Frist?
Finally, do you decry as blatantly dishonest any site that has ever held that a Federal Senator or Representative lower than third on the list (or antone lower than that) might be acting as a spokesman for the Democratic Party or liberals? If so, I'll start compiling a list for you and you can start decrying.

OOPHS Darn those bifocals!<... (Below threshold)
Ron Wright:

OOPHS Darn those bifocals!

Should be:

A politician appealing to the radical right. In one word a politician and not a statesman that are few and far between now when we need some.

Calling Santorum a bigot ba... (Below threshold)

Calling Santorum a bigot based on those comments seems to be quite a leap. And I can't stand the man.

Again, I am not a Republican, but I vote that way most of the time. It is people like Santorum who drove me out of the party. And it is also people like Santorum who are making me consider rejoining the party, just so I might have a better opportunity to voice my displeasure more loudly. But, I doubt if that will happen.

I’m a bit embarrassed to say that I voted for Santorum. And I have gone on record as saying I would never vote for him again. But…..

The current projected D opponent, Casey, against whom Santorum is following in the polls, seems to just about as high (or maybe its low) on the duh-factor scale. And he also happens to be just as stridently anti-abortion. But much more pro-Catholic. There’s a reason those quasi- anti-Catholic remarks of Santorum’s have come up. Catholics are a huge swing voting block in PA. I suspect those are two reasons he is polling so well. Casey also seems to be a strict law and order type, but completely non-committal on gun control.

I might have to go back on my word and vote for Santorum again. It could come down to the gun control issue with me. But if it looks like Santorum is gaining traction at the national party level, I might decide to do my part to take him out of the equation.

The thought of choosing between a conservative Republican dunce or a conservative Democrat dunce doesn’t please me. But I will give the D party credit. If they were to offer up a liberal Democrat dunce, I would pull the R lever with no qualms. Offer up a moderate/liberal D with some common sense, and I get to keep my word.

Thankfully, there’s still plenty of time for things to sort themselves out.

Let's see, on the one hand ... (Below threshold)

Let's see, on the one hand we have the Swifties, a group of men who served with Kerry all willing to sign statements saying his story about Viet nam are lies, on the other hand, we have John Kerry, and his magic hat, and his ever-changing story, and his SUV's he's proud to say he owns in front of UAW members, that he denies owning the next week in front of enviromentalists. Need I say more?

Oyster,You can cal... (Below threshold)


You can call Biden and even Pelosi and idiot, but get the fvck off of Barbara Boxer. She has more courage and integrity than ANY of the next 10 Senators combined, both R and D.

bullwinkle,As I sa... (Below threshold)


As I said, you've been dipping too heavily into the fountain of right-wing misinformation. Those Swift Boat frauds were caight in more lies than Scott McClellan was on Monday. They admitted that not one of them were actually WITH John Kerry, only that they served at the same time and in the same capacity. THEY ADMITTED IT! The guys that were actually WITH Kerry were also with him on stage at the Democratic convention. The Swift Frauds were hatchetmen paid for by Houston home-building magnate Bob Perry. Please do us all a favor and at least stop propagating lies once they've been debinked. Makes you look delusional. Unless you didn't know that they were exposed as liars and they were political hacks, then I apologize and you should take the time to read up.

Courage and integrit... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

Courage and integrity have nothing to do with intelligence.

And if homosexuality and sexual freedom led to pedophilia, wouldn't San Fransisco be higher on the list? Since the problem was in the Catholic Church a better case could be made for celibacy and sexual repression leading to deviancy.

JmaR:So according ... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


So according to you if someone is not riding in a car that was actually involved in an accident, they can't be a witness to it?


So unless you were in the room with Rove when he sold his soul the the devil just STFU!!!111!!!

Santorum seems liable to se... (Below threshold)

Santorum seems liable to self-destruct. Linking liberals to child abuse, etc. is just nonsense. And I hope the Penn. voters replace him.

He was, quite poorly, pointing to a problem with liberalism as we think of it today. Once you begin to abandon social restraints on conduct then it is not clear where you stop. That is the slippery slope.

e.g. It is not clear why polygamy should be outlawed if cohabitation and sexual relations with multiple partners is legal. Or why sex with consenting minors should be punished. Using drugs has to be your choice. Right?

On the other side the conservatives have a problem. They have no justification for government action when things go horribly wrong. They think some invisible hand will adjust it all. After all, unemployment insurance discourages seeking out a new job. Savers will be more prudent if bank deposits are not insured. Required audits drive up company costs, etc.

This is the lowest point I'... (Below threshold)

This is the lowest point I've ever experienced on Wizbang.

Obviously, liberals today perceive that their Rip Rove plans are falling short of credibility among many Americans and so, here we get the dreadful return-to-smash-Catholics meme.

This is an incredibly disturbed thread, penny.

It seems to me that ... (Below threshold)

It seems to me that the issue (and I'm both from Boston and Catholic so I'm pretty clued in to what's happening here) is that Catholics that grow up and realize that they're gay suppress their sexuality out of shame and decide that a life of celibacy, life as a priest, is the best way do "avoid" the embarassment and horror of being openly gay. Suppressing your true sexuality has a way of manifesting itself in despicable, criminal ways. As for Santorum, you will not find a more ignorant human being walking the halls of Washington DC.

B Moe,

I don't usually equate courage or integrity with an idiot. Do you?

S:At what point di... (Below threshold)


At what point did I bash Catholics?


But...just how many child m... (Below threshold)

But...just how many child molestors do you think are countable? As in, the many who are caught/captured/released/expected to register is but a dent in the greater numbers still at large, I strongly suspect. I doubt that they are voting as Republicans and that they have any affiliation with Catholicism and with Jesus Christ.

Some disturbed people pose in roles of authority...sometimes that involves figures in churches (of all denominations), sometimes employees in governments ("workers" in social services makes for availability of likely victims, for instance), and more: wherever predators think they can find likely victims, they will attempt to predate.

And, the homosexual lobby today includes "The Man-Boy" group/whatever it's called, among others. But, the Catholic Church recognizes homosexuality as a sinful behavior, a bad behavior, a non acceptable behavior and it does not surprise me that liberals today really hate the Catholic Church as they do.

Sad to what extent sin will go to ensure it can continue to steer souls away from salvation.

About Santorum, I suspect you are not interested in a discussion so much as you are grasping today at rather venomous straws. I bet Catholocism has something to do with it, given your ongoing mentions of it. Yes?

Would you recognize "reasonable conservatives" if you encountered them?

B Moe,The problem ... (Below threshold)

B Moe,

The problem was that the Swift Boat guys were making claims about Kerry and how he responded in specific situations that they did not experience for themselves. I remember one of them on Hardball explaining his take on the incident with the Vietnamese boy that Kerry reportedly shot and when Matthews asked him if he was ever actually with Kerry he said no. WTF is that crap. They were hatchetmen and you know it.

RE: JmaR's post (July 13, 2... (Below threshold)

RE: JmaR's post (July 13, 2005 09:40 PM)

Being "Classic" Conservative and not "New" Conservative (let me get out the recipe book... pinch of government, smidgeon of taxes, dollip of social programs, scoop of hawk, secret VWRC sauce... yep, Classic), let me just say:

Good Grief.

That's about the most worthy response I can muster without the carbonation spewing everywhere. I see the bitterness of the last election still flavors your Kool-Aid.

I'd say Drivel is about acc... (Below threshold)

I'd say Drivel is about accurate.

S:I have mentioned... (Below threshold)


I have mentioned Catholicism only in the context of the molestation scandals arising in the Catholic Church and quoting summaries of Santorum's remarks, which were given to a religious publication.

Again, where in this thread have I attacked Catholicism or Catholics?

As for Santorum ... I am interested in discussion, paticularly in observing the discussion sparked by my original post. As for my rather combative tone -- recall that we are in a forum where people freely equate liberalism with lies. In such a venue, don't expect me to be shy about my own opinions.

And, yes, I recognize reasonable Republicans or conservatives when I meet them. As a general rule, they don't accuse me of religious bigotry simply because I've indulged in the grand Southern tradition of tipping sacred cows.

The comments of Sen. Santor... (Below threshold)

The comments of Sen. Santorum that you point out are obviously misdirected. The social ills of this country are more general than Boston. But Senator Santorum speaks for me on these issues.

No, I don't think sexual deviancy was invented by pop culture nor do I think pop culture currently endorses the rape of children but the idolatry of sexual identity is certainly unhelpful and the public acceptance of sexual deviancy is less than helpful.

In a healthy society the sexual orientation of Samuel Clemens and Abraham Lincoln should be irrelevant. The sexual orientation of our citizens should be irrelevant and private. "Outing" yourself should be an act of foolishness not a cause d' celebre'. These are an open assault on our culture by a counter-culture and Sen. Santorum represents my views when he advances our traditional values against this invading culture.

The problem isn't homosexuality, your choices are your choices, but homosexuality is one of the fronts in a war to tear down the traditions, especially religious traditions, of the West. In this clash of civilizations homosexuals have become pawns, stage clowns almost, as the thin edge of the wedge to legitimize an ever widening array of deviancy.

I don't see his views as toxic, odious, or bigoted. I don't hate homosexuals anymore than I hate any other sinner (to use the Christian adjective), to do so would be to hate myself or be a hypocrite. But to allow our culture to devolve into a state where deviancy is the norm is unacceptable. A culture that can recognize no wrong is destine to end; what is there to fight for; what reason is there to exist?

Are we to become a country of moral anarchism? And if persons, priests perhaps, living in this moral ambivalence step beyond the current bounds who can blame them? We recalculate former taboos as normal then wonder that some miscalculate and fall afoul. You would say that using children in the way that errant priests did is a bridge too far but if some morals are irrelevant why not them all? "If there is no God then everything is permissible."

I don't want to see us as a society intolerant of private lives but I also don't want to see us as a society where I am forced to, or coerced to, pay homage to "deviant" behavior.

Kinda makes you wonder what... (Below threshold)

Kinda makes you wonder what the left has for a miserable excuse to run against Santorum, doesn't it? Even the republicans don't like him much but he's in office, the left must have some real losers. Oh yeah, they have people like Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Kennedy, Byrd, and Clinton, that's the cream of their crop. Not like I'm saying that any of them ever said anything wrong, their constituents seem to think they are all fantastic legislators. What a joke the left has become.

earth...When you'r... (Below threshold)


When you're engaged in a situation that you are receiving counsel about, generally, most counsel will ask that no discussions/statements be made about whatever the issue is that is pending/undergoing some liability review, however moderately much less aggressively.

The Catholic Church has also paid quite a bit for the horrible behavior by homosexuals using the Priesthood to continue their wretched abuse of other humans...and taken measures to change who is admitted to Seminaries (and thus the Priesthood) and who is not.

And responded to the problem of sexual abuse and homosexual sexual practices by those who abused the Priesthood by removing their access to the public, and, preventing their new and ongoing access to the Priesthood.

The Catholic Church is comprised of human beings -- and, just as society has everywhere only recently become aware of sexual abuse by those in positions of trust, so has the Church as an aspect of society. And so as have other organizations...one awful event at a time, as many people begin to find themselves no longer rejected in their complaints but recognized, believed.

It's a matter of society, not limited to and not isolated within the Catholic Church, but pervasive throughout society. And, the behavior represented a very small percentage of males who were/are Catholic Priests, given that the vast majority of Catholic Priests are not -- at all -- involved in those terrible behaviors and teach against homosexual behaviors, as they do other sins.

There is sexual abuse present in all/any areas of trust in human society -- all "churches," all law enforcement, all government, all corporations, all educational organizations, all healthcare groups, all trucking companies, all utility companies....the point is, the behavior is a human problem, not isolated to only the Catholic Church, but pervasive wherever predators exist in their expectation to find/obtain probable victims: areas of trust in society from whence they are provided with access to likely victims.

Another key and very good response by the Catholic Church, however, about this terrible problem has been to confine some offenders to cloistered life: prevent their access to victims, to the public, and, isolate them in a confined environment with others who are in a position to counsel and save their souls.

It helps society, it saves some who can and do repent but prevents their repeat access to vulnerable persons in general society. Some who go to prisons simply proliferate their wrongs and learn to improve their stalking abilities and also result in paroled repeat exposure to the public. Once confined to cloistered lives and removed from the Priesthood, however, some of those can at least be ministered to in some constructive but realistic sense.

But they'll never be allowed to return to the Priesthood as a Catholic.

Liberals attack the Catholic Church, for the most part, because of the stern and clear teaching against homosexual behaviors and abortion and euthanasia. Since those are the bigtentpole issues for Democrats as to their insistences, no wonder that the Catholic Church and Catholics in general remain targeted by most liberals today.

Rick Santorum speaks his mind without much abashment and he makes a good point about sexual deviances. I know it's a difficult fact for some to imagine but the relationship as Santorum speaks out about exists.

This isn't opinion, it's fact. Ugly and real fact about some ugly and real human activity.

brad,To put it blu... (Below threshold)


To put it bluntly, you are an ignoramus. I have known many a gay person and have asked them all the same thing. "Did you choose your sexuality"? With no exceptions, they answered that their sexuality was nature and not nurture. Not a choice but a painful realization. Some hide and suppress it and others accept it and try to be themselves. I agree with you on one count and that is that having sexuality thrown in my face (be it gay or not) is offensive.

RE: JmaR's post (July 13, 2... (Below threshold)

RE: JmaR's post (July 13, 2005 10:42 PM)

I'd say Drivel is about accurate.

Hmm. Never heard that one before. Certainly it's not on the sheet of talking points since it is so unique.

JmaR:Let's see, yo... (Below threshold)


Let's see, you call me an ignoramus, then misunderstand what I say, and then agree with me. Which is it? If you agree with me when I am appalled at public celebration of sexual orientation you are agreeing with the bulk of what I say.

I am NOT anti-gay. Homosexuality is a sexual temptation. Whether you give in to that temptation is a personal choice governed by your moral values. I don't hate them nor pity them. If someone with homosexual tendencies is a Christian they have a cross to bear, all Christians do.

The other point I am trying to make is that the "in your face" gay rights agenda is less about homosexuality than it is about legitimizing an activity that is anathema to traditional values for the purpose of tearing down our traditional civilization and replacing it with something else; it's a revolution. To carry the point to an extreme, people that belong to the American Nazi Party are exercising their American rights but we, as citizens, are not required to accept their beliefs as part of our common culture. I don't hate people with different beliefs, not even Pennywit; not even you, if you disagree with me. But none of us is an ignoramus; nor is Sen. Santorum, though we will all say poorly thought out things or say well thought things poorly on occasion.

brad, Presumably, ... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:


Presumably, then you don't hate homosexuals and find their behavior repugnant any more than you do that of divorced woman as per Malachi 2:14-16 and Matthew 19:6. I assume that you and Rick Santorum will stand firm against the moral decay of allowing legal divorce in our country.

Also, -S- you left out that the Catholic Church has taken a strong stance against divorce from your list, based on their interpretation of scripture.

As jYt noted, the number of abuse cases in the Catholic Church has gone down since 1974. Doesn't that make Santorum's statements kind of insane. Is it only wrong when the priests are caught, convicted, and jailed. The church certainly seems to think so.

I'm sure that the Catholic Church will soon be trotting out the slogan: "The New Catholic Church -- now only a 2% change that your son or daughter will be molested by our clergy."

Also, from -S-, "But they'll never be allowed to return to the Priesthood as a Catholic." At least not as long as the church recognizes that they're liable to be sued if they let them. Up until now, it was fine to move them from diocese to diocese as per (but no limited to) Bernard Law, now kicked upstairs to the Vatican for his fine work.

Finally, pennywit, don't pay much heed to -S-, she's just one of those poor, oppressed Christians that sees the blows raining down on her from all sides, even when she's alone in the room. She's also the one that was recently trying to sell theories from the "Pink Swastika" as the gospel truth. And she thinks that type of behavior makes everyone else the bigot but her.

"the "in your face" gay ... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

"the "in your face" gay rights agenda is less about homosexuality than it is about legitimizing an activity that is anathema to traditional values for the purpose of tearing down our traditional civilization and replacing it with something else"

See, JmaR, you asked the wrong question. You shouldn't have asked, "Did you choose your sexuality?" Instead, the correct question, as brad reveals, is, "Did you choose to legitimize an activity that is anathema to traditional values for the purpose of tearing down our traditional civilization?" Because that's what being gay is all about.

Brad,Eating is a tem... (Below threshold)

Eating is a temptation as well, just before the sex temptation on Maslov's hierarchy of needs. And you have made an excellent point about Nazis. Although we are not required to accept their beliefs in our culture, we are required to extend equal protection under the law. Nazis can marry, for example, and teach fascism to their children -- you get the drift.

And Jmar,
studies do show that gayness is nature, at least partly. There is no need to ask your friends. God made them that way. Although only a fool would say that ALL practicing homosexuals were born with this predisposition. For example, there is a certain coolness about lesbian experimentation on campuses.

And about Santorum, of course he deserves to be trashed for expressing his shallow thoughts. Words have consequences. However, I don't find him to be a disengenous blowhard. He genuinely believes it and I find that refreshing. The more wide-ranging opinions we have among the people in power, the better governed we will be. We need guys like him and Kennedy, and everything else around and between.

There is much that people l... (Below threshold)

There is much that people legally do that I find repugnant. My point is not repugnant acts nor those driven to accomplish them but that they are being used to demolish the redoubts of our Western civilization. I am against the revolution.

Yes, I abhor lenient divorce laws. They lead to weekend marriages; poorly thought out marriages; me-me marriages. Divorces weaken personal resolve by taking away the need to persevere and deny the divorcees the opportunity for personal growth. The losers are always the kids, a cliché but a true one.

Brad, the Taliban cured all... (Below threshold)

Brad, the Taliban cured all these problems that trouble you. A reading of Osama's letter to the American people shows remarkable agreement with youir view. Permissive western civilization is the cause of all world problems, or so the myth goes. The answer to to convert to Islam or die since Islam knows what to do with all these damned homos.

Just because we routinely, ... (Below threshold)

Just because we routinely, and legitimately give in to urges does not cast legitimacy to satisfying all urges. A bank robber is responding to an urge.

Being gay is not a "wrong" anymore than being an alcoholic. But reveling in alcoholism for the purpose of defeating temperate living or attempting to force public acceptance of alcoholism as a legitimate lifestyle is wrong. Or did I mistake your sarcasm?

By the way, homosexuals can marry within the confines of the definition of the word. That is: they may not marry their car, their sister, their neighbor or their dog. And the traditional meaning of the word also precludes marrying a same-sex partner

Under law, the word is curr... (Below threshold)

Under law, the word is currently defined differently by states. So if you qualify your definition to say "in most states" you would be correct. As you know, more and more states will allow gay marriage and certainly partnerships of the same legal standing.

And of course, your own personal definition is morally indefensible, precisely as indefensible as bigoted requirements that married people belong to the same race.

McCain:Where did I... (Below threshold)


Where did I suggest a "final solution" for homosexuals? What part of "I don't hate gays" don't you get?

Our civilization is, by fairly common agreement, Judaic Christian. This does not preclude Islamics, Buddhists, Hindus, etc from being part of our society. Even the American Nazis are still Americans, despite their ideology being pretty roundly despised and discredited.

Again, you can be a legitimate part of our society without every part of your ideology being accepted or codified by our society. Just because your LEGAL activities place you outside the norms of our society does not deny you a place in our society but neither does that place given to you require our society to bestow acceptance of your deviant but LEGAL behavior.

Equating a desire to see the survival of our common American heritage to islamo-facism is repulsive.

I'm a right-wing "fundie" C... (Below threshold)
PoliSci Guy:

I'm a right-wing "fundie" Christian and an Independent (partly because of idiots like Santorum). I currently live in an area dominated by conservative Christian people and I can't imagine anyone I know agreeing with Santorum's bizarre comments. Period!

Just so we're clear.<... (Below threshold)

Just so we're clear.

From the majority of commenters here, [Christian]=[Bigot].

Doesn't that make you biggoted against Christians?

One of the foundational principles of Christianity is denial of self. To assume that impulses, feelings, or predispositions must control our actions is a false assumption.

Anyway, the Church's problem with liberalism didn't have to do with a new paradigm of permissive sexuality within the church due to outside influences. Rather, it was liberalism's concept of therapy and rehabilitation as opposed to the more conservative (and safer for the kids), tried and true methods of punishment and/or banishment.

So in that sense, Santorum is just plain wrong. And anyone making Nazi comments is generally an idiot and should apologize.

And for the record - Kerry told numerous lies. Some of which were proven, others insinuated. Since Kerry still has not released the bulk of his records, we'll never know.

Not a single claim made by the SwiftBoat Vets was found to be a lie.


OH Brad, they have the same... (Below threshold)

OH Brad, they have the same fear as you. Which is a rabid desire to preserve the status quo in culture, whether or not that status quo has a sound moral foundation.

To use a poker term, it is not enough for you to check the historical pot. To oppose the natural progress of civilization, which has througout human history CHANGED toward more individual freedoms, requires some minimum moral justification from you. You are obliged to say WHY the status quo is good, and why social change is bad. You cannot simply say change is bad because you don't personally like it. Absent a moral argument, you are left sounding like the slavery advocates and those who opposed interracial marriage.

My definition of marriage s... (Below threshold)

My definition of marriage squares with the historic meaning of the word. That there are some today that would change the definition is irrelevant. By the way, why is marriage between one man and one woman morally indefensible?

Some states, well, one state, have accepted the new definition, more states have changed their constitutions or written laws codifying the traditional meaning. What word shall we redefine next? Liberty? "Justice for all?" The power of traditional and originalist interpretation protects us all from judicial despotism and anarchy. If words mean whatever we want what value is there in any contract, and the Constitution is a contract. If you want to change the meaning pass a Constitutional amendment. Oh, wait, you can't even muster a strong minority, let alone a super-majority. But then, when was a liberal concerned about democratic disapproval or legal precedent?

Brad, the historic meaning ... (Below threshold)

Brad, the historic meaning of property included slaves. Historic definitions are not relevant to a moral justification. You must have a moral argument for opposing equal protection under the law, period.

To answer your first question, reflect upon why laws prohibiting interracial marriage were morally indefensible. The answer to that question will guide you. And reflect upon why NOBODY today will confess to supporting those laws 40 years ago. Forty years from now, your current position will similarly see the judgement of history.

I challenge you again to provide a moral justification for your argument. Stop hiding behind history like slave owners.

I am not required to defend... (Below threshold)

I am not required to defend the status quo it is for those asking for change to do so within the strictures of the law: i.e. a Constitutional amendment.

Show me the passage in the Constitution requiring natural progression of civilization, whatever that means. Do we vote on the steps of the progression? When that progression tramples on the rights of a few do we just say "oh well, that's the breaks."

I assume you are referring to the taliban. Rabid (?) adherence to tradition is not a tenet to association any more than adherence to change accommodates a liberal to a communist.

Using the word nazi is not in and of itself repugnant. I was in no way inferring that anyone on this post was a nazi (as is clear from an honest reading of what I said). Indeed, the repugnancy of the concept of nazi-ism and my use of it should make clear that however deplorable one finds the gay lifestyle, gay Americans are STILL and EVER honorable Americans and citizens.

You are right. The histori... (Below threshold)

You are right. The historic meaning of the word "property" included slaves. That meaning was reversed by Constitutional amendment.

The laws against interracial marriage were enacted and disposed of by states. In any case, as despicable as they were, they did no violence to the definition of one man one woman any more than current probations against marrying your sister or brother

I am almost embarrassed to ... (Below threshold)

I am almost embarrassed to inform you of this, but the constitution is silent on marriage. What we can look to in the constitution is the following conflicting guides:
1. equal protection under the law.
2. reserve clause.

As the suddenly emerging great defender of the constitution, you will therefore cheer when the Supreme court rules on gay marriage eventually, just as it ruled on interracial marriage.

Or alternatively, you can support the conflicting reserve clause, which causes you to wildly cheer for what is happening in Mass, Vermont, California, and coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

So one can ceretainly have a purely academic discussion of the constitution, or one can have a moral discussion. I am challenging you to state the moral case for your belief (if you have one at all). If you don't have a moral foundation, just say so.

I don't oppose equal protec... (Below threshold)

I don't oppose equal protection but, since gays can leagally marry (within the meaning of the word) I am mystified as to how that applies.

Oops, there you go again. ... (Below threshold)

Oops, there you go again. I presume that by now you have sufficiently reflected on interracial marriage. You have just made a moral statement that laws prohibiting such are "despicable." Explain why they are morally despicable and then apply your explanation to sexuality.

You do recognize by now that the definition of marriage changed dramatically in the 1960s. It changed against polygamy much earlier. The definition varies by state. It can change again -- it has changed again already in some states -- doesn't require an amendment, now does it? The sand is sinking, dear friend.

Marriage is currently a sta... (Below threshold)

Marriage is currently a state issue not a federal issue. It's liberals that wish to make every issue a federal one so they can send it to their last resort: the Supreme Court.

You talk as though gay marriage is settled, if not in the current tense at least in the future tense. A large consensus is against gay marriage, even in some of the states you mention. The only place it wins is in despotic courts that choose to abuse their position to legislate. At least I can point to centuries of usage of the word marriage and support the fact that the definition of the word is settled.

As to morally defending my positions. I wonder how that is possible since no moral position is defensible logically. If you and I disagree on moral grounds we have no higher authority to appeal to. I might quote the Bible but if you hold no reverence for the Bible the argument is irrelevant.

Again, if you wish to change the character of our civilization do so at the ballot box not by creating a cabal of robed masters.

I wish I could stay longer ... (Below threshold)

I wish I could stay longer but I have responsibilities that drag me from the keyboard. Anyway, I hear it's preferable to leave while your ahead. Not that I would be in any danger of losing if I stay...;-)

Happy trails.....

McCain - you're using a fal... (Below threshold)

McCain - you're using a false comparison. Different races DNE different sexes. Therefore your conclusion is false.

The moral basis for one-man one woman marriage is, to the best of my knowledge, based on one of two spheres - the primary being Biblical, as a living model for the relationship of Christ to his Church.

The more general moral basis for one-man one-woman marriage is that it is the best familial organization for procreation and raising of children.

Not the only - just the best.

Whether or not we choose to give special priviledges to "Married" couples that have the prima mater of the gov't is another matter.

I would personally feel better if the gov't got out of the business of sanctioning certain types of unions at all (even if they are beneficial to society) if it means sanctioning ALL types of unions. Let people freely engage in contractural arrangements, regardless of their sexuality or relationship. Leave marriage to the churches. There are still plenty of churches which would marry same-sex couples, if that was what they wanted.


Ok, so this means you are o... (Below threshold)

Ok, so this means you are opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, since only liberals want to make every issue a federal issue. We can agree here.

And yes, I think this aspect of marriage is settled in a future sense. Equal protection under the law will happen one way or the other. It is that "despotic court that abused their position to legislate" that settled the interracial marriage debate. You applaud them now for voiding those "despicable" laws. We agree here as well. But what are you saying exactly? The court is despicable when you agree and wonderful when you don't? Okay fine.

It is, of course, the very purpose of the federal courts to interpret laws under the light of our constitution. You like that behavior sometimes, and don't like it other times, whatever. Marbury versus Madison settled this 200 years ago. The court will fulfill its constitutional duty on this question, someday in the future.

Moral positions are defendable by the way. There is a reason that murder is wrong, abortion is wrong, capital punishment is wrong, and a reason that equal protection is right. And these reasons are not rooted in the constitution, which speaks nil to morality.

I have to go kiss my lovely wife, but have enjoyed the conversation immensely. I will pray for Christ's guidance in your life on Sunday.

NED, We agree entire... (Below threshold)

We agree entirely on the second half of your post. But if the government is going to hand out silly perks, whether they be marriage perks or affirmative action perks, equal opportunity must be available to all.

And I agree as well that one man and one woman is best for raising kids. But since civil marriage does NOT require a promise to sire children, family is not the purpose. Its purpose is to grant a legal status for the conduct of certain public transactions and affairs. So there is a moral argument for saying one man and one woman should raise childen. I agree with that argument and oppose gay adoption because of it. But that has nothing to do with civil marriage.

I'm a Christian Conservativ... (Below threshold)

I'm a Christian Conservative Republican (In order of importance) and I find myself agreeing with what Santorum said, just not how he said it.

Liberals are generally seen in two different lights, as are Conservatives. There should be a distinction drawn I think between liberals in the political sense and liberals in the philosophical sense. But we Americans have so redifined the terms that its getting pretty tough anymore to tell where anyone stands on anything anymore with a label like Liberal or Conservative.

Anyhow, I believe Santorum, if he were speaking to the Christian Church, meant to encompass the Church with his words. Those in the Church who hold more liberal views would help lead us to a time where such deviant activity is a regular occurance and is therefore no longer deviant. Basically, he was speaking as a Christian should speak. Speaking out against sin. But since he also happens to be a politican, his words must have been political instead of religious, because in this country we can't have a politician who is also religious, right?

Maybe that means we could never have a minister as a politician.

Brad, Thank you fo... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:


Thank you for your honest answer. Fell free to quote the Bible verses I showed you as you press your case to your neighbors. Be sure and call Rush and Newt and let them know the good (bad) news about divorce.

Just change one thing. Add in the divorce is about "legitimizing an activity that is anathema to traditional values for the purpose of tearing down our traditional civilization and replacing it with something else." Then, it's perfect.

Please, get out and support Rick Santorum wherever and whenever you can with that exact rhetoric. I'd hate for you to tell your grandchildren that you didn't do everything you could to stop the twin menaces of divorce and homosexuality marriage, so that they could look up at you unbelievingly and say, "Why, Grandpa? Why did you do that?"

As long as we're on the subject, as McCain points out, marriage historically is not "one man, one woman". It's "one man, at least one woman." Even the Bible appears to endorse this view, since Soloman and Gideon both had more than one wife and found God's favor. So, it's really literal interpretation of the Bible that leads to polygamy.

P.S. It's so strange to argue against someone who holds the history of word usage in such high esteem. Where were you when people started using "brief" to refer to a style of men's underwear. Oh, the horror. How could anyone ever use it as an adjective to mean "short" again?

When Howie Dean says stuff ... (Below threshold)

When Howie Dean says stuff in an awkward manner, nobody on his side quotes him.

But some in the GOP are so insecure about appearing reasonable to the lefties, they shoot their own.

Nothing Santorum said is incorrect. Just be secure enough to notice.

McCain,though we a... (Below threshold)


though we agree in some principles, I do believe that there is a disintigration of the English language going on here, in that I do not believe that a same sex couple can be married.

I'm all for civil unions however.

I do think language is important, and am disappointed in the way liberals (particularly in the judiciary) have used a deconstructionist tactic to manipulate language into meaning whatever they want it to.

Also - everyone has equal opportunity to marry. I don't see why you can't understand that. Just because you can't marry your sister, your brother, your mother, your father, your closest cousins, aunts, uncles, and people of the same sex, does not mean you are not allowed to marry.

Point of fact - many same-sex oriented individuals did marry - people of the opposite sex. Sometimes their relationship ended in divorce. Sometimes the familial ties resulted in a lasting relationship, even if it wasn't completely sexually gratifying.

In any case, there was clearly no injunction against homosexuals being married.


New England Devil,... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

New England Devil,

It's funny how you bring up "safety for the kids" and "punishment." Here's a little Biblical snippet for you involvin both:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
21:18: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19:Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I presume that this is the type of punishment that you're supporting. Killing your son if you deem him to be "stubborn and rebellious." Now that's tough love. I think today, in our current society, we'd call that murder. However, I guess the definition of "murder" has changed a little bit over the years.

You would presume, wouldn't... (Below threshold)

You would presume, wouldn't you Mr. Wiser.

It makes it so much easier to beat down the straw man, doesn't it?

Try again.


McCain, that "Its purpose i... (Below threshold)

McCain, that "Its purpose is to grant a legal status for the conduct of certain public transactions and affairs" argument has been shot down so many times it's hard to believe there's anyone left trying to use it. You must be the last person on the whole planet that hasn't heard of power of attorney. You're going to have to do better than that. For the record I'm not against gay marriage, I couldn't care less, but if anyone ever hopes to achieve it they're going to need a better argument. And anyone using that "Mass, Vermont, California" thing is way off the goofy scale, 11 states voted it down, in elections. The voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon and Utah voted for bans, that's representative democracy at work, not a few mayors and a few judges trying to legislate from the bench.

jYt, by your reasoning form... (Below threshold)

jYt, by your reasoning former(and probably still) Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd, 2 time Majority leader of the senate and often referred to as the Dean of the Senate, has served longer in the senate than anyone else and is the undisputed head of the democrat party. Glad you cleared that one up for us. Is it hard to see through those little holes in that hood? Do you guys use high octane or does the regular work well enough when you light those crosses? Funny how that works isn't it? Or will this be another example of the dishonesty of the left?

bullwinkle,Did any... (Below threshold)


Did any of the Founding Father's own slaves? Would you say they were right about anything? I've made mistakes, you've made mistakes, wouldn't you say that Robert Byrd has put his ties to the Klan behind him? If it was such a burden on his political career how do you suppose he keeps getting elected in WV? Sometimes failing, recognizing that you've failed and fixing those failures can make you stronger and wiser. Let's use a Christian value here: forgiveness.

Not long ago Kevin posted <... (Below threshold)

Not long ago Kevin posted this link showing us the trips our representatives have taken in the name of "their job". I perused many of our Senators "trips". I was taken aback at the destinations Barbara Boxer deemed necessary for her job as opposed to the destinations (and the reasons given) by her colleagues. I stand by my representation of her. I'll concede to one thing. She is a "courageous" idiot and I'll add "opportunist".

OK NED, I agree with you th... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

OK NED, I agree with you then. The contents of the Bible is just a straw man. Certainly nothing to base a modern religion on. Glad we could agree and that you're a denouncer of the "Holy" scripture as well.

Or maybe I have you wrong again. Perhaps you're one of those Christians that doesn't believe in the infallibility of the Bible as god's word and must pick and choose out of it what is plausible and what is ridiculous ranting. I've always wondered how you guys manage to tell the difference and why your god couldn't get his own holy book right, being all-powerful and all. Maybe the "god is all powerful" sthick was in the non-believable ranting section.

Santorum and Bush and Rove ... (Below threshold)
Now we know...:

Santorum and Bush and Rove = Hitler

Santorum and Bush and Rove = Hitler

Santorum and Bush and Rove = Hitler

Santorum and Bush and Rove = Hitler

bullwinkle,Persona... (Below threshold)


Personally, I can't stand Byrd, either. He's an old-time, WV pork-barrell politician. Also "by my logic," he's not "undisputed head of the Democratic Party." Santorum is #3 in the Senate because that's his appointed and recogniged position. By that scale, Byrd is not #1 (Reid) or #2 (Durbin). Even so, I must agree that he's a leading democratic figure and I certainly wouldn't claim it was dishonest to take a current position of his and say that it was representative of the Democratic party, as you do with Santorum.

Of course, Byrd's history as a Klansman has been denounced many times by Byrd himself. Once he no longer holds a view, I don't think it can be taken to be representative of him or the Democratic party. If Santorum denounces his own comments, then they will no longer represent Rebuplicans either.

Now, I've answered your questions before you've even touched mine. There were quite a few, but the one I'm most interested in is, "Finally, do you decry as blatantly dishonest any site that has ever held that a Federal Senator or Representative lower than third on the list (or anyone lower than that) might be acting as a spokesman for the Democratic Party or liberals?" Since you believe Byrd is #1, we won't count him. I'll even let you choose the #2 based on your criteria.

So, what is it? It is time to "nut up or shut up?" Or you can simply be a guy who can't logically back up his statements.

My $.02:This post ... (Below threshold)

My $.02:

This post started with a question (do Republicans stand with bigots?) that made a definite presupposition (Santorum is a bigot). I'm dissapointed that Pennywit would resort to such tactics.

The comments then went straight to a defense of homosexuality. The only connection the Catholic Church's abuse scandal had with homosexuality was the fact that it was same-sex abuse. Not really that surprising seeing that Priests are expected to teach little boys while the Nuns are teaching little girls. The homosexual nature of the abuse was a direct result of proximity, not of sexual preference; a result of depravity, not of homosexuality.

Furthermore, one would be hard-pressed to refute the central point of Santorum's statement: our society, in breaking down sexual boundaries and conventions, has created a fertile ground for sexual deviancy and abuse. Children are exposed to sexuality at a young age, then encouraged to present themselves as sexual objects at a young age, and left to determine for themselves when they are "ready" to be sexually active. Statutory rape laws that prohibit sexual activities between minors are ridiculed and revised. Laws are woefully lax in limiting minors' access to sexually explicit materials, and any attempts to strengthen those laws are dismissed as "censorship." Sexuality is so glamorized in our "enlightened" society that "normal" sex is seen as boring. Such a culture opens the door for experimentation in nonconventional sexuality and "alternative lifestyles."

The arguments for and against homosexuality and homosexual rights are really irrelevant to this discussion. The abuses of the Catholic Church are symptomatic of a vacuum in our societal structure that was created by the death of decency.

JmaR saidbut get... (Below threshold)

JmaR said
but get the fvck off of Barbara Boxer. She has more courage and integrity than ANY of the next 10 Senators combined, both R and D.

Yeah, bouncing checks at tax payer expense, that takes lots of courage. Not much integrety, but it certainly takes guts. Or is the term chutzpah...

jYt,My numbers wer... (Below threshold)


My numbers were not about the $$ amount or the number of abuses reported to the Church, they were about the cases that went to trial. I will try and find my source again.

Boy, I never write comment... (Below threshold)

Boy, I never write comments into these blogs, but PW's original entry had me irritated. Penny, you really should widen your views - whether you like it or not there is a conservative point of view in this country with legitimate concerns.

This thread was messy until Brad stepped in and added some solid framework. It was refreshing to read the classy comments by Brad. NED, your's were good too. I have a few comments of my own. I've always wondered that if "Gay Marriage" is about the government-bestowed benefits: taxation, hospital visitation rights, etc., why do gay advocates insist on calling it Marriage? What is wrong with having Civil Unions with all the rights and perqs of conventional marriage? It always seemed to me, when the "M-word" is insisted upon, it means there is another agenda that is indeed seeking to damage or destroy conventional marriage. And, as far as the whole slippery slope thing, there is an article by Stanley Kurtz (NRO March 23, 2005) about a law professor from the University of Chicago - Elizabeth F. Emens, who is currently building the legal arguments and defenses needed to achieve state-sanctioned polyamory (through the courts). Although I always thought the next re-definition of marriage would be 2 women and a man, it appears that this is the next one coming down the pike.

Now, changing subjects, but staying within the various threads, The other thing that I always think is stupendously ironic, is here you have the Catholic church, bastion of conservatism in modern culture... ever criticized for its unbending rules. So back in the 50's and 60's this rigid church decides that celibacy is celibacy. In other words, they decide as policy to admit men with a homosexual orientation to be priests. The Church actually REACHES OUT to these people - and what do they do? They betray the trust given them, bring upon the church a child molestation scandal that is, statistically speaking, composed OVERWHELMINGLY of acts commited against post-pubescent boys, and practically bring down the whole enchilada. This never ceases to amaze me - and no one EVER gives them credit for opening up to allow gays into the fold in the first place. (Now, having said this I'm not defending the lack of discipline by the Catholic Church's "upper management".) Just a couple things to chew on if people are still watching this thread. For a reference, search for a book entitled "Goodbye Good Men" on Amazon.

Now, let my skewering begin...

BoDiddly,So what d... (Below threshold)


So what did this comment of Santorum's mean:
"If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way"

What "alternative views of sexuality" is he saying that Bostonians affirm that people are taking the wrong way? Please be specific about Boston/Mass, since Santorum certainly is.

Also, no one ever wants to deal with my earlier statistic from the Catholic Church itself, that shows that the incidence of abuse has gone down since 1974. I guess I wasn't hard-pressed to refute the central point at all.

BoDiddly, When I read your... (Below threshold)

BoDiddly, When I read your last comment I immediately saw a picture of Ted Kennedy clad only in boxer shorts and an untucked long sleeve button down shirt stumbling around with a glass of scotch.

The other image I get is of the male prostitution ring operating out of Barney Frank's home office. These images could drive one to say just about anything of Boston!

Mr. Wiser,At the v... (Below threshold)

Mr. Wiser,

At the very least, you presume how I interpret Biblical scripture. And you of course choose the interpretation which allows you your bigotry in a manner such that you can feel morally superior.

Different interpretations of the Bible exist, not because of the falibility of God, but because of the flawed nature of man.

The example you cite should make that exceedingly clear to you. Many of the Old Testament laws are an extrapolation by men of God's stated will (10 Commandments). Our flawed nature resulted in interpretations of God's intent which culminated with the formation of laws which had little, if any, basis in God's original intent.

The Christo-centric interpretation of the Bible (as opposed to the flat-Bible approach to interpretation which you're using) takes this into account and elevates the Gospels to be the "Highest Revelation" of God's true intent. The Old Testament is provided as a testament to how God tried through the ages to bring people to salvation, using the nation of Israel as an example. But the people of Israel failed again and again which necessitated a paradigm shift - aka Jesus, the Christ. The remainder of the New Testament is extrapolation on Christ's teachings (as well as early church history), but differs from the Old Testament in that the spirit of God's instruction is emphasized as opposed to the codification of law and adherence thereto (which is your cite).

I'm not trying to convert you, but if you're actually seeking honest discussion with Christians, it would be a good starting point to understand their actual perspective.

Then again, your comments to me don't necessarily reflect a desire for honest discussion.

So, as a final response to your assertions in this thread I will simply state this:

Man's falibility led to misinterpretations of God's will. For what other reason would Jesus have been so frustrated with/disgusted with/angry at the Pharisees, who were by all accounts pious; men who held to the law to a fault.


<a href="http://michellemal... (Below threshold)

Michelle Malkin and Capt. Ed are both scolding Santorum and asking for an apology/correction, which I think is a pretty good indication of where mainstream-y conservatives come down on this. I tell you verily, Santorum's aggravating me.

What pisses me off about th... (Below threshold)

What pisses me off about the Santorum comments and those that would stand behind them is that they are simply not even close to true. The Evangelical right, defenders of marriage, stewards of family values etc......except that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country. If you know Massachusetts you realize that most of the state's population is east of Worcester and essentially part of Greater Boston. The folks that have resided here for generations (majority decent, hard working, blue-collar folks contrary to the caricature that the right has created) are a lot more socially conservative than one might be led to believe. It is also a city that is steeped in a very proud academic tradition that has introduced tremendous advances in high-tech, medicine, and politics (ok maybe that's not working out so well :) but at least we've always got someone in the game and that's not too shabby coming from such a small state. The bastion of liberalism may sound nice but I prefer to think of it as a bastion of decency and good sense.

NED,So, you're cle... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:


So, you're clearly in the "Bible is a flawed book of man's creation" instead of "infallible text". That puts you one up on lots of actual Christians. Sorry I judged you as a literalist. We agress that's just stupid.

To explain Jesus' anger at the Pharisees to you, it wasn't that they held the law to a fault. It was that they were hypocrites. They used the law to punish others while carefully hiding their own transgressions. Perhaps you don't understand the word "hypocrite" which Jesus repeatedly used in Matthew.

Check out these verses, and you might come to a better understanding of the transgressions of the Pharisees:

Matthew 15:1-9

Matthew 23:1-7
Here's verses 2-3 -- "Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." -- Jesus didn't emphasize the law? then how do you explain his admonnition to "observe and do" what the Pharisees bid that they do? I think saying that their works are not the same as what they say also undermines your assertion that they "were by all accounts pious; men who held to the law to a fault."

Matthew 23:23-24

No thanks are necessary for the Bible lessons. Just doing my part to help you understand your religion.

Oh and check out Matthew 5:17-20 while you're at it.

So why is it that I'm always the one quoting scripture while the Christians just give their views with nothing to back them up from the Bible?

Bullwinkle,Ever hear... (Below threshold)

Ever hear of social security survivor benefits? Available only to married people. Power of attourney does not address this perk and 1000 others.

And NED,
everyone does not have an equal opportunity to marry. That is what the supreme court said about the interracial marriage question. You would just as easily argue that the white person can marry another white person, and a black person can marry a black person. No problem, right? Wrong. It is the same moral problem, and the same constitutional problem, in the gay marriage debate.

And I agree with your about the fuzzyness of words. Words change meaning over time, but for clarity, we don't need to encapsulate all of these various unions in a single word. The eskimos have 7 words for snow, so we can have two for marriage. Call it schmarriage or fruityunions or whatever, as long as they have the exact same legal standing.

The political gentleman is ... (Below threshold)

The political gentleman is correct. Decades ago "they" fought for easy divorce promissing no adverse consequenses. Hmmm... Then "they" fought for fornication promissing no adverse consequenses. Hmmm... Then "they" fought for sodomy promissing no adverse consequenses. Hmmm... Lately, in certain circles, "they" are fighting for pedophilia (e.g. the disgustingly entitled "Man-Boy Love... whatever). Once the door is open the flies start coming in. Decades ago a society that didn't tolerate divorce, had hardly a mention of sodomy and certainly not of pedophilia. Society now increasingly tolerates it all, embraces it all.

It is a wicked man who is so blind that he cannot see the connection between one form of sexual perversion and the next form. It is so obvious to anyone who understands the depravity of human nature and the lust for sin. Rapists don't just hit puberty and begin raping. They begin with perverted sexual fantasies. They proceed to satisfying them with pornography. They proceed to ever increasingly perverted forms of pornography. The weakest, and most foolish, cast off social restraints, and then rape. They, cast off a social restraints just as the previous generation cast off the restraint of pornography and welcomed the vile satisfying of their lust with impunity.

Why will you socially tolerant, so-called conservatives not open your eyes and see that the sodomites are deviant. They are evil in the sight of God. God says they are an abomination (Lev 18 and 20). God abhores them (Ps 5.5). You can cozy up to them all you like and you will only end up suffering the same consequenses that they will face (Romans 1.32). I know why you tolerate the reprehensible. Because you yourselves also love sinfulness. Therefore, you don't have the moral courage to condemn evil, if you even see it, when it is staring you in the face.

"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience" Colossians 3.5-6

Repent and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

jYt--per your request:... (Below threshold)

jYt--per your request:

I'd suggest you start by reading the actual column in question, which, BTW was published back in 2002--a fact that should pretty much make the Glob's story look like only so much muckraking.

Here's the link to the column: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

The paragraph in question is most likely:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

He does NOT specify which "alternative lifestyles" he considers culpable. Perhaps it's generalized promiscuity. Perhaps a combination of everything from beastiality to pedophilia to all of the fetishes that exist. In other words, perhaps he's saying exactly what I said: sexual abuse isn't a result of homosexuality, but of depravity.

As to referring specifically to Boston, Massachusetts, Was Boston a site of a major problem in the church? Yup. Is Boston (and Massachusetts) an undeniably liberal area? Yup. Santorum didn't "single out" Boston as the sole problem, he cited an example. An example, by the way, is by definition not an all-encompassing list.

With so many people jumping on the bandwagon to vilify Santorum over these comments, it's significant to note that he doens't blame society with the priests' actions, simply observes that when depravity reigns in the outside world, it should come as no surprise that it sometimes filters into the world of the Church. He does so in a call to Catholics to keep on trying to be a positive influence their communities.

I almost decided to avoid this point, but I'll dive in anyway (may as well). There's an old adage that says, "The hit dog hollers." That's a trite way of saying that when a scatter-gun type statement is made, the guilty party voices the loudest opposition. There is, without question, a stigma tied to the homosexual community regarding pedophilia that is likely undeserved. Still, groups like NAMBLA don't help this perception, and the gay community doesn't do a very good job of distancing itself from that organization.

As to your statistics, the John Jay study on the problem is apparently the most extensive study publicly available. It does demonstrate a perceived decline in abuses since the mid-1970s, but it also highlights the fact that nearly 84% of the reports of abuse were between 1990 and 2002 (the ending date of the statistics collected and analyzed). Two factors may be called into question regarding these statistics. The first is the fact that abuse is frequently unreported for 25 years or more. The second is that with the widespread coverage of abuses and payouts, there may have been numerous people claiming abuses during their childhood (which would have been in the 70s), knowing that disproving the charges would be difficult, and hoping for their "piece of the pie."

I sincerely hope that the decline in abuse is real, and that it did begin 30 years ago. I'm afraid that the numbers shouldn't be look upon as authoritative, however. I do believe that there are numerous safeguards that the Catholic Church has implemented since the problem came to public light that will cut down the incidence of abuse in the future.

Pennywit wrote, For thos... (Below threshold)

Pennywit wrote, For those who haven't heard Santorum, recall that he also linked homosexuality to bestiality...

Where did he do that Pennywit? Answer: he didn't. You either didn't understand him or you are lying for partisan purposes.

Here is what he really said,
"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution..." - Senator Rick Santorum

If you understand English, you'll see that what he said is quite different from what you claim he said. He's talking about the so called "zone of privacy" and what it can entail.

Second, it is disturbing that these attitudes emanate not from a fetid ideological swamp like Free Republic...

Good grief. You're really a moonbat. I take back my earlier opinion of you. To slander all of Free Republic as "fetid ideological swamp"? What the hell are you doing here then?

An unrepentant, reactionary bigot could become the face and voice fo the Republican Party. Troubling, no?

It would be troubling. If it was true. Nice of you to paint with such a broad brush when the real problem seems to be your problem with the English language.

I want to hear from some reasonable Republicans, from some thinking conservatives.

I don't think you would recognize them through your fetid ideological swamp of a mind.

If not, I must draw one of two conclusions...

Because there just can't be more than two conclusions. You have shut down any explanation so it is obviously very pointless to even try.

To those of you who spit on the Swift Boat Vets and called them "liars" - where's your proof? It was noticeably lacking.

To those of you who asked, "Liberalism is dishonesty?" - most certainly. Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent. Never fails. I challenge you to dispute it with an example to the contrary.

To those of you who arguing for "gay marriage" for "equal protection under the law" - there's equal protection under the law now. I defy you to prove otherwise. The marriage laws are the same for everybody. There is equal protection under the law now. You just don't agree with it and want to add special rights. You coach it in language that suggests you are being fair, but you are not. You are demanding special rights for the privileges that society endows upon marriage.

To those of you who say that to disagree with the idea of "gay marriage" is in the same class as "bigoted requirements that married people belong to the same race" - what? Race is incidental to marriage. It does not matter. You can't say the same about the gender. Gender is a part of the definition.

To those of you who cheer on court decisions and wish for a Supreme Court decision legalizing "gay marriage" - you have just outed yourself as supporters of judicial activism. We're not supposed to make law in the judiciary. That's what we have a legislative branch.

To those of you who believe the tide is turning in support of "gay marriage" - good luck on that one. Eleven states have recently said "NO" to the idea and it is because of people like you who have pushed it onto us. You went about it the wrong way.

To those of you who say that, "if the government is going to hand out silly perks" in marriage, then there must be "gay marriage" - if they are "silly perks", then why the fuss? And it isn't the government handing out those "silly perks", it is society. Society recognizes marriage as beneficial and therefore affords some privileges towards the union in order to endorse it. Society is not convinced that "gay marriage" is beneficial and therefore hasn't awarded it the same privileges. Sorry.

An open question to supporters of "gay marriage" - how come so often one will hear and see a supporter say, "well then why have marriage at all"? This question is only to those who say such a thing. It surely seems like there's a deconstructive agenda at float.

Don,Your bigoted, ... (Below threshold)


Your bigoted, closed-minded sermon is textbook fundamentalist. How do you make the leap from homosexuality to perversion and depravity? What leads you to believe that homosexuals are more depraved or more capable of commiting a sex crime than non-homosexuals? Where is the proof? Seems to me that the Catholic church pedophile scandal was more a result of the shame and ignorance that the faith imposes on its members (the ones that aren't wired to conform) than healthy sexuality. Have you ever known a gay person? Do gay people strike you as categorically depraved? Goodness, open your eyes to the real world. Jesus taught love and kindness not bigotry and ignorance.

I too am mystified but also... (Below threshold)

I too am mystified but also interested in Don's World. Don, can you please explain the evils of consensual adult sodomy to me? And explain the different between it and, oh, say body tattoos and piercings.

likwidshoe,Here is... (Below threshold)


Here is your proof on the Swift Boat Liars and there is plenty more but I found the most credible, mainstream source I could find so you couldn't whine about bias (no ABC is not a "liberal" network...sorry):


Another good source is snopes. Tech-geekie, factual, and almost always right. Go there and search for : Swift Boat Veterans. Read the entire thing and it explains with facts and in plain english that NONE of the members (with one lone exception) served with John Kerry on an actual boat. Conversely, every man that served under him vouched for him. It's all there.

"Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of its stated intent".

Ok, lets start with one of the foundations of liberal government, Social Security. It's stated intent:

In the United States, a program of the United States federal government that provides retirement income, health care for the aged, and disability coverage for eligible workers and their dependents.

It's been doing exactly that since its inception. I know that's kind of an obscure ***ahem**** example, but it was off the top of my head.

JmaR, here's a snip from a ... (Below threshold)

JmaR, here's a snip from a 2001 news story:
Ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, casually used the phrase "white nigger" twice on national TV this weekend.
Yep, he's come a long, long way.

bullwinkle,Address... (Below threshold)


Address the point about founding father's owning slaves. I still consider them brilliant visionaries, I guess at that time and in that place it was just....accepted. We really should consider some new faces for our currency. I hear Ronald Reagan's mug is available. :)

First, Santorum is not part... (Below threshold)

First, Santorum is not particularly artful and is more extreme than most Republicans in his social views. That out of the way, as a Catholic living in the city of Boston in 2002, a few things were VERY clear in looking at the clergy abuse scandals.
(1) The overwhelming majorty of priests abused only boys.
(2) Other priests in the area, speaking off the record, pointed at very liberal attitudes prevailing at St. John's Semiary in Brighton, MA in the late 60's and early 70's. Specifically, very open homosexuality among the candidates.
(3) Several of the Boston Archdiocese abusers (including almost all of the worst offenders) attended St. John's Seminary in the late 60's and early 70's.

So it's fairly clear that sexual liberalism, pervasive in the Boston area in the late 60's and into the 70's did contribute to the abuse. In a different era, those men would be kicked out of the Seminary, and would not have become priests. Contribute, not cause. The Church leaders turned a blind eye, covered up the crimes. The lay people were and are outraged.

As JmaR said, Bostonians are far more socially conservative than is fashionably believed. While living in South Boston, a solid Irish Catholic working class neigborhood, I saw it first hand. These people voted Democrat more out of historic beliefs than current politics. Most of their actual views would put them close to George Bush on social issues. However, they are found of unions and suspicious of business. But the 60's and early 70's that was a different time.

Santorum aimed his remarks at Boston incorrectly, he should have attacked the liberal sexual attitues of the 60's and 70's and he would have been dead-on. Look up the records, nearly all the clergy sex abusers were in Seminary at that time. Few to none of the young or very old priests have been so accused.

JmaR said, Here is your ... (Below threshold)

JmaR said, Here is your proof on the Swift Boat Liars and there is plenty more but I found the most credible, mainstream source I could find so you couldn't whine about bias (no ABC is not a "liberal" network...sorry):


Yeah. Thanks for the communist account. I'm sure ABC's communist minders only provided an accurate account. Communism is known for that. I like how you call them the "Swift Boat Liars". Shows me what kind of juvenile mentality I'm dealing with here.

As for your snopes.com suggestion: how about a specific link?

In the United States, a program of the United States federal government that provides retirement income, health care for the aged, and disability coverage for eligible workers and their dependents.

It's been doing exactly that since its inception. I know that's kind of an obscure ***ahem**** example, but it was off the top of my head.

Sure. Just a little bit older though. And no..we have to cut back on benefits. Make it a little bit older. Oh wait,..you aren't supposed to get Social "Security". Oh..give us 11% of your lifetime income. This is for the "Security" you might not collect when you get older.

Sorry bud...Social "Security" is anything but with the amount of money that they steal from me.

Ok likwidshoe, since you ar... (Below threshold)

Ok likwidshoe, since you are clearly waaaayyy over on the right, I'll leave it to you to let me know what media sources I can depend on for "fair and balanced" information. I'm talking No Spin, something that can only be believed by the "best and brightest". Help me out now ditto boy. Where can you get good solid journalism in this country today?

<a href="http://www.... (Below threshold)


Yup, ABC and Disney are real communist juggernauts. No way they're benefitting from the media consolidation that capitalism so richly rewards us all with. Pure unbridled totalitarinaism there buddy.


JmaR, I usually ignore it w... (Below threshold)

JmaR, I usually ignore it when an idiot makes demands, like you keep doing when you tell me to address the issue of our founding fathers, but since I'm in a good mood I will. The fact that our founding fathers political parties evolved into both parties in power today and that took place about 225 years ago what's your point? How does that apply to today but somehow Byrd's words and actions of the last 75 years and as recently as 4 years ago don't? How does that apply to democrats filibustering the Civil Rights Ammendment and it only passing because of republicans? My whole point is that politicians on both sides misspeak and have beliefs that not all their constituents agree with but that's hardly a sign of universal support of them or their beliefs. If it was the the left pretends it is republicans could just as honestly claim that all democrats eagerly support sexual harrassment in the whitehouse and are ardent supporters of driving off of bridges and drowning women.

Wow! I think my head just ... (Below threshold)

Wow! I think my head just exploded.

It's amazing how easily and self-righteously some people can thump a bible. Let's call it... ummm....selective enforcement. (Hypocrisy is such an ugly word.)

If you would put down your shrimp and read all of Leviticus you might find that you're in the same boat as the *gasp* homosexuals. And the near-sighted. And the butcher. Quite a full boat. As I recall there's a line in the Bible that goes something like: "judge not...." Damn, I forget the rest! Obviously, so have you.

And would someone explain again what these "privileges" are that I get for being married? If you guys are so against gays, why not let them get married....and suffer like the rest of us.

Peace and love, fellow Christians.

Penny, Penny, Penny....now see what you've gone and started? =]

likwidshoe,I'd ima... (Below threshold)


I'd imaging he was referring to this I don't think this is a particularly strong link to refute you, but I thought I'd provide it for reference in JmaR's absence.

Do you really mean liberalism when you say, "'Liberalism is dishonesty?' - most certainly. Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent." or do you mean the Democratic Party of the US? Liberalism is defined as, "political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. " That would certainly make our founding fathers pretty liberal.

bullwinkle said: "JmaR, I u... (Below threshold)

bullwinkle said: "JmaR, I usually ignore it when an idiot makes demands"

....if you're a Republican you're entire political existence revolves around idiotic demands so this should be familiar territory for you. Wingnuts are so silly.

"So, you're clearly in the ... (Below threshold)

"So, you're clearly in the "Bible is a flawed book of man's creation" instead of "infallible text". That puts you one up on lots of actual Christians. Sorry I judged you as a literalist. We agress that's just stupid."

Your ability to incorrectly interpret the literal word is indeed amazing. For the record, the Bible is infallible. Man's interpretation is not. Now that I've made this semantic distinction, am I, or am I not an 'actual Christian'. LOL.
I do not presume to judge whether alternative interpretations are the result of "stupidity." Certainly my interpretation will be flawed, though I strive to emulate my savior.

As for your description of the pharisees' transgressions, I fault your analysis on the basis of additional study which I've done. The pharisees were similar to lawyers today. A particularly intriguing example is the pharisees' interpretation of the Sabbath YEAR laws. Every seventh year a man's debts were to be forgiven. The pharisees developed a system whereby they would transfer the debt of a man from one to another, such that the debtor would never reach a 7th year of indebtedness towards any one person, but could remain in debt indefinitely.

In this matter, as was typical of the pharisees, they complied with the letter of law, but ignored the spirit. Perhaps now you understand that you can be a hypocrite, while following the letter of the law? If it is still unclear to you, ask a lawyer about 'loopholes'.

"So why is it that I'm always the one quoting scripture while the Christians just give their views with nothing to back them up from the Bible?"

Perhaps you could tell me why you're always quoting from scripture, for which you clearly show disdain towards its adherents, if not the text itself? The pharisees were also excellent at quoting scripture, though the interpretation and practical implementation of same was lacking.

While I do have an excellent understanding of what I believe, and don't need your instruction (in fact, why would I want instruction from someone who is clearly cynical towards Christianity?), I do appreciate the discussion as it focuses the intellect and forces me to be precise and clear in my arguments.

I don't know that there is anything in this thread which requires further discussion (we're already well off-topic), but if so - you've got my email.


JmaR makes excuses, Help... (Below threshold)

JmaR makes excuses, Help me out now ditto boy.

"Ditto boy"? You really have no argument.

Yup, ABC and Disney are real communist juggernauts. No way they're benefitting from the media consolidation that capitalism so richly rewards us all with. Pure unbridled totalitarinaism there buddy.


I didn't say that ABC and Disney were communist. If you had decent English comprehension skills, you would have seen that I was referring to ABC's communist minders that followed them around and directed them to the story in Vietnam. They had to get permission and then the Vietnamese government set it up and personally handpicked the people that ABC was allowed to talk to. This happens in every communist country. Get a clue and stop trying to defeat a straw man argument that nobody had brought up except yourself.

....if you're a Republican you're entire political existence revolves around idiotic demands so this should be familiar territory for you. Wingnuts are so silly.

Wow. An insult JmaR. How surprising. No wonder you guys keep on losing elections. You have no substance.

Oh and JmaR? I guess someone "waaaayyy over on the right" in your world is someone who uses logic and understands the language he is speaking. Learn the language and then come back to argue with the big boys. Good luck there buddy. You'll need it.

jYt said, I'd imaging he was referring to this I don't think this is a particularly strong link to refute you, but I thought I'd provide it for reference in JmaR's absence.

Yeah I saw that as well and didn't think that it was too good of a link myself. That's why I asked JmaR just what the hell he meant. It has since become clear that JmaR just likes to talk nonsense and throw out insults.

Liberalism is defined as, "political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. " That would certainly make our founding fathers pretty liberal.

Totally agreed. I should be clear in that I meant "liberal" or "liberalism" as the current contemporary American definitions of the word. Truth be told, conservatives today are the real liberals and what's known as "liberals" are the conservatives. The more accurate term for modern day "liberals" are cultural Marxists.

Cultural Marxists? What is... (Below threshold)

Cultural Marxists? What is that exactly?

mantis asked, Cultural M... (Below threshold)

mantis asked, Cultural Marxists? What is that exactly?

I usually sum it up by saying - The redistribution of (__fill in the blank__) by whatever means necessary in order to make life "fair". Marxism moved from economic into cultural terms; class warfare into gender, ethnicity, and race warfare amoung others; manifesting itself into speech codes, victim groups, "affirmative" action, deconstruction of cultural and biblio norms and definitions (see ready examples from the left in this thread alone), and "hate crimes".

But instead of going all into it here, check out this link, as it explains it pretty well and covers some of the major bases.

likwidshoe, you wrote:... (Below threshold)

likwidshoe, you wrote:

"Sure. Just a little bit older though. And no..we have to cut back on benefits. Make it a little bit older. Oh wait,..you aren't supposed to get Social "Security". Oh..give us 11% of your lifetime income. This is for the "Security" you might not collect when you get older."

...once you spouted that gibberish you lost me. Try making some sense when you post, clarify the conversation that the little voices in your head are having and I'll try to keep up. In the meantime I appreciate your clarifying that it was ABC's "minders" that tainted their news story with a communist slant. Now it's all been cleared up. You're the best. You have such a solid grasp of the language that you probably teach right? You must be a professor....yup, clearly a professor. Hahaha

...once you spouted that... (Below threshold)

...once you spouted that gibberish you lost me. Try making some sense when you post, clarify the conversation that the little voices in your head are having and I'll try to keep up.

Did it ever occur to you that I was speaking down to your level there JmaR? In any regard, you have a lot of balls saying that considering you were lost throughout this thread. But keep it up...I like winning elections.

I think you mean "stealing ... (Below threshold)

I think you mean "stealing " elections, but whatever. Yeah the Republicans are doing a tremendous job running the country, I can't recall better times for average Americans. Record deficits, record debt, war and shameless war-profiteering, terrorism, divisiveness, hate, bigotry, fear. Things are pissah...good job.

JmaR said, I think you m... (Below threshold)

JmaR said, I think you mean "stealing " elections, but whatever.

No. I mean winning. Perhaps you are projecting here. Unless you have evidence to back up your charge for once. Your past history of such kinds of charges suggests that you don't.

Yeah the Republicans are doing a tremendous job running the country, I can't recall better times for average Americans.

Me neither. Glad we're on the same page.

Record deficits...

Not true unless you are going by pure dollar numbers alone. Percentage wise it is not even close. And besides, the deficit wasn't built in four years. This has been a running number spanning decades. Look into history.

...record debt...

Not true unless you are going by pure dollar numbers alone. Percentage wise it is not even close. And besides, the debt wasn't built in four years. This has been a running number spanning decades. Look into history.

...war and shameless war-profiteering>...

I have a feeling that selling a bullet would count as "shameless war-profiteering" in your world.


Oh yes. It is fair to blame this on the Republicans. Instead of...ya know...the actual perpetrators. We wouldn't want to lie blame where it actually belongs or anything. That would be too honest for a guy such as yourself. Better to stick to cheap insults and partisan smearings.

...divisiveness, hate, bigotry, fear.

Now you are describing your camp. Just read your comments for a clear primer.

You are new at this debating game, aren't you? You're a rank amateur. Keep on trying chief. You'll get there one day.

For the record, the Bibl... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

For the record, the Bible is infallible. Man's interpretation is not.

So, from your comments, the Bible is "infallible", but at the same time, contains laws that are an "extrapolation by men of God's stated will" which had "little, if any, basis in God's original intent." For an infallible work, that seems to be actually quite fallible. For instance, my Deuteromony quote, presented in the Bible as part of the laws that the Jews must obey to please God. Is that an infallible law of God's or a manmade exprapolation? If the latter, whither infallibility?

As for your description of the pharisees' transgressions, I fault your analysis on the basis of additional study which I've done...

Great, the Bible is now so infallible that you immediately discard all my actual New Testament quotes to fall back on your additional research. Perhaps your "additional study" is just man-made extrapolation, seeing how it was man-made and all. Still I'm simply amazed that I present exactly what Jesus had to say about the Pharisees directly from your infallible book and your response is merely, "That's interesting, but my research shows..." In any event, today's lawyers can be hypocritical, break their own laws, and interpret the law as it suits them. The behaviors aren't mutually exclusive, but mine is what Jesus cited them for, so I'd think that'd end this particular point.

Perhaps you could tell me why you're always quoting from scripture, for which you clearly show disdain towards its adherents, if not the text itself? The pharisees were also excellent at quoting scripture, though the interpretation and practical implementation of same was lacking.

I must admit I don't quote it much in my daily life. Here, I'm doing it to show that I'm right about what I'm saying using evidence from your holy text to back me up. When you have nothing similar to back up your assertions, it makes you look a little foolish. You seem to be pretty touchy-feely for a Christian on your belief system. It seems more like you believe what you want and have faith that the Bible backs you up with no evidence. If evidence to the contrary is presented, you simply blow it off as "man's fallible interpretation" and go on your merry way.

While I do have an excellent understanding of what I believe, and don't need your instruction...

Well, I agree that you know what you believe. Being able to rationally back it up based on scripture seems like a bit of a stretch for you though.

You've got my email.

I do?

likwid,I've provid... (Below threshold)


I've provided much evidence (and in typical wingnut fashion the messenger is attacked, never the message) and if you want to pick a topic, a policy or an initiative that you think that this adminstration has done a good job on, have at it. I'm sure it'll be easily debunked, because they frankly haven't done a good job on anything.

Election fraud evidence (where to begin):


And this is a comprehensive list of facts about how America votes. It includes the truth about who owns and controls the voting machines. These are indisputable facts, that I'm sure the Communists in Vietnam had something to do with:


Record deficit data, from another Communist outpost:


And according to Paul Craig Roberts, Asst. Sec. Treasury under Reagan (and closet socialist..I think) and a staunch conservative, it's worse than you think:


Oh and there's this from Republican Congressman Ron Paul from..what's this....Texas?


And all of this mess has been under your guys watch, so don't blame Democrats and liberals for your mess. Things were good in the 90's...damn good!

Ah, Mr. (not so) Wiser, tho... (Below threshold)

Ah, Mr. (not so) Wiser, thou art amusing...

"For an infallible work, that seems to be actually quite fallible. For instance, my Deuteromony quote, presented in the Bible as part of the laws that the Jews must obey to please God. Is that an infallible law of God's or a manmade exprapolation? If the latter, whither infallibility?"

It is the absolutely true (infallible) telling of a story of a fallible people, who misinterpreted God's intent. Surely, it is not that difficult to understand.

As to your cited verses - I'm laughing because every single one of them supports the exact example I provided to you, and supports my statement, that they held the law to a fault and were hypocrites!

Matt. 15:1-9, Jesus scolds the pharisees for telling others to use one holy act, the giving of alms, so that that those they are teaching can give more to God (the temple). It also had to do with the fact that the priests in the temple were squeezing the populace by selling their offerings at high prices, and requireing purchase of 'temple-approved' offerings. So in essence, people were in a bind because they didn't have the money to both aid their parents and pay for their offerings to God, because the price of the offering was so high. The people complained to the Pharisees and the Pharisees told them to screw their parents and pay the temple. Get it?

PS - the reason that it is sometimes good to do additional background research is that a lot of the background isn't always included in the text. For example, Matthew was written to the Jewish populace (whereas Luke was written to the Gentiles), so a lot of this background would have been understood by the listener.

Matt 23:1-7, 23-24: Nowhere does Jesus say that the Pharisees disobey the law - overtly. He chastises them for their love of their position, of pomp and circumstance, of self-importance - or, piety. When he scolds them regarding justice, mercy and faithfulness, he is scolding them for ignoring the intent of the law they claim to serve.

OK, now it is your turn:
Matt 9:9-13
Matt 12:1-14
Matt 12:34-37
Matt 16:1-4,12
Matt 19:3-8
Matt 22:18-21
Matt 22:34-46

These verses are about hardened hearts which do not know the spirit of the law. They seek to entrap Jesus through legal interpretation, but fail when the spirit of the law is explained to them and their evil intent is laid bare.

"Here, I'm doing it to show that I'm right about what I'm saying using evidence from your holy text to back me up."

Whoops. You're wrong.

"Being able to rationally back it up based on scripture seems like a bit of a stretch for you though."

Wrong again.

As for the email - my bad. I thought the comments linked the email in.


JmaR spit out, I've prov... (Below threshold)

JmaR spit out, I've provided much evidence (and in typical wingnut fashion the messenger is attacked, never the message)...

Not a great start there chief. Highlighting your hypocrisy and all by calling me a name. To be expected from an amateur I guess.

Any ways - thanks for showing me that our voting system has problems. Big surprise there. What you didn't show, was any proof to your claim that any election was stolen. You do remember that that was your original claim, right? Noticeably missing from your misguided sarcasm and rambling nonsense were links from the Washington governor's race fiasco. If you want a stolen election, look no further. But that was a Democrat, so ignore it. Doesn't fit your narrowminded template.

Record deficit data, from another Communist outpost:


Dude, are you dense? Apparently I have to repeat myself because you really don't understand simple English. The deficit is only a "record deficit" if are going by pure dollar numbers alone. Percentage wise it is not even close. Here, buy a clue genius.

Besides, most of the spending is on programs that your side dreamt up and manages. Forget that little fact?

And all of this mess has been under your guys watch, so don't blame Democrats and liberals for your mess.

"Your guys watch"? Grow up. It is a system that is run by many different people from all sides of the aisle.

Things were good in the 90's...damn good!

Some things were and some things weren't. The Republican Congress (they control spending, I'm safely betting that you had no clue) did help a lot back then. So we agree in part.

Now go ahead and ignore my points. Repeat your disproven tired talking points and play the victim. It's all you have left.

Oh...and nice Alex Jones link by the way. Nice touch. I'm also amused by people who squawk about a terrible economy. Meanwhile we just passed the 15th consecutive month of economic growth.

likwidshoe,Just tw... (Below threshold)


Just two things from your graph:

1) the record deficit percentage-wise was under Ronald Reagan
2) the record deficit delta (percentage change from one administration to the next) was under Bush

Also, as you're stating, the government is run by both parties so both have to take shares of the blame for the current deficit and debt. However, it's also true that both sides have to take credit and blame for the success/failure of the Democratic/Republican initiatives and any spending for the same reason.

Your point about the Republican Congress controlling spending seems to be breaking down under the current administration.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy