Why James Dobson isn't there when you need him

To follow-up on the point eloquently made by rude pundit:

What is this world coming to when you can't even rely on the most hate-filled, self-righteous, arrogant fucks this side of John Negroponte to come through for you? The Gannon/Guckert story is a low hanging curve ball right to the inside for the Christian right, yet they refuse to swing. Gay prostitute in the middle of the Christian President's White House?

What is surprising about this is the fact that it seems to weaken the position of the Christian right, in a way.  If Jimmy Dobson's followers can't rely on him to beat up on an obvious target, what good is he?  Or does God only hate gay liberals?  Indeed, the Christian right's incredibly loud silence on this issue shows how in the pocket of the republican party they are.  I've never had much reason to doubt that the Christian right sincerely believes the crazy things it says, but now I'm starting to.  If they're so up-in-arms about SpongeBob, surely an actual, real, live homosexual in the White House makes them want throw a few brimstones.

The explanation, of course, is found in the article the Rude One links to:

Via e-mail, I asked Aravosis why he thought the Christian right was being silent about the Gannon Affair.

"Because they're hypocrites," he wrote in an e-mail. "They know this scandal is hurting Bush and they put politics ahead of their God. That's how petty and un-Christian they are."

Exactly.  The Christian right has become a wholely owned subsidiary of the republican party, not the other way around.  A surprising reversal, don't you think?  Or not?

-- Michael

Comments

[dmeyers]

Michael,

You have just shown how ignorant and idiotic you are regarding the Gannon affair.

I love this one, "Gay prostitute in the middle of the Christian President's White House?" Since when are people who receive day press passes part of the White House?

And this takes the cake.. "If they're so up-in-arms about SpongeBob, surely an actual, real, live homosexual in the White House makes them want throw a few brimstones." This statement shows how completely ignorant you are regarding people of faith. In my mind this statement pretty much sums up how clueless so many on the Left are with regards to people of faith.

We all know the saying, "hate the sin, love the sinner". It is that saying that so eludes people on the left. The Wead tapes on Bush pretty much captured GW's beliefs quite well regarding the so-called "gay issue".

Until you come to grips with the fact that disagreement does not equal hate/bigotry, etc you will always be in the wilderness.

Once again I will say it, the Gannon affair is now what 2 months old and many on the left are still bringing up his sexual history. Just this evening Bill Press on Hannity and Colmes brought up the "gay prostitute Gannon".

You all really do need to drop your obsession with peoples sex life.

[here's what's left]

dmeyers,

if you want to keep talking about GannyGuck, please do. the more this story is discussed, the worse it looks for republicans. thanks for helping out.

We all know the saying, "hate the sin, love the sinner". It is that saying that so eludes people on the left.

d, the biggest problem with your comments on this site is that we go over and over the same issues over and over again. though you yourself may not hate homosexuals (i'm not so sure you don't, but i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt), the same can't be said of many in your party, and many "people of faith," including Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma:

"The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power. ... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today."

that's not "hate the sin" language. that's a clear indictment of the "gay community."

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, in the last campaign:

"If we allow these vicious ads to go unanswered then Stan Matsunaka and the radical homosexual lobby could succeed by deceiving the voters, and win on Election Day."

no sin-hating there either; it's a clear indictment of "the radical homosexual lobby."

Remember Alan Keyes saying that Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist?" That's not the sin. That's the sinner.

remember the time that the head of the Family Network Council attacked Mary Cheney? That was fun:

"The day after George Bush was elected president again, because of this morals revolution taking place in our country, he allows his vice president to not only put his lesbian daughter on the platform, but to bring her lesbian 'partner' up on the stage with him," Glover says. "It almost seems to be a slap in the face from the get-go against the very conservatives that re-elected the president at a time when he ought to paying them some homage and respect."

at the time you said, "Of course the comment made by Family Policy Network is outrageous." But you also tried to "distinguish what interest groups/commentators say and what politicians say."

Here, though, there's no such distinction for you to hide behind, because you're talking about "people of faith," as you call them.

Here's more: I'm surprised that you bring up the bush tapes, because even though they reveal that the president is probably not personally prejudiced against gays, it actually seems to be evidence that the some on the christian right are. See here:

"I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas. He said he told Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner."

So, d, here's what we have: Bush himself thinking a prominent minister wants him to "attack homosexuals." A conservative catholic saying Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist." The head of a conservative christian organization saying that allowing Mary Cheney to appear somewhere was a "slap in the face."

Just for once, please admit you were wrong. There are many people of faith who do not like homosexuals, and it's pretty hard to ignore the evidence above. I ask you to admit that you're wrong not out of any sense of personal satisfaction, but only because this an issue that we've been over many many times, and it's kind of a waste of time to repeat the same things over and over and have you not acknowledge them.

If it's that you are too proud to admit that you were wrong, fine. You don't even have to admit that you're wrong, I really don't care about that -- just stop making comments about homosexuality. Thanks.

[Cheryl]

Until you come to grips with the fact that disagreement does not equal hate/bigotry, etc you will always be in the wilderness.

"Homosexual attraction... is a developmental disorder that leads to negative behaviors with negative consequences -- adversely impacting individuals and society at large... Homosexual behaviors can accurately be described as risky and should not be mainstreamed into society or equated with civil rights... the demands and claims of homosexual activists are self-serving and result in no societal good..."

dmeyers, please go to http://www.freerepublic.com>free republic and look over all the hate speech. Here are some nice tidbits:

"I will never be conditioned to accept Gays as anything but the degenerate disease passing perverts they are"

"How much longer before the homo-advocates demand homosexual sex is mandatory? It is the logical end to their indoctrination tollerance objectives."

"Homosexuality, in many of its aspects, is indistinguishable from same-sex pedophilia."

"Iffin ya cain't breed, ya gotta recruit..."

"If homosexuality is NOT a choice, then it must be a birth defect..."

"The only gay awareness I'm interested in is the knowledge of the proper ammunition to stop a pervert from molesting children."

d meyers, you are deliberately obfuscating the neuro-linguistic programming of your own words. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" when spoken in the context of gays (as it always is) associates the concept of homosexuality with hatred and sin, particularly when biased statements indicating false correlations between homosexuality and pathology are intermingled.

There is never any attempt to qualify the benefits of marriage, financial stability and approval that are heaped upon straights as being in any way beneficial to their sanity and stability, and there is also never any attempt to qualify the disadvantages of being single, in financial crisis and disapproved of that are heaped upon queers as being in any way detrimental to their sanity and stability. The link between cause and effect, widely accepted as irrefutable in scientific circles, is completely broken by so-called 'conservatives' like you.

But then you do not care about anything but your own prejudices.

[TomR]

God doesn't care about 'liberal' or 'conservative'; God just wants homosexuals to be promiscuous.

So marrying and forming stable relationships is bad; being a $200/hour hooker is good.

[Cheryl]

Actually, no one has the faintest clue what God wants. God is an abstraction to describe what can never be directly known.

Republicans, on the other hand, want to destroy gays at any cost. It does not take omniscience to figure that out. (I like that word - omniscience. Omni-science. God is the ultimate scientist. So much for creationism.)