Skip to main content

Rep. Mark Foley's predilection for pubescent young men, his public exposure (pun intended), and subsequent resignation exploded in the MSM on Friday.  Now considering that the religious right stridently preaches against what they term the "homosexual agenda," one could rightfully assume that Dobson, Kennedy, Scarborough and all the rest would be scrambling to be the first out of the box (or out of the closet) to condemn Foley and smother Republican leadership in a tsunami of moral outrage for the attempted pre-election coverup.  

More on the flip:

And since these leaders of the religious right position themselves as the moral authority on rights of the unborn, the young and innocent, and traditional marriage, this scandal appears to be tailor made -- an opportune moment  to carry their "message" to an even wider audience just a few short weeks before the November 7th elections; that message being that ungodly, unAmerican, treasonous Democrats support the homosexual agenda, gay marriage, abortion rights, terrorists and attemtpt to corrupt our children with perverted cartoon characters, lewd and lascivious movies and music, etc.

But I had seen nothing coming from the Falwells and the Dobsons and the Wildmons of the world, so this morning I surveyed the landscape and cruised (pun intended) the websites of some of the most prominent on the religious right to see how Foley's disgrace has been handled over the weekend.  I almost came up empty.  Apparently, They're generally of a mind that predation on congressional pages is a-okay if the perpetrator is a Republican.  How else to characterize the profound silence by these bastions of morality and dignity?

Results of survey:

American Family Association (Donald Wildmon) - no comment

Christian Coalition - no comment
    Main page has news updated as of 9/29/06 - no report

Concerned Women for America (Beverly LaHaye) - no comment
    Press releases on main page - no report

Coral Ridge Ministries (D. James Kennedy) - no comment

Culture and Family Institute - no comment

Family Research Council (Tony Perkins) - no comment
    Scrolling News - no report

Focus on the Family (James Dobson) - no comment

Institute of American Values - no comment

Repent America - YES!!!!!

Southern Baptist Convention (Richard Land) - no comment
    SBC President Frank Page - no comment

Talk to Action (Rick Scarborough) - no comment

Toward Tradition (Daniel Lapin) - no no comment
    Toward Tradition scrolling news updates - no comment

Traditional Values Coalition (Louis P. Sheldon) - no comment
    Press releases page contains five items on homosexuality, none on Foley

Vision America - Rick Scarborough Report - no   

World Harvest Church (Rod Parsley) - no

One must necessarily draw the conclusion that for all the high and mighty talk spewing from these groups on a daily basis, the primary mission (pun intended) is primarily political in nature.  None other than Pat Robertson makes that point abundantly clear.  Religion is used solely as an expedient means to an end...POWER.  

Recall that not more than two weeks ago activists held a conference in Washington, D.C., with 1,000 in attendance in an attempt to pump up its base to vote in November.  Dobson was quoted as saying that Congress has failed in its mission to legislate the conservative religious agenda and that Bush has flaws, but electing Democrats would be worse for the country.  Many of the featured speakers specifically railed against the sins of the gay lifestyle and the need for protection of traditional marriage; can't leave these important issues up to those heathen Democrats.  No sireee.

Well, the religious voters in Mark Foley's district don't seem to be waiting for a cue from their religious leaders before forming their own conclusions.  News reports from Stuart and Palm Beach, Florida, are rife with quotes of outrage at Foley's conduct and the ensuing coverup.  Could this tawdry episode expose the hollowness in the message of their religious leaders once and for all?  Has the "movement" finally jumped the shark?

Originally posted to SherAn on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:40 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hypocrisy is a Rethug value (19+ / 0-)

    Is anybody shocked?

    Thwarting the forces of idiocy since 1978. -6.38, -6.00

    by wiscmass on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:43:09 AM PDT

  •  Gosh, aren't you being harsh? After all it is (9+ / 0-)

    the week-end, and they don't have all the facts, and  and and......bastards.

    Of course, what I'm really thinking is that it probably isn't just Catholic priests that abuse children.  

    Rove is probably just a little slow in telling them what to say.

  •  It happened late on a Friday (0+ / 0-)

    at least wait until Tuesday before drawing conclusions.

    There is more to truth than increasing its spin

    by hearthmoon on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:48:46 AM PDT

    •  Look at their archives (9+ / 0-)

      for hit pieces on Democrats.  Weekends and fact never stopped them before.  Why now?

      Torture is the ultimate desecration of the American flag.

      by newhorizon on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:51:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, after all, Rove hasn't had time (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      proudlattedrinker, MO Blue

      to get the memo out on how this should be spun.

      -6.00, -7.03
      "I want my people to be the most intolerant people in the world." - Jerry Falwell

      by johnsonwax on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:59:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hasn't had time? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Gee, I thought if there was ANYTHING that is a simple rubber-hammer-on-knee response, it would be condemning Internet Predators Who Solicit Teens.

        What do they have to lose by NOT responding? By calling for an immediate investigation on what the number three person in the Bush White House KNEW and when he KNEW it...

        ... and if he told anyone else about it. "Don't worry about Foley's votes from now on."

        I try to live by the Three Reality Principles.

        by proudlattedrinker on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 12:21:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That would happen IF (5+ / 0-)

          it was a Dem. Seriously.

          That it was a 'values candidate' that they likely put considerable energy behind, they now have to think this through. I doubt very much that this was even a surprise to many of them, but my guess is that you won't get a response out of religious right on this. They'll ignore it. It's not in their best interest to condemn it and I doubt most of their followers will see the hypocrisy.

          Overlooking one indiscretion is a small price to pay for the larger goal of a theocracy. Whenever you think of the religious right think of this: ideology is the external message, pragmatism is the internal. IOKIYAR isn't just our snark, it's more-or-less actual policy for them.

          -6.00, -7.03
          "I want my people to be the most intolerant people in the world." - Jerry Falwell

          by johnsonwax on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 12:42:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  These Organizations Have Instant Response Teams (5+ / 0-)

      that put even the Republican's to shame. If this had been something to do with a Democratic sex sandal, the air waves would have been humming with their horrified cries of Save The Children From These Spawns Of Satan.

  •  Time for LTTE (11+ / 0-)

    "Why isn't the religious right hitting the street in front of Foley's house calling him a pervert and demanding republican leaders who covered this up, be dismissed from positions of power".

    •  Also Use Newspapers' Online "Comment" Function (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jimijam, beneldon, circusanimal

      I agree that letters to the editor are a great way to get this information out.

      Here's another, even faster way to respond that I learned recently from another DKos poster: Look for newspapers (and online magazines, e.g., that have an online "Comment" function (for example, the "Washington Post" has that for news stories). When you find that, leave a comment on related news stories, possibly with the URL for this diary, so people can come and read this information for themselves.

      You can also check newspaper stories for the reporters' telephone numbers and email addresses. If they haven't reported on this news, send them a short, polite email and suggest they report on the information that SherAn dug out.

      And, a plug for a possilby useful diary that I did in August: Writing Letters to the Editor That Get Published.

      And for more tips on LTEs, see this comment from earlier today by Casey Morris: General "rules" about LTE's.

  •  A sorting out on the right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This must be a defining point where the silent(politcal posing as  religious) and the outraged(authenically spiritual with political connections) will be sorted out by their response to FoleyGate.

  •  Interesting analogy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, trashablanca, mango, BB10

    although not the most precise one.  As Islamic violence has spiralled, there has been much condemnation of Islamic leaders for not explicitly and immediately condemning those advocating violence.  Now, here we have people advocating governmental implementation of narrowly defined "moral values" yet fail to harshly condemn those who fail to implement and enforce thse same values.

    Somehow I think they will be as silent tomorrow and Tuesday as they are today.

    Torture is the ultimate desecration of the American flag.

    by newhorizon on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:50:55 AM PDT

  •  ::Chirp:: ::Chirp:: ::Chirp:: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ow. That silence is deafening.

  •  Moral Values? The Rethugs don't need no (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA, mango, MO Blue

    stinkin' moral values, they have power.  Goes the same for conflict diamond mine owner Rebertson and the rest of the [sac]religious right.  May they get the hell they so richly deserve.

    "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." John Lennon

    by trashablanca on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:51:58 AM PDT

  •  Nice bit of research there! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trashablanca, BB10

    What does it say that they say nothing? They really seem content to open themselves to being painted as utter hypocrites. Truly strange choice, given the variety of options open to them for condemnation of Foley.

    Why wouldn't they speak? How about the idea that they never speak unless spoken to? Until Daddy tells them what to do, they do nothing, say nothing. And Daddy is just a little confused right now.

    Speechlessness in these guys is a display of the weakness and dependence of blind fealty. When they do speak, we'll know Rove's plan. Until then, I'm delighted to watch them implode.

    "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

    by Unduna on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:54:24 AM PDT

    •  Ya know, maybe (0+ / 0-)

      they just see themselves as such effective gatekeepers for their congregations/followers that they really don't need to say anything at all.  Has anyone watched FOX for their reaction? I can't, ya know, weak stomach and all....

      Torture is the ultimate desecration of the American flag.

      by newhorizon on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 12:00:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, it could be straight up arrogance. (0+ / 0-)

        That would, of course, be typical. But it will backfire on them for the first time in a long time.

        The other real possibilty is this: their congregations/followers are all too familiar with this hypocrisy. Sexual perversion and predation are extremely common amongst right-wing males. Extremely. Repressive Christianity is rife with it and congregations/followers directly experience it. Maybe this entire Foley thing hits so close to home that they are deeply mortified and paralyzed by having the family secret paraded so blatantly AGAIN. It must be wearing them out a bit to continue to lie so damn much. May they crack.

        "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

        by Unduna on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 12:08:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm on the (8+ / 0-)

    AFA Action Alert list. I think I'll ask them to put out an action alert to call for the resignation of anyone who knew but failed to act.

    Please encourage all to vote by absentee ballot

    by Killer on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:54:32 AM PDT

  •  If it had been a Democrat (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trashablanca, MO Blue, BB10

    The answer would have been instantaneous. For a Republican, they have to wait until they get their talking points.

    Democrats want better government, government that serves real people and not just those with power and influence. Nevada Appeal, Carson City NV

    by Tuba Les on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:54:56 AM PDT

  •  Dobson (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CJB, DaleA, splashy, drewfromct

    Told men to take showers with their sons. Of course he has no comment.

    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~Edmund Burke

    by melthewriter on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:58:39 AM PDT

  •  Thanks For The Info SherAn (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anotherCt Dem

    I tried to see if these groups had made any statements this morning but my googling skills are so bad and actual of all the groups involved so limited that I gave up in frustration.

    I would have been shocked if you had found them railing against the Republicans not by them not commenting. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that Faith Based Initiative Money, now would we guys?

  •  Could it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    really be much a surprise that outspoken super conservative religious leaders would be silent when it's discovered that there those within their midst who are guilty of things that they condemn others for. It's not like William Donahue was in too big a deal with pedophile priests. It's a whole lot harder to accept the idea that people who they see as being just like them could possibly capable of doing such things. And anyway, there all probably busy at work formulating a plan to blame liberals for this/.

  •  It's Sunday (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch, bluebrain

    they're all busy writhing on the ground, handling snakes and speaking in tongues.  

  •  Of course they should be speaking out ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but, look at the position they are backed into.  They have extolled this guy as one of their own while protecting him as well.  Add to that the GOP candidate for Governor in FL seems to have some of the same attributes as Foley ( questions about a man his age not married....hmmm..., a reminder why the ultra right was behind his opponent the winger Gallagher).

    Then again, why should they have to speak out when right here on DKOS "we" are doing their spinning for them by debating whether a pedophile is actually a pedophile?

    I'm sick of America being covered by conservative crap

    by emsprater on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 12:58:29 PM PDT

    •  He ISN'T a pedophile. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Get your darned terms right. Pedophilia targets chidlren below the age of puberty, regardless of gender.  Ephebophilia targets young teens well past puberty--Foley is an ephebophile.  WHile he was certainly trying to exploit teenagers, there is a hiuge difference between having sex with an 8 year old and wanting ot have sex with a 17 year old. Both are crimes under the law--but the law correctly punsihes soemoen who is having consensual sex with a 17 year old (usually if the elder partner is more 3 years older than the victim) far less severely.

      Not defending ephebophiles, but there IS a difference, and we look dumb equating FOley's misdeeds with someone who rapes and molests  actual children. ALso ephebophilia explains ehy straight men  have made so popular  mags like "Barely legal" and its fellows.  

      I used to teach at a junior high, and i'd hear the male teachers mutterign about jailbait when the pretty and well-developed cheeerleaders too the stage.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 01:21:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really don't give two hoots in hades ... (0+ / 0-)

        about your semantic argument.  He's a pedophile, period. The rest of the crap that those of you determined to make sure he's not called what he is is just that, crap.

        I don't care what dictionary you use, whether you claim that only a psycharitrist can make the decision to call him that, or if a bleeding statue of the Holy Mother induces you to defend the use of the term.

        Hes a pedophile, period.  It amazes me the folks who come off as "I'm not for sexual relations between minors and adults, but, he's not technically a pedophile".  Might as well state  " I'm not for legalizing prostitution, but swapping a Hummer2 for a 'hummer' is technically within the law".

        My "darned terms" are heartfelt, right and would be shouted from GOP megaphones if this had been a Democrat.

        I'm sick of America being covered by conservative crap

        by emsprater on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 02:22:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Than you don't care about (0+ / 0-)

          accurate teminology which makes you damned ignorant.

          I am talking about LEGAL consequences as well--the law recognizes the differences in the way it punishes the two category--younger victims  require much stronger punishments. BOTH are crimes.  But the law is usually structured around the age of consent and take into account he age of the other party--if it's under 3 yers difference, often it isn't a crima t all (an 18 year old and 15 year old).

          I care about BOTH crimes. I was a rape crisis volunter (were you? ). I've held a 12 year old sho sobbed out her heart over the neighbor who raped her.  Have you>

          But I care about terminology too BECAUSE legally, it does matter.

          Bottom line: FOley shouldn't have been doing what he did even if the victims were between 16-18--even if they consented. Because most important of all, he held a position of authority over them and it was fiduciary duty not to misue that.  THAT, more than their age, is what truly bothers me. It's the smae as the boss who propositions the girl fromt he mailroom--the power imbalance is HUGE.  And the ages differnce DOES bother me because what kind of niutcase wants to screw a 16 year old?

          Your damrnbed terms may be heartfelt, but youa re WRONG in using them.  The young man wasn't a child. He was a teenager.  ANd in many places, he was above the age of consent for sex with soemone close to his own age.  DOesn't make FOley less an asshole, but it is a DIFFERENT offense.

          FOr instance, in FL, FOley's home state:

          794.05  Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.--

          (1)  A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

          (2)  The provisions of this section do not apply to a person 16 or 17 years of age who has had the disabilities of nonage removed under chapter 743.

          ANd in D.C>

          CHAPTER 41   SEXUAL ABUSE    § 22-4101. Definitions.

          (3) "Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.

          § 22-4108. First degree child sexual abuse.
          Whoever, being at least 4 years older than a child, engages in a sexual act with that child or causes that child to engage in a sexual act shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life and, in addition, may be fined an amount not to exceed $250,000.   (May 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-257, § 207, 42 DCR 53.)

          § 22-4109. Second degree child sexual abuse.
          Whoever, being at least 4 years older than a child, engages in sexual contact with that child or causes that child to engage in sexual contact shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and, in addition, may be fined in an amount not to exceed
          $100,000.    (May 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-257, § 208, 42 DCR 53.)

          "Consent" means words or overt actions indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual
          act or contact in question. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission by the victim,
          resulting from the use of force, threats, or coercion by the defendant shall not constitute consent.
          (5) "Force" means the use or threatened use of a weapon; the use of such physical strength or
          violence as is sufficient to overcome, restrain, or injure a person; or the use of a threat of harm
          sufficient to coerce or compel submission by the victim.
          (6) "Official custody" means:
          (A) Detention following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of arrest for an offense;
          following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of juvenile
          delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following or pending civil
          commitment proceedings, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion;
          (B) Custody for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this
          paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work,
          and recreation; or
          (C) Probation or parole.
          (7) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death,
          unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted
          loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.
          (8) "Sexual act" means:
          (A) The penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva of another by a penis;
          (B) Contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus;
          (C) The penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva by a hand or finger or by any object, with
          an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
          (D) The emission of semen is not required for the purposes of subparagraphs (A)-(C) of this
          (9) "Sexual contact" means the touching with any clothed or unclothed body part or any object,
          either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of
          any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire
          of any person.
          (10) "Significant relationship" includes:
          (A) A parent, sibling, aunt, uncle, or grandparent, whether related by blood, marriage, or adoption;
          (B) A legal or de facto guardian or any person, more than 4 years older than the victim, who resides
          intermittently or permanently in the same dwelling as the victim;
          (C) The person or the spouse or paramour of the person who is charged with any duty or
          responsibility for the health, welfare, or supervision of the victim at the time of the act; and
          (D) A teacher, scout master, coach, recreation center leader, or others in similar positions.
          (11) "Victim" means a person who is alleged to have been subject to any offense set forth in
          subchapter II of this chapter.

          § 22-4106. Misdemeanor sexual abuse.
          Whoever engages in a sexual act or sexual contact with another person and who should have
          knowledge or reason to know that the act was committed without that other person's permission,
          shall be imprisoned for not more than 180 days and, in addition, may be fined in an amount not to
          exceed $1,000.

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:00:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you for your ... (0+ / 0-)

            reply.  I am not "dammned ignorant".  You are falling into the trap of what "the meaning of the word is  is".

            I live in Foley's home state, but not in his district.  Thanks for quoting the law to me, but again, that's neither here nor there when this issue is being placed in the media.  You have to admit (if you have any sense at all) that the GOP would most certainly be using the word pedophile and yelling it loudly at that, if Foley were a democrat.  Hell, Monica was 22 and some of them made attempts to use the word back then, albeit without success.

            I'm so glad you are (or were, not sure which) a rape counselor.  As for your "have you.." come on, yes, I "have", and probably in more directly dire circumstances than you.  I actually respond to the scene and treat the patient / vicitms in these cases before folks like you who sit on comfortable couches when there's nothing to do even know these victims exist.

            By the way, your defending the use of the term pedophile and continuing to state exceptions because the teen was maybe, or possibly over the "age of consent" gives credibility to those on the right who continue to scream about "gay recruiting".  It's abuse, period.  You know it, I know it and they know it, but you and your kind are giving them ammunition for future use.  Stop now, be man (or woman or whatever) enough to call Foley what he is PEDOPHILE.  If you don't think the age of the victim and the age of the perpetrator are huge deals, then I feel very sorry for you, and the vicitms you counsel.

            I'm sick of America being covered by conservative crap

            by emsprater on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:39:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am NOT (0+ / 0-)

              defending the use of the term "pedophile" despite yoru ridiculous and unfounded claims to the contrary. I am  merely requesting that the CORRECT term be used because the laws under whcih this man will be tried are NOT the smae as child sexual abuse statutes which DO apply to pedophiles.
              ANd I don't see where I said a DAMNED thing about gay recruiting--inf act the term ephebophile applies to thsoe who desire adolsecents of EITHER gender--and I strongly suspect, judging by the sales of mags liek Barely Legal and its ilk (mags I find utterly disgusting) which depict girls over 18 who look younger that the vast majority of ephebophiles are STRAIGHT men who, I guess by YOUR Logic, are recruitign girls for het sex.  I have an idiotic bro-in-law who wouldn't allow his then pre-pubescent chidlren be alonw in arrom with my older gay nephew--he's an idiot, but he's a fundy and biys into  gay+epdophile--and he is anti-Semitic and anti-Wiccan as well.  I know pRECISLEY the prejudice you speak of and have attempted unusccessfully to disabuse him of that notion--but he is Stuck on Stupid.

              I am not a cop or an EMT or a doctor. I did what I could as a volunteer which was all I was qualified for--and thee was at the time no victim advocate or rape team in Baltimore City at the the time. We unpaid volunteers who sat by the phone were IT. It was our job to intervene with cops who thought "rape victim" was a synonym for "slut who asked for it".  To stand up to moronic S.A.s who thought anyone odler than 10 porbably "asked for it".  To deal with hospital personnel who were often unsympathetic to the victim. Often I got called by the hospital and got thre even before the police. We also counseled victims who chsoe not to report but needed help anyway. Puting me down because I don't have YOUR training is goddamned sanctimonious.   I asked the question because I

              My sympathy is fully with the vioctim here, and I was screaming at the TV when some Rethug was sayign the page program was the problem rather than an adutl male who tried to seduce young men with whom he had a fiduciary relationship that makes him even More guilty than the normal sexual predator.

              As for you--I am done responding to your questions.  You're making this abotu ME, rather than about the laws he'll bhe charged under. I was actually HOPING this was a sting, sicne the feds had soem of the email in late July and were suppsoed to be investigating it.  ANd any Rethug who thinks IMs that refer to the kid as a "hot studd" or talks about wanting to see him naked is as sick as FOley in my book.

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 12:49:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Yes - look at their archives (0+ / 0-)

    (Originally suggested by newhorizon in an earlier comment.)

    It would be interesting to analyze the archives of these self-styled "moral authorities" and generate statistics to show how extremely biased they are toward condemning acts of immorality perpetrated by Democratic vs. Republican authority figures.

    We all know they are biased, but I suspect we would find the results jaw-droppingly one sided.  Dems are soundly thrashed on the slightest pretext, while Repubs are ignored or excused for the most heinous offenses.

    This quantitative result could then be wagged in their faces.

    There's nothing to fear but the GOP itself.

    by suburi on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 01:09:13 PM PDT

  •  Why are you surprised? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    After all, he apolgized.  That seems to make everything right for them.

    Plus they seem to be hoping this will go away fast jsut like every other instance of  sexual misbehavior thsi year. We had the Hookergate scenario. We had  a FL rep from Homeland security pleading nolo contendere for his approach toa minor girl.  This is nothign new.  

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 01:17:36 PM PDT

  •  This is quite simple actually (0+ / 0-)
    When it is a Democratic screw up, it is an outrage, political edition.

    When it is one of their own flock, they get all 'Christianista' and decide 'he who is without sin shall cast the first stone.' Which damns the whole lot of them.

    "The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers. " Jung

    by sailmaker on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 01:26:10 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site