Originally Posted By gadzuux >> you are apparently guilty of a much more heinous crime than someone who does the same thing but lacked any sort of moral conviction to begin with. << You are guilty of a 'sin' if you publicly proclaim your own piety while condemning others for the very things that you're privately engaging in. You may wish to forgive this sort of thing, but you'd be foolish to look to these people as role models ever again. >> ... murder committed over money almost seems more tragic than a hate crime, which actually might have been more anticipated, given the hatred between various groups of people. << Usually various groups of 'religious people'. Throughout history, this is what wars have been fought over. Even today the muslims think that's what the iraq war is about. And they're right - to them, it is. So being passionate about one's faith can literally be a double edged sword.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "So being passionate about one's faith can literally be a double edged sword." I agree completely.
Originally Posted By Mr X **I could give a rip who he was, no one lies to me without consequences** Wow. Self-important much?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The problem with this statement is that it seems to reflect a lack of understanding of people who consider to be god-fearing. I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me that people who profess to be following the teachings of god are the first to call themselves sinners, and to admit that as humans they lapse from godly behavior all the time and this is why they need their god, to help them try to be better and to sin less.<< There's much that could be said in response to your post - I thought it was interesting and well-stated, BTW. I'll only say a couple of things. First, IMNSHO, the entire notion of "god" and "god-fearing" ought to be left out of the equation as much as possible. It's one thing for a leader to say "God bless America" at the end of a speech - a relatively harmless phrase. It's quite another to deliberately try and pass legislation, as Craig did, that restricts the rights of others based almost exclusively on religious beliefs. The religious right can try and dress it up in whatever costume they like (just like they've done with creationism as "intelligent design"), it's ultimately because their Bible, which they insist on treating like it's some kind of Bible, says boys kissing is naughty. Such belief systems should be private, and they have no business in a multi-cultural society where, few as they may be in number to the majority, some people profess belief in Allah, others in Judaism, and still others believe in no God. Personally, I think both sides are often total babies. Do I think the phrase "under God" really belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance? Not really. Do I think people who sue over it need to get a life? I sure do. (Actually, we say words and phrases so often that we don't step back and think about their meaning. What is a Pledge of Allegiance, anyway? The whole thing doesn't belong, if you ask me - it sounds too Orwellian, for my tastes. But, I digress.) Second, let me respond to: >>you are apparently guilty of a much more heinous crime than someone who does the same thing but lacked any sort of moral conviction to begin with.<< I find the whole notion of "moral conviction" or "morality" very troubling in the world of politics. There's plenty of us who think George W. Bush is far, far, FAR more immoral than Bill Clinton. I find Bush's aloofness to what he's done in Iraq to be the height of immorality, and almost criminal. Yet some on the right seem to disagree, as is their right. I sat in utter disbelief as I listened to my wife's aunt drone on and on about how she still loved Bush because "at least he has some morals." I remained silent for family peace (shocking, I know, given how quick I am to run my mouth on these boards) but was completely stunned. I have no doubt that if I asked her what was so moral about George Bush, she'd say he prays to Jesus and he only has sex with his wife (but maybe not in those words). The religious right throws the word "values" around so often I think they've forgotten what it means. What does it mean to "value" something? What do you or I "value?" Me, I don't value not having boys kiss or get married to one another. I value human life - but the grown kind that's in Iraq, not the microscopic kind Bush seems so intent on protecting with his stem-cell position. I value education, and helping the poor. I value eliminating homelessness and hunger, as much as is possible. I value aid to Africa. I'm frankly puzzled at some of the things the Christian right chooses to "value" - and question whether one can even really "value" them.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I agree with much of what you say, ecdc, but I also think that many people in this country have made some very rash judgments of Bush based on his appearance of being aloof, his seeming stubbornness, what some believe to be a lack of intelligence, etc. There is a new book about Bush coming out which finally addresses some of these issues - e.g. appearances versus reality. Bush may not be so aloof as some people think, for example. But I do agree with much of what you say. I am, by the way, no fan of organzed religion. I do my own thing with regard to faith, sort of like I do with regard to politics. I just don't happen to think that the followers of organized religion have caused all the world's ills, as people like Christopher Hitchens seem to believe.
Originally Posted By ecdc While I thought Hitchins had some excellent points (and he's a great writer), I too found his thesis that "religion poisons everything" to be ridiculously overstated and untenable. What's the name of the book on Bush, out of curiosity?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Dead Certain - I believe it's an "authorized biography". I also believe that it's likely revisionism.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 It was authorized only because so many have written unauthorized books that the guy is naturally leery. But the author, who I saw interviewed the other day, is neither a Bush fan nor a Bush hater. Of course, I haven't read it yet.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/04/craig.arrest/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/10/04/craig.arrest/index.html</a> This idiot senator from Idaho, Larry "Footsie" Craig, now refuses to resign even though the judge has refused to let him withrdraw his guilty plea. It would appear I nailed it in post 16 when I said: "He's allegedly a smart person, so when he was read his rights and was told of the charges, why did he plead guilty? United States senators shouldn't be railroaded by some small time cop. unless of course, they're guilty." Because today, a judge said: "The defendant, a career politician with a college education, is of at least above-average intelligence," Porter wrote. "He knew what he was saying, reading and signing." More from the link: "Once the guilty plea become public, Craig argued that the plea was a "mistake" and denied having engaged in any inappropriate conduct. He said he pleaded guilty without legal advice out of fear that the allegations would be made public at a time when a Boise, Idaho, newspaper was investigating long-standing rumors about his sexuality. "This pressure was entirely perceived by the defendant and was not a result of any action by the police, the prosecutor or the court," (the judge) wrote. Martin said last week that no judge signed off on the plea -- and, more importantly, that what Craig did in the restroom did not constitute disorderly conduct. But (the judge) dismissed that argument, saying the facts police presented "provide a sufficient, supplemental, factual basis for a conviction of disorderly conduct." The judge also said the transcript of the dialogue between Craig and the arresting police officer did not show "an improperly aggressive interrogation." "There was no manifest injustice in the pressures to plead as perceived by the defendant," (the judge) wrote. Craig had said he would resign from the Senate if he could not get the guilty plea withdrawn by the end of September -- but then said he would await Porter's ruling before deciding whether to step down. If Craig stays in the Senate, the chamber's Ethics Committee has indicated it will investigate his conduct." So not only does Craig cruise for quickie sex in the public johns of Amercia, he's not a man of his word. The first reaction is to say he fits right in with the Senate. The more reasoned reaction is he's an embarrassment to this country, his state and himself. As if he cared.
Originally Posted By jonvn Of course he's not a man of his word. He's been living a lie all his life.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Of course he's not a man of his word. He's been living a lie all his life." True, that.
Originally Posted By gadzuux This is wonderful news for democrats. I just hope that the upcoming senate ethics committee hearings are televised. At the least we'll get the highlights. This ridiculous scandal will now drag on for several more months, and continue to shine a light on the hypocrisy of the GOP - and during campaign season to boot. The extra irony is that the ethics hearings were requested by the republicans themselves, during the period that they were unsuccessfully trying to convince craig to resign. Already, damage control is being implemented. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21147566/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21 147566/</a> >> >> Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, again spoke up for his friend, said Craig "has the right to pursue his legal options as does any citizen, and I support his effort," Crapo said. << >> "I don't think it reflects on the party at all," Specter said. "Larry Craig is an individual. He doesn't represent the party or any other individual senator or any Republican. The conduct which is described here at worst is disorderly conduct. I don't know what his sexual preference is. It's not relevant to the issue in any respect." >> "Disorderly conduct is not moral turpitude," Specter said, "and is not a basis for leaving the Senate." << BTW ... Main Entry: tur·pi·tude Function: noun vile, base: inherent baseness: DEPRAVITY <moral turpitude>; also: a base act
Originally Posted By jdub I should hope Senator Crapo pronounces his name "CRAY-po," as the spelling would suggest. Now, TWO Ps in the name, that would be a problem. He'd have to consider wiping one away..
Originally Posted By Dabob2 One of the House GOP leaders, John Boehner, insists that it's pronounced BAY-ner. But I know a few German speakers, and they assure me that no, it's properly pronounced BO-ner. I guess, like Tony DorSETT, it's his right to have it pronounced whatever way he likes. Still, I can't help but remember a Python skit... "No, no, no... It's SPELLED "luxury yacht," but it's pronounced "throat warbler mangrove."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm surprised at the glee everyone seems to be getting from this. Doesn't anyone think it is rather sad that a well educated and successful man like Craig would be reduced to cruising airport restrooms for sex because he is so conflicted about his sexuality? He isn't the first high profile person who’s tried to deny his sexuality and he certainly won't be the last. In the end I feel about Craig the same way I felt about Clinton. Who he gets it on with and where he does it is really no one's business but his own.
Originally Posted By jdub Well, Simpsons creator Matt Groening pronounces his name "GRAY-ning," so Beoehner/BAY-ner makes perfect sense to me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Doesn't anyone think it is rather sad that a well educated and successful man like Craig would be reduced to cruising airport restrooms for sex because he is so conflicted about his sexuality?" I don't get where you see the glee. I have nothing but disgust. Even after such a public exposure, if you will, he's making a mockery of his job, his country and his life. Thing is, he does know better. Is he denial? Hell yes he is, it's one of the more public displays we'll ever see, but it isn't as if people haven't tried to approach him. Sometimes this is what happens to people who insist on being incredibly selfish. It's sad, but even though he knows where the cliff ends, he's purposely heading right for it.
