Please. Stop. Now.
Monday October 2, 2006
This just flopped in over the transom:Washington, D.C. - In response to the events surrounding the resignation of Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement:"We are all shocked by this spectacle of...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
This is as ridiculous as the armed robber who blames society for his criminal behavior.>
When Gerry Stubs admitted to an affair with an underage male intern, he was never punished. As I recall he did a McGreavey and came out. He appologized for the affair with the boy but spun the story to be about his homosexuality. It went over.
That is the established strategy and the accepted mode of conduct. As a back-up, the checking into rehab is the other excuse.
Now Foley just needs to spend a month or two in rehab, come out of the closet and go on Oprah. If he plays his cards right, he'll get a job as a lobbyist for a gay rights group and a decent book contract. I can hear the interview on Fresh Air already.
Such is the state of the therapeutic culture we live in.>
Actually, Studds did apologize. On the floor of the House, while being censured. He took responsibiilty, lost his committee leadership post, and ran for reelection and won.
At the same time, Rep. Crane wouldn't apologize for sex with a female page. He was forced out of office.
Studds handled it correctly.>
Studds also has a pro-gay voting record, as did McGreevey. Foley used to have a pro-gay voting record, but moved to the right as his party profile improved. There's no love lost between Foley and the gay community. There's not a person in Washington who didn't know that Foley was a self-loathing closeted gay man.>
The FRC says Foley's escapade is the fault of society. And the FRC's usual line is that we must fix society by voting Republican.
Foley is a Republican. The House staff and leadership that covered for the miscreant are Republicans.
Thus, are we to believe that this societal laxity and deviance only can be fixed by voting for the bastards who covered for and enabled a well-known Congressional chickenhawk (and I'm not talking about the Dick Cheney definition of the term)?
It boggles the mind, this age we live in.>
Susan,
Do I take from your post that demotion in your career, and a small amount of public humiliation is adequate punishment for statitory rape?
I don't agree. I think Foley and Studds should be thrown out government service, sentenced to hard time and forced to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. But then I'm a theocon.>
Oh, and this was Studds response to the censure:
"As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own."
In other words according to Gerry Studds, gay sex with a minor is A-OK. If that is virtue, give me hypocrisy anytime.>
With that kind of arguement as put forth by Mr. Perkins, wouldn't it be logical to extend that thinking in terms of the permissiveness of gun laws leading to more shootings (like the ones we have seen in our schools) or permissive environmental laws leading to degradation of our world? Why the tolerance for those kind of issues, while they are at it?>
Rod,
I'd say you are pulling quite a Mark Shea here in your reinterpretation of what FRC is saying. I didn't see anything in Perkins' statement that exonerated the GOP leadership (and given what we know right now there is no reason for Perkins to condemn the GOP leadership - yet). All he did was point to a systemic problem in today's culture -- sexual permissiveness as a right and even a good within a multicultural aesthetic. Carried out to its logical consequences, such a view leads to things like ephebophilia and polygamy. Given that I thought you appreciated identification and examination of root causes I am baffled as to why you find this statement so unacceptable.
(N.B.: I do understand that if this had happened on the other side of the aisle we would likely get a less general and more specific condemnation by the FRC and that double standard is unfortunate.)>
Rod, I have to agree with Mark Adams in his description of your criticism (and not because he refers to Mark Shea, either). The fact is that Perkins is right; when aberrent sexual behavior is tolerated or excused in society in general, it will expand. St. Paul makes essentially the same case in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans.
The fact that the FRC is, effectively, in bed with the GOP (as is most of Evangelical Protestantism)is a separate issue entirely.
Then again, the Catholic Church and the National Council of Churches are basically the Democratic Party at prayer.>
Just a question of facts.
What is the lowest age of the minors in question? It is my understanding that the DC age of consent is 16, so it would not be statutory rape if the boy involved was 16 or older.
Are there allegations that Mark Foley was being sexually explicit or making moves on someone younger, or not?>
Rod:
How is what the FRC said different from what you said below about the reluctance of the Florida media to report on this and the more-general failure of the MSM on The Situation from (in part) fear of being labeled as anti-gay.
After all, reluctance to be labeled "homophobe," etc. is surely one of the mechanisms through which "a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity [causes us] ... to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness?">
I would of course agree with the FRC that standards have been lowered in society, and that that makes it easier for men tempted to do bad things sexually to do so. But with regard to the Foley matter, is that really what it's about? Is that really what Monicagate was about? Do you really think that the FRC, upon learning what President Clinton did with and to Monica Lewinsky, would have responded by blaming society -- and leaving it at that? It's awfully curious that nowhere in their statement did they criticize the GOP House leadership for its handling of the matter. If the FRC had tacked on an "isn't society going to the dogs?" sentiment to a criticism of Team Hastert, fine. But to blame this entirely on society, and then on gay people asking for tolerance, while having nothing to say about the individual wickedness of Mark Foley or the actions of the men who had the responsibility of policing him, but didn't -- well, this strikes me as somewhat demagogic, as well as just plain crass and cynical, taking the case of this hypocritical Republican and spinning it to support the FRC's political agenda (an agenda I largely agree with, by the way).>
"scumbag gay Congressman"
Don't turn this into an anti-gay thing! Most gay men are gay men because they want to be with OTHER ADULT MEN. I NEVER seen a creep who goes after teen girls called a "scumbag straight pedophile." How casually insulting and rude!>
Dang, KK beat me to it!
Rod, you don't help matters (nor encourage 'dialogue') when you conflate gay people with "a scumbag [closeted] gay Congressman chasing a teenage boy"
"Is the fault of gay people asking for tolerance?"
Again, we aren't asking for tolerance; we are asking for EQUALITY. It's supposed to be guaranteed to ALL people in the Constitution - the one you have now, before GWB mangles it.
"Sometimes it's embarrassing to be a theocon."
"SOMETIMES"???
"Maybe it's time to question: does the Family Research Council call the RNC to ask what it's principles are?"
Maybe it's time to answer: NO. They call the RNC and dictate to them what its "principles" should be. And therein lies the rub.>
Washington D.C. is a snake pit with power-hungry people who feel entitled to take what they want. Straight or gay, they often want sex. So they hit on the young things and we're shocked -- SHOCKED!
I'm not saying Foley or Stubbs or anyone else shouldn't be smacked by their parties, their constituents, and public opinion, but come on -- this isn't pedophilia, and if, as someone said earlier, 16 is the age of consent, then is it even illegal?
I do agree that our culture is swamped with rampant exploitative sexuality and that it would be a lot healthier if we'd rein it in a little. But IMO it's not "gay liberation" that's the problem. It's commercializing sex in general and sexualizing children in advertising. Which is done by corporate America.
HB>
Mark Levin over at NRO makes a critical point as well: if this was such an open secret, why didn't anyone else in the House say anything about it? The posts above indicate that everybody in Washington knew about Foley's sexual appetites, but no one speaks up until (dare I say it) it's a politically opportune time? That doesn't excuse the reprehensible behavior by Foley, but it certainly damns those who would claim that this was widely known yet did absolutely nothing about it.>
Mr. Dreher's reference to the "scumbag gay Congressman" Mark Foley weren't helpful but given that he was responding to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins' despicable attempt to lump us with the pedophiles any neighbor with a child would have the urge to shoot, I doubt he (Mr. Dreher, that is) that meant us any harm.
One need only refer to the following sentence, which refers to our push for "tolerance" (or, as one commentator more accurately noted, "equality"). Mr. Dreher obviously had no intention of blaming gays for Mr. Foley's actions.
I am gay, and more often than not, one who would oppose Mr. Dreher on most gay rights issues. He would not find me in his church and I would not find him in mine.
But on this he deserves our support and appreciation. Even if he harbors some anti-gay prejudices, Mr. Dreher is trying to keep them in check and do the right thing.>
It's completely legitimate, it's very important, to lambast anyone who takes advantage of people they have some kind of power/position over, to take advantage of a teenager as an adult with such a position, is a terrible ethical breach, it is scumbag behavior.
It's also completely legitimate to sort out what the facts are, and what the exact nature of the scumbaggery is.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.