I think what bothers me the most about Mark Foley is not that he is perhaps a ‘closeted’ gay man, or that he is an elected representative who abused his power and access to take advantage of the innocent, or perhaps even the fact that his leadership covered his problem. My issue with Mark Foley is that he lacked the moral direction that he and his party have so often used to point this country in a direction that it did not need to go, clearly highlighting the absence of real moral judgment and values that we require of our leaders and that this group of leaders has so often ‘claimed’ to have. Take his lack of good moral judgment and couple it with blaming a drinking problem and you have the classic ‘I’m so weak, I couldn’t help myself…’ excuse and you really get my blood boiling.

Do you think God looks at someone with a drinking problem and says, ‘well, I forgive you for all that you did under the influence’, but refuses to forgive a soul who just made stone-cold errors in judgment? Well it does appear that the theocons within the GOP believe that God does react in that way. Remind you, these are the same people who believe that because a man loves another man our entire nation is on a course to hell. The difference is that Mark Foley did not talk ‘dirty’ to another man, he talked ‘dirty’ to underage boys, and he used his position to open that dialog. Gay or straight, conservative or liberal, Christian or Muslim, that is just wrong. There is no moral justification for his actions — period.

I think it is important to highlight the real advantages to being an American that many of us take for granted. Of these advantages, the right to publicly speak out about a particular subject is the most important. Whether it is a citizen standing in front of the Congressional Representative, or writing a letter to the editor of the local or national newspaper, or whether it is writing in the weblog fashion, it is a fantastic right that Americans have.

Compare this to the degree of freedoms that others throughout the world have. Muslims for example have no such rights, or at the least very limited rights, in this respect. Bashir Goth has written an excellent piece on The Washington Post blog community that deals with this very topic.

You are not allowed to be a person with vices and virtues, you cannot follow your own reasoning, and you cannot be unpopular or defend an unpopular idea. You cannot go out of the circle. To express yourself freely means to risk death. And death indeed if you change your faith. Invention itself is considered as an act of blasphemy.

Thank God the United States is free of this kind of treatment. But pray to God that our own extremisim is not leading us down this path. Goth continues:

On a personal level, I remember writing a poem in early 1980s, which was considered critical of Somalia’s dictatorial regime of Siyad Barre. Later when I wanted to visit my ailing father I had to travel by land from Djibouti, taking a longer route, rather than risking an arrest at the airport of Hargeisa.

In another unfortunate instance, a lyric I wrote on raising awareness about HIV/AIDS and encouraging safe sex has to remain under wraps because musicians were all afraid to set them to music. They considered its message un-Islamic.

Goth’s words should also serve as a reminder to us that creating a democracy in the Muslim world may not be that simple, and what’s more important, it may not be desired. Democracy is a sociopolitical system, whereas Islam is a socioreligious system. The two do not always belong together.

In a speech delivered on Friday to the gathering of Christian political operatives at the “Values Voter Summit”, Jerry Falwell said that he hoped Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. According to the L.A. Times, Falwell says that no other candidate could mobilize the GOP “base” (the neo-conservative religious base) like Clinton. Falwell went on to say that Clinton has a “war chest” of $300 million (a complete exageration, she has $47 million according to recent filings), and that Republicans should be prepared to give until it hurts.

“I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate,” Falwell said, according to the recording. “She has $300 million so far. But I hope she’s the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton.”

Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: “If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.”

At that moment in the recording, Falwell’s voice is drowned out by hoots of approval. But two in attendance, including a Falwell staff member, confirmed that Falwell said that even Lucifer, the fallen angel synonymous with Satan in Christian theology, would not mobilize his followers as much as the New York senator and former first lady would.

And there it is — the GOP strategy for 2008 and beyond. It is a very simple plan, one that has been in the works for decades — Christians vs. non-Christians (perceived or real). Drawing the connection between someone who has diligently served others to the devil.

And what does Falwell say about the 2006 mid-term elections and the challenges facing Republicans across the country?

Falwell predicted that this year’s midterm elections would go in the GOP’s favor, despite polls showing Democrats in position to make gains.

“I think we’re going to keep the House and the Senate,” he said. “I think the Lord will take care of that.”

I am so sick and tired of hearing someone say that the Lord will do this or that, or has done this or that to punish anyone not aligning themselves with the neo-conservative Kool-Aid brigade. Do people really believe this stuff? I mean, doesn’t the Lord have more important things to worry about than who wins a congressional election?

It would seem as though the very people who wish to hold onto the teachings of Leviticus 18:22 and Romans I as the basis for discrimination and abonimation of those that seek love in any form have a new target: women within the church. From CNN we have this:

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on August 9 with a letter
explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women
from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.
The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

It should be noted that the number one command in the Bible is that we should not eat pork. I would ask then, why are there not protests outside of every restaurant that serves bacon? Or have we evolved to a point where we recognize that eating pork will not condemn us to hell while all other sins in the Bible will? Or is this merely a case of selective condemnation?