Christian Right responds to Foley predator scandal - Page 3

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

none of you might not like to hear... what?

Holy crap that was worded terribly!

You guys probably won't like what these organizations will say when/if they bring it up.

I think that's better.

motivez · 10-02-2006, 04:45 PM

As long as there's condemnation of those involved, I don't see why I wouldn't like it.

If they're going to try to be apologists for what is blatently against everything they stand for.. and much more severe than most of the shit they spend their time as an organization on, then yeah, you're probably right.

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

As long as there's condemnation of those involved, I don't see why I wouldn't like it.

If they're going to try to be apologists for what is blatently against everything they stand for.. and much more severe than most of the shit they spend their time as an organization on, then yeah, you're probably right.

No, they will say it was wrong. But they might also say it's because he's a homosexual and show that as proof as to why homosexuality is wrong.

Thorgrim · 10-02-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

No, they will say it was wrong. But they might also say it's because he's a homosexual and show that as proof as to why homosexuality is wrong.

yeah then all we have to do is talk about christian american businessmen going to other countries or american cities to have sex with 14 year old girls and /discussion

they might say that, but it won't "anger" any of us

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

yeah then all we have to do is talk about christian american businessmen going to other countries or american cities to have sex with 14 year old girls and /discussion

they might say that, but it won't "anger" any of us

Say that again, I don't get what your point is.

Thorgrim · 10-02-2006, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Say that again, I don't get what your point is.

they might say that, but it won't "anger" any of us, because we know its not true

Stylerod · 10-02-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

they might say that, but it won't "anger" any of us, because we know its not true

Ah.

Well, to some it shows it is true. They can use the Catholic priests as an example.

ballz2wallz · 10-02-2006, 05:36 PM

Those sites don't seem to have been updated recently. Give them some fuckin time.

ballz2wallz · 10-03-2006, 09:39 AM

Family Research Council: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 "PG05L03"

Foley Fallout

Some media reactions:

From Brendan Miniter of the OpinionJornal

"The problem isn't just that there are a few rotten apples in the Republican Party--every bushel has its share. It's that Republicans seem comfortable with leaving the bad apples in place, even at the risk of tainting all the others. That Mr. Foley is a Republican isn't itself the issue. It's that Republicans were unwilling to take a closer look at something that long ago demanded a much more detailed inspection. If the GOP had uncovered Mr. Foley last year or even this past spring, the party wouldn't now be facing a full blown sex scandal in October. Heading into this election year, Democrats knew they had a chance to retake the House, if everything broke their way. What no one predicted is that they'd be handed so many breaks by Republicans."

Wall Street Journal editorial:

"But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?"

And columnist Cal Thomas hits it on the head:

"Right? Normal? Detestable? People who mock such notions ask, "According to whom?" Public schools, popular culture and editorialists at major newspapers have hammered into us this aversion to trans-generational morality. They proclaim that one person's concept and definition of "right" is as valid as another person's and to assert that there is only one right, one normal and one course is to be "judgmental" or "bigoted," attitudes modernity considers a worse "sin" than the behavior that used to be called sinful . . .

Behavior once thought shameful is now paraded openly and promoted proudly to sell books. Former New Jersey Democratic Governor James McGreevey tours the talk show circuit. His presence dares anyone to question the legitimacy of his dumping two wives and having sex with men. He apologizes for his extramarital sexual relations and for putting people on the state payroll that didn't belong there, but he has no intention of changing his behavior."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/34349.aspx

FBI Examines Congressman's E-Mails to Teens
By Melissa Charbonneau
CBN News

CBNNews.com - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Since 52-year-old Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned from Congress Friday, he's checked into a alcoholic rehab center and now faces multiple federal investigations.

The FBI is investigating whether Foley committed any crimes by sending sexually explicit e-mails to underage boys working as congressional pages - a possible violation of the very law he sponsored as a member of the House.

"I'm Mark Foley from Florida's 16th District," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in April 2003. "I'm co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, and I hope today's bill is a pedophile's worst nightmare and a parent's best hope."

House Democrats accuse Republicans of ignoring Foley's e-mail overtures for years to keep hold of the Republican seat in the House.

"I cannot believe they allowed this to happen and just told him to OK, stay away from this kid. I don't know what they saw, but its really makes me nervous they looked like they tried to cover it up," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

But GOP House leaders describe the early e-mails as "over-friendly, and not sexual in nature."

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has requested a full Justice Department investigation. and a House Ethics Committee investigation is in the works.

"He deceived good men and women in organizations around the country with whom he worked to pass the Child Predator Law," Hastert said. "I've known him for all the years he worked in the house, and he deceived me too."

Today, Hastert told reporters that he is disgusted with the Capitol Hill sex scandal involving the former congressman.

"The best thing to do on every count is get the facts out there as quickly as possible and let chips fall as they may." Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said.

At stake, Foley's Florida House seat - one that the latest sex scandal could help Democrat Tim Mahoney rip from Republican control.

"Its now clear from all of the reports that have been coming in from across the country that the republican team has been well aware of this problem with the pages for well over a year. And that's concerning to me as a father," Mahoney said.

With elections just five weeks away, Foley's heavily Republican Florida district is up for grabs. Republicans are trying to push past the scandal, saying that having a member in Congress that supports the President's agenda transcends the personal tragedy involved.

In case you don't know, CBN is Pat Robertson's site...I think you're looking in the wrong place.

Concerned Women for America - News of Congressman Mark Foley’s Homosexuality No Surprise (7:02) <A HREF="http://www.cwfa.org/play.asp?id=cw20061002a" target=_blank><IMG SRC="/images/content/audioicon-sm.gif" BORDER="0" HSPACE="5"></A>

Over the weekend, news broke about Rep. Mark Foley’s (R –Florida) predatory email exchanges with teenage Congressional pages. It took a full news cycle for mainstream news organizations to specify that those pages were teenage boys. While many are in shock, Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth, says that Congressman Foley’s sexual orientation was no secret in Washington, D.C. LaBarbera uncovered this news for CWA in 2003. (Concerned Women for America - Rep. Mark Foley Won’t Discuss His ‘Orientation,’ but Others Will) While questions remain about whom in Washington might have been guarding Rep. Foley’s secret, there is no question that the Log Cabin Republicans are now actively distancing themselves from him. Click here to listen.

The rest haven't been updated since last week, so you'll have to give them time to respond. But they'll do it, much to your chagrin.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-03-2006, 09:45 AM

Good post ballz

Thorgrim · 10-03-2006, 10:20 AM

Yeah because a national scandal should take four days+ to respond to...

You can bet if Stevens died and they got another religious fanatic on the court they'd be doing cartwheels and posting on the internet in under 24 hours

and who cares about media reactions...even bill orly was talking about it almost immediately, no one was looking at him

So you have 4+ days, one news article linked to a site thats linked to Pat Robertson (no opinion), and one 1-paragraph news analysis that tells you basically nothing

*golf clap*

lew · 10-03-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Yeah because a national scandal should take four days+ to respond to...

You can bet if Stevens died and they got another religious fanatic on the court they'd be doing cartwheels and posting on the internet in under 24 hours

and who cares about media reactions...even bill orly was talking about it almost immediately, no one was looking at him

So you have 4+ days, one news article linked to a site thats linked to Pat Robertson (no opinion), and one 1-paragraph news analysis that tells you basically nothing

*golf clap*

As usual, when facts get posted that you say won't happen, you then just disregard them.

ballz2wallz · 10-03-2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Yeah because a national scandal should take four days+ to respond to...

You can bet if Stevens died and they got another religious fanatic on the court they'd be doing cartwheels and posting on the internet in under 24 hours

and who cares about media reactions...even bill orly was talking about it almost immediately, no one was looking at him

So you have 4+ days, one news article linked to a site thats linked to Pat Robertson (no opinion), and one 1-paragraph news analysis that tells you basically nothing

*golf clap*

Hmmm, it takes time for the scandal to actually occur and be proven legit, then it's the weekend, and it takes time for articles to be written and posted. These people aren't the media, they are private organizations that work on their own time. Not to mention they are 100 yrs old. You think they work as fast as the media?

Dumpy Dooby · 10-03-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That has absolutely nothing to do with Foley himself having a relationship with Christian organizations. I won't deny Christians typically vote Republican. The Republican party stands for what they believe more than the Democratic party does. That's common sense. I'm not sure what you're looking for here

It depends on the Christian to which you are speaking. If we're going by Jesus's teachings, then the Democratic party would most certainly be more closely related to Christianity than the Republican party. Afterall, Jesus believed in socialism amongst men and dictatorship up in Heavenland.

'Give to the one who asks you, and do not reject the one who wants to borrow from you.'
--Matthew 5:41

'Give to everyone who asks you. And do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away.'
--Luke 6:30

'Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth. A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'
--Matthew 6:19, Luke 12:15

'Sell everything you have. And give to the poor.'
--Mark 6:21

That seems to be more in favor of welfare programs, giving to the poor, spreading the wealth, ... wait, wealth? What did Mr. Jesus say about that?

'For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'
--Luke 18:25

Sounds like Jesus wasn't too big on the rich keeping hoardin' their riches. Jesus was a Communist.

ballz2wallz · 10-03-2006, 10:46 AM

lew · 10-03-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

It depends on the Christian to which you are speaking. If we're going by Jesus's teachings, then the Democratic party would most certainly be more closely related to Christianity than the Republican party. Afterall, Jesus believed in socialism amongst men and dictatorship up in Heavenland.
'Give to the one who asks you, and do not reject the one who wants to borrow from you.'
--Matthew 5:41

'Give to everyone who asks you. And do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away.'
--Luke 6:30

'Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth. A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'
--Matthew 6:19, Luke 12:15

'Sell everything you have. And give to the poor.'
--Mark 6:21
That seems to be more in favor of welfare programs, giving to the poor, spreading the wealth, ... wait, wealth? What did Mr. Jesus say about that?
'For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'
--Luke 18:25
Sounds like Jesus wasn't too big on the rich keeping hoardin' their riches. Jesus was a Communist.

Jesus Is an Anarchist, by James Redford -- anti-state.com

I would highly recommend you read this dumpy. It examines several Scriptures in context. You being a fellow libertarian, I would appreciate you take the time to read that article.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-03-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Jesus Is an Anarchist, by James Redford -- anti-state.com

I would highly recommend you read this dumpy. It examines several Scriptures in context. You being a fellow libertarian, I would appreciate you take the time to read that article.

My post above was mostly sarcastic. I remember you linked to that article once before, but only skimmed through it back then. I'll actually read it all this time.

lew · 10-03-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

My post above was mostly sarcastic. I remember you linked to that article once before, but only skimmed through it back then. I'll actually read it all this time.