Tony Perkins had this great idea…
…that in the final hours of the race to represent Louisiana’s 2nd District his Family Research Council needed to air an ad denouncing Republican Anh “Joseph” Cao–one of the more interesting and thoughtful representatives of any party–for having a “dismal record” on “our issues.” And by “our issues” FRC means the gay ones. Apparently they didn’t know where Cao stood on these issues when they endorsed him in 2008. Jonathan Tilove of the Times-Picayune reports:
“Who is Rep. Joseph Cao representing in Washington?” the FRC ad asks. “Cao has repeatedly voted for extra protections for homosexuals at the cost of religious liberty. Cao voted to use the military to advance the radical social agendas of homosexual activists and he voted for a so-called hate crimes bill that places your personal liberties at jeopardy.”
Cao’s crimes? He voted to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and co-sponsored a 2009 hate crimes bill. How those actions risked religious freedom, the ad doesn’t say. Defending the votes, Cao told the Times-Picayune: “As a former Jesuit seminarian and practicing Catholic, it is ridiculous to say that I have ever taken a position against religious liberties. I am, however, a champion of human rights and justice for all.” He continued: “I believe it is a human rights violation to impose government-sanctioned penalties on a group of people just because of their sexual orientation, just as it would be a human rights violation to impose penalties on a group because of its religious affiliation or race. I will continue to fight for the protection of human rights for all people.”
Radical stuff.
Of course, Perkins opposes Democrat Cedric Richmond too. Given that recent polling has Cao and Richmond running neck-and-neck, it’s hard to say how FRC’s anti-Cao gambit will effect the race. For its part, the state GOP remains committed to Cao. This will be an interesting one to watch.
For Democrats, it’s going to be a tough day. But perhaps they can take solace in knowing they aren’t the only ones who, from time to time, eat their own. (H/T Frum.)
Bravo for Cao!
Perkins is entitled to his repulsive opinions, but it’s generally thought that the time to punish incumbents from the party with which one is allied is during primary season, by funding a primary opponnent more to one’s liking. Hard to say what Cao hopes to accomplish at this point in the election cycle except to help Cao’s opponent, which seems to be even less in Perkins’ interest(?)
Sorry, meant to say, “hard to say what *Perkins* hopes to accomplish at this point …”
How those actions risked religious freedom, the ad doesn’t say.
Actually, I (of all people) can explain what some fear. As an example — and I don’t remember this being discussed on dotCommonweal before — an instructor named Kenneth Howell at the University of Illinois who taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, lost his job when he wrote an e-mail to students to clarify some concepts. The e-mail said, in part, “Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”
A friend of one of the students in the class wrote to the religion department to complain. He said, in part, “Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”
A number of people, including students and the Alliance Defense Fund, went to bat for Howell, and he was reinstated.
So some people are fearful that if the “homosexual agenda” advances too far, Catholic teaching will be classified as “hate speech.”
Of course, it was an outrage that the University of Illinois fired someone for teaching Catholic thought who had been hired to teach Catholic thought. But people have been predicting that religious freedom is in jeopardy because of advances in gay rights, and this incident (among others) added fuel to the fire.
Ditto David Nickol: “hate speech” (i.e., thought crime) legislation will inevitably be used as a bludgeon to attempt to suppress the teachings of the Catholic Church against homosexual acts.
This post chastising FRC for tossing Cao under the bus is pretty ironic. You will recall that Cao was the only Republican member of the House to vote in favor of ObamaCare. And yet Barack Obama’s very first campaign ad for a specific race this election: a commercial in support of Cao’s opponent.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/04/obama-appears-in-campaign-ad-for-louisiana-house-candidate-cedri/
Where’s the irony?
Grant, you wrote “For Democrats, it’s going to be a tough day. But perhaps they can take solace in knowing they aren’t the only ones who, from time to time, eat their own.”
The irony is that Obama, too, “ate his own”, in the specific case of your post. Cao stuck his neck out voting for ObamaCare by personal intervention of Obama and then Obama – as his very first campaign ad – made a political ad intended to defeat Cao. I’m open to the possibility that is a more precise term than ironic for that, though…
Yes, when a Democratic president stumps for a Democratic candidate for the House in an election year when his party is scrambling for every seat it can grab, the irony is thick enough to choke on.
You never really know why people in New Orleans vote the way we do. I made up my mind months ago to vote for Cao even though only once in 59 years have I ever voted for another Republican. The reason I’m supporting him is because he has enormous integrity, qne 5he GOP desperately needs people with integrity, and the country does need a functioning two-party system.
This city has such a disparate voting population it often seems impossible to predict the outcome. For instance, though the black population is classified as “liberal” many black people are also Southern fundamentalists and are inclined to be conservative on non-racial, non-poor issues. And the Protestants here are not homogeneous. New Orleans has been tolerant of gays for generations, and that includes generations of mainline Protestants. On the other hand, a lot of fundamentalists have moved in since WWII and they can be extremely intolerant of gays. We also have many new immigrants, including Latinos and Vietnamese (who are beginning to prosper, and therefore will end up Republicans — like Cao, not doubt). And so the gumbo goes. The ordinary cohorts just don’t work here sometimes.
Say a prayer Cao wins. The Democratic candidate lied under oath to the Supreme Court of LA and generally seems the Bill Jefferson type — crooked.
By the way, Abp. Gregory Aymond of New Orleans made a clip for YouTube about how Catholics should vote. He says he will never tell us *who* to vote for, but says we must consider *all* of the Church’s teachings in making up our minds. He then talks about all the basic ones, e.g., respect for life, helping the poor, etc.
He *also* said that good people sometimes don’t run for office because they don’t want to be involved in the sleazy stuff (he didn’t use that word), but that Christians ought to run nevertheless. Good for Apb. Aymond! That’s a sermon I hadn’t heard before.
(Rocco posted it at Whispers, but now I can’t find the address there. It’s on YouTube.)
.
David: Yes, I grasp what some people fear about the effects of hate-crimes legislation and religious freedom. But Cao cast his vote for a hate-crimes bill, not a hate-speech bill. The law contains a provision exempting from prosecution speech that is protected by the First Amendment. So on this point I believe Perkins and his ilk are mistaken.
Ditto David Nickol: “hate speech” (i.e., thought crime) legislation will inevitably be used as a bludgeon to attempt to suppress the teachings of the Catholic Church against homosexual acts.
Felapton,
I hope I didn’t give the impression that I agree these are rational fears. I do not agree that hate speech legislation will be used to suppress the teachings of the Catholic Church. There was no law involved at the University of Illinois. It was an action of the university faculty. I have no doubt that if it had come to the point of a lawsuit, Howell would have won easily. There will always be people who make bad decisions based on perfectly defensible rules.
Grant,
I am not defending anybody. I am pointing out that people fear that even hate-crime laws that protect gay people are the first step to “acceptance.” And once there’s acceptance, it’s downhill from there. This is, in fact, the official position of the Church as articulated by the CDF when Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect. The Catholic Church opposes hate crime laws that protect gay people and also says that discrimination in the military on the basis of homosexuality is not unjust.
David: P. Flanagan dittoed you, not Felapton. I didn’t get the impression that you were defending anyone, let alone Perkins. Still, you referred to hate speech in your comment, and the legislation Cao supported is not a hate-speech law, but a hate-crime law, one that actually explicitly protects speech.
Tangential, but hope nobody missed my favorite example of Democrats eating their own from Joe Manchin, who shoots the cap and trade bill with a gun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM
Also clinging to the words of Harry Truman, who, when confronted with the mass of pundits who predicted his defeat to Dewey, said, “There isn’t any one of those fellas [referring to pundits] knows enough to pound sand down a rat hole.”
Grant,
Apologies to Felapton and P Flanagan for mixing them up.
My basic point is that there are some (including the CDF) who want absolutely no legal protection of any kind for gay people, be it hate crime laws, hate speech laws, anti-bullying laws, or whatever. They appear to be open to laws that include gay people, such as an anti-bullying law that says “nobody may be bullied.” But they are adamantly opposed to naming gay people in any way as being included in a protected class for fear that implies acceptance. I find that offensive, but it is what the CDF says . . . not to mention Nancy Danielson.
” There was no law involved at the University of Illinois. It was an action of the university faculty.”
Yes, but the existence of hate speech legislation is pernicious and encourages such actions as those of the university with the implicit threat of prosecution. The most effective censorship is preemptive SELF-censorship.
For the irony-impaired, there is a further level of irony in this post. Conservative Catholics are regularly pilloried (often rightly) for continuing to support GOP representatives even when they fail to enact pro-life measures, etc when elected. Yet here we see Conservative Catholics mocked for consistently retracting their previous support for Cao once they saw how his actions in office worked against their interests. Another case of heads heterodox Catholics win, tails orthodox Catholics lose.
“not a hate-speech law, but a hate-crime law, one that actually explicitly protects speech.”
How can we have a hate crime law under which the perpetrators cannot be prosecuted for what they have said while committing the crime? Without overt hate speech, how would a given crime be determined to be driven by hate? I’m thinking of a number of violent acts in which the perpetrators yelled racial epithets at their victim. Such epithets are protected speech? If so, how can the violence be prosecuted as a hate crime?
Or is there a presumption that any violent act against a homosexual is necessarily hate-based? Are certain acts such as burning a cross on the lawn of a black person, ipso facto hate crimes? Or are we reading the minds of criminals somehow?
I think many proponents of hate crime/speech legislation are failing to think through the possible consequences of such laws and perhaps could use a remedial reading of Orwell’s 1984.
Who are you calling heterodox, P.? As for the rest of your questions, I find them slightly paranoid. Presumably the term “thought police” features prominently in your imagination. Take comfort in knowing that you won’t be prosecuted for your bigoted thoughts unless they form the basis for a violent criminal act. I mean “you” collectively, of course.
Here’s another example of my paranoia being so strong that it actually explodes into reality. I gotta keep a lid on that!
Hi, P. We’re talking about a U.S. law. Welcome to America.
If anything, P Flanagan, that story makes an suggestion for pluralism. You apparently wouldn’t be upset if gay parents were forbidden the right to adopt by a religious regime, or would you?
What do you think of religious parents that want to beat there children with iron rods or what’s common here–religious parents who think it morally critical to teach their children that evolution is false, that the earth is young, or that prayer, not medicine, heals physical ills? Do these people get to adopt?
P Flanagan,
I am not necessarily saying that it is bigotry to believe homosexuality is immoral, and to plan on telling your children that should they turn out gay, but answer me this: If prospective parents have what you believe are bigoted views — say they are anti-Semitic — would you say they are not really bigots if they give religious reasons for their views? For example, if they are restaurant owners or shop owners who won’t serve Jews because “the Jews by reason of their fault are sentenced to perpetual servitude,” does that make them good religious folk instead of anti-Semites?
Flanagan, Joseph Cao did vote for the House version but voted against the final Senate-approved version of HCR, despite a (very cordial) visit with the prez in the White House. Seems like nothing personal, just politics.
I find it ironic, however, that the FRC is campaigning against this Catholic candidate when the bishops’ pro-life office worked so closely with the FRC to thwart HCR. That is a pretty partisan alliance to make, and no surprise the FRC would pick the GOP over the Catholic Church in this race.
@ Benjamin “Do these people get to adopt?”
Actually, under the current regime, even politically incorrect parents’ own natural children are subject to seizure by the State.
@ David Nickol “If prospective parents have what you believe are bigoted views…” You seem to be arguing from a presumption with which I disagree, namely that active homosexuals have no choice in their behavior, so I’m not sure what grounds we may have for debate here.
But a Jew cannot help being a Jew, just as a black in 1950 USA could not help being black…therefore, discrimination against them (on religious grounds or not) is/was wrong. But that does not apply to what we might infelicitously call “obstinate sinners”. Are we bigots if we oppose groups of people who choose to affirm and celebrate polygamy? Are we bigots if we oppose groups of people who choose to affirm and celebrate ______(fill in the blank with religious prohibition of behavior)?
@ David Gibson: “no surprise the FRC would pick the GOP over the Catholic Church in this race.”
Hmm. According to this post, the FRC did not “pick the GOP”, but denounced the GOP candidate (Cao) in this race. So, I’m unsure of your point, sorry.
P. ==
Let’s say you hate all bankers because in your little town the bankers have foreclosed all the mortgages of people who haven’t been able to keep up payments. So you see your friendly banker on the side-walk, go up to him and say, “I hate you John J. Throckmorton VII, because you are a greedy and vile man. You deserve to be drawn and quartered”. Then you walk away.
Let’s say your neighbor does exactly the same thing, but he also bashes Throckmorton repeatedly with a plank.
There is a difference between your hate speech and your neighbor’s hate crime, is there not? Would you say that you should be prosecuted for saying you hate him (which was true) and giving your highly negative opinion of him publicly? I think not. That is what free speech is all about. So long as you haven’t lied about him, what’s to prosecute?
@ Ann: Isn’t the concept (even the point itself) of hate crime laws that they would prosecute the bashing of Throckmorton with a plank more severely if he were bashed by someone who hates bankers than if he were bashed exactly as severely by someone who was simply robbing him?
Hate crime legislation seems to necessarily involve the creation of special citizens who have more legal protection than others, which is anathema to American values, regardless of the compassionate basis for the attempt to protect certain groups of people. I would not be surprised if there were lawsuits percolating against hate crime legislation right now based on the Equal Protection clause.
Really, should someone spend more time in prison because they bashed Throckmorton for his greed than for his money? Bashed is bashed, crime is crime, assault is assault. Prosecute the crime, defend all the people.
BTW, John J. Throckmorton VII, great name, almost as good as Thurston Howell III.
@ Ann: as to your point regarding hate speech vs hate crime, I appreciate the distinction you make, but when you ask “Would you say that you should be prosecuted for saying you hate him (which was true) and giving your highly negative opinion of him publicly? I think not”, my response would be, no I do not, but those who support hate speech legislation certainly do.
I’ll grant (pun intended) that my “paranoia” regarding oppressive hate speech laws is colored by cases outside the USA. Thank God for the 1st Amendment which is the thin line protecting us from the outrages we see even in the England case linked above. But, given the propensity for reading emanations of penumbras into the Constitution a la Roe v. Wade, is it unreasonable to be concerned that 1st Amendment protections are being undermined? One need only to follow the arguments regarding removal of conscience protection for medical workers to see that slippery slope in action.
And perhaps that is the real place where freedom of religion will be undermined through a hate speech environment. Any time a Catholic dares to step outside the Church, the expression of his freedom of religion will be deemed unacceptable in the public square. Is that why the administration stopped using the Constitutional term “freedom of religion” and began to substitute “freedom of worship” instead? The latter phrase delimits that freedom to the confines of the Church and implicitly restricts it from the public square. Words matter, as “pro-choice” advocates well know.
Flanagan, my bad — meant to say their ideology over RCC.
There is a difference, isn’t there, between calling it “hate crime” to attack a person because of his race and calling it “hate crime” to attack a person because of his religious convictions? In the first case, the victim is completely unable to change the quality he is being attacked for. In the second, the person can be expected to have voluntarily adopted his religious principles.
I’m with P. on the second case. Nobody should be attacked for any reason. Attacking me because you think infant baptism is an outrage is really no different from attacking me because you think I have money in my pocket. In each case, I am free to avoid attack by relinquishing my backpack or my principles. Both should be prosecuted under the principle “Nobody should be attacked for any reason.”
But the first case (attack motivated by racial prejudice) is a little different. The justification people give for “hate crime” laws is that in attacking a person for his race, the criminal also communicates a threat to everybody else of that race. I think this makes some sense.
(I think the example of Antisemitic attacks is gratuitously confusing, because of the whole question of whether Judaism is a religion or an ethnicity or both or something else.)
P. ==
Like you I’m concerned with that phrase “right to worship”. It does limit freedom of religion to the private sphere. It’s included in the freedom of religion, but not co-extensive. I fear the neo-atheists and others are on to some slithy language usage when they indulge in it, and that includes the President if that is what he intends by it.
“my favorite example of Democrats eating their own from Joe Manchin, who shoots the cap and trade bill with a gun”
Manchin also campaigned explicitly against ObamaCare…and now he’s won a seat in the Senate. When people say this landslide was all about the economy, they overlook inconvenient truths such as Manchin’s win based on a campaign in strident opposition to Obama’s policies.
P Flanagan, I don’t think there’s any doubt that Manchin is a Dixiecrat, er, Blue Dog Democrat, who distanced himself from the legislative record of his fellow Democrats.
My sense from network reportage is that the GOP may be more deeply divided than the Democratic party, i.e., Tea Party vs. Country Club Republicans. But not sure that that’s true. I think it’s interesting that the Christian conservative wing of the GOP seemed less divisive than the Tea Party.
Anybody have thoughts on that?