Oh, I follow this thread just fine, Mikey, it's quite entertaining. I'm particularly entertained by the idea that unctuous sanctimony is going to rally the troops behind W. It seems to me that all the unctuous sanctimony is what's driving people away from him, he'd probably be ok if he wasn't being run around in circles by holier-than-thou Neocon types.
George Walker Bush was visiting his parents in the White House one day when the talk turned to religion, which is precisely the subject that some powerful factions in the Republican Party want their Presdential standard bearer to talk about, forcefully, in 2000. But Bush, sitting one day recently on a sofa in the Governor's office at the Texas State Capitol, says he is cautious about wearing my religion on my sleeve in the political process." And he offers this particular story to explain why.
"Mother and I were arguing not arguing, having a discussion - and discussing who goes to Heaven," recalls the Governor, who at the time had religion very much on his mind. Having dealt with a gathering drinking problem by abruptly swearing off alcohol, he had vowed a renewed commitment to his family and his faith. Bush pointed to the Bible: only Christians had a place in heaven. "I said, Mom, look, all I can tell you is what the New Testament says. And she said, well, surely, God will accept others. And I said, Mom, here's what the New Testament says. And she said, O.K., and she picks up the phone and calls Billy Graham. She says to the White House operator, Get me Billy Graham.
"I said, Mother, what are you doing?" Bush continues, chuckling at the memory, "Seriously, And about two minutes later, the phone rings, and it's Billy Graham, and Mother and I are on the phone with Billy. And Mother explains the circumstances, and Billy says, From a personal perspective, I agree with what George is saying, the New Testament has been my guide. But I want to caution you both. Don't play God. Who are you two to be God?"
For George W Bush, a man who, in large part because of his famous name, shows up in most polls these days as the very early front-runner for a Republican Presidential nomination battle that is still more than a year away, it is an interesting story to choose to relate. Bush says it explains in part why he urged an end to "name calling" this summer when a fracas broke out over his party's decision to bar a gay Republican group from setting up a booth at the G.O.P state convention.
"There are some great admonitions in the Bible, talking about, you know; don't try to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye when you've got a log in your own," Bush says. "I'm mindful of that."
Compare and contrast:
Well, there is indeed a cultural norms argument, although it need not involve AIDS. Even if homosexuality is socially harmless (and we can only regard it so assuming that it does not become widespread, since it would otherwise be highly disruptive of family life), we are constrained to view it as aberrant (a wholly homosexual society would not survive). We accept it on the grounds that it is not society's business, and on the grounds that some number of people probably cannot help it, regardless of the genetic argument, because it is so deeply ingrained in their makeup. However, we do not want to say that it is "just the same" as heterosexuality, for two reason: one, we do not want to encourage more people to become confused in their sexual identity, as it is likely that there are some number of persons with bisexual impulses who might settle into heterosexuality if there is social encouragement; and two, there are a number of other behaviors that are clearly undesirable, including pedophilia, incest, and wanton promiscuity, for which the " I can't help it" argument could be advanced, and against which it would become more difficult to maintain cultural norms if homosexuality were fully embraced....... |
