If you delele the religious aspects, that position is causing me some thought.
Me too. When predominantly black cities elect a black mayor, or predominately black districts elect a black Congressman, I have not read an editorial calling it "racism." I believe this is one reason why we call Congressmen "representatives" ... that they be representative of the constituency of the Districts they come from. Not only is there nothing wrong with this idea, but it is the very soul of a representative government. Indeed, it was the reason for the American Revolution, that our people not be ruled by governors sent here from the mother country.
This man Callahan obviously has a great knack for putting his foot in his mouth, as with the "Christmas tree" thing, which makes it sound like he objects to the current Rep purely on religious grounds. But then he mentions the latter's pro-choice stand. If these two men disagree on issues such as that, then their dispute is political, notwithstanding the fact that both men may have come to their political positions largely based on religious beliefs.
The point is that people in a District are not being "bigots" because they wish to be represented In Congress by persons who reflect and relate to their prevailing political positions, their problems, and their priorities.
It seems to me that is what America is all about.
For all I know, Mr. Callahan may well be a Jew-hater. Or he may not be. I couldn't tell from the article, although it did convince me that he better learn to think before he opens his mouth. |
