U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback wears his religion on his sleeve. He once washed the feet of a staffer at a farewell party, and he's been known to hang with the likes of Lou Engle, a homosexuality-fixated evangelical who rocks back and forth when he speaks, in the manner of a true kook.
Brownback would like to see America get tighter with Jesus. At the same, he is blocking the appointment of a diplomat he feels has not done enough to promote secularism.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brownback outlined his reasons for placing a "hold" on Frank Ricciardone's nomination as ambassador to Turkey. Brownback believes that Ricciardone was soft on human rights and too cozy with the Mubarak government while stationed in Cairo.
Brownback, in his letter, goes on to warn that the Turkish government "is moving away from its secularist roots."
Over the last few years, secular opposition parties have complained that they received less access to the U.S. Ambassador than the ruling party, and based on his record to date, I am concerned that this situation will not change under Ambassador Ricciardone.The funny thing about Brownback's concern about religiosity and Turkish politics is that he complains the U.S. has wandered too far away from God. When he put himself in a position to run for president in 2008, Brownback spoke of "cultural renewal." It was his way of telling social conservatives that he was their guy without scaring the bejeebers out of everyone else.
Showing 1-5 of 5
Agreed. I am a proponent of secularism in government. My basic point here is to call out the stereotypes levied against religious folk and Christians in particular by the "tolerant" left, on which this article depends heavily for its efficacy. It claims to report on the Turkish diplomat, but gives no real information on that subject; it's just an excuse to get some jabs in against social conservatives and their beliefs. Throwing in sarcastic quips about "getting tighter with Jesus" and "cultural renewal" is a way to rally the liberal base without making any real points, just as "terrorist threats" and "socialism" serve a similar function for conservative base. It only serves to reinforce fear of the "opponents" and gives no creedence to the complexity and rationality behind their stance.
You don't have to be a "bull-headed liberal" to promote secularism. Secularism is not the elimination of religion; it is just the act of taking the tools of the state away from religion.
So the gist is essentially a veiled attack on religious exclusivity, which, as I alluded to above, is something that we all harbor, regardless of whether we call our views "religious." Clearly Brownback does not identify God with any and every religion, so there is no hypocrisy or irony in his condemnation of a religious government that is utterly opposed to his own views.
Supporting Christianity does not commit one to supporting human-rights violations in God's name any more than supporting science commits one to supporting the construction of nuclear bombs.
I will not be voting for Brownback for a host of reasons, so hey, I'm on your side, but bitter anti-religious partisan rhetoric like this only serves to reinforce the alienation in this country.
(And despite the arrogant implications of my former comment, I speak very much from the experience of being a bull-headed liberal for most of my life and using concepts like "open-mindedness" and "religious tolerance" as rhetorical weapons with which to condemn anyone who believes in God.)
Seth MacFarlane says it better than I every could starting at 0:50: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Merely wanted to point out the irony (to me, anyway) that a politician who believes that a country that walks away from God walks away from its future (it's in his autobiography) is calling for more secularism in another part of the world.
Are you saying that you support the nomination of the diplomat in question? If so, you don't make that clear here. If not, then what exactly is the news contained in this article? The hypocrisy of a politician? And one that happens to be on the opposing side of what cool, urban kids are supposed to think?
It seeems to me that his claim about the ambassador may be a valid one, but that seems to be beside the point of your article.
I am not a supporter of Sam Brownback, but making unsubstantiated claims about who he hangs out with and how he "wants America to get tighter with Jesus" is ignorant and misleading. Is he a hypocrite? Sure, we ALL are. Does he think his view of religion and God is the right one? Yes, and we ALL do. Even if you're a secular, you think that your view is the right one.
I consider myself a liberal and I'm sick and tired of the poisoning of my position by the uncanny self-righteousness involved when liberals accuse anyone who disagrees with them of hypocrisy and... self-righteousness.
In the future, when writing an article like this, it would be great if you explained YOUR position on the issue in question and why you disagree with his rather than relying on and perpetuating the liberal stereotype of republicans to get a bunch of lemmings to nod giddily and agree with your position in virtue of the fact that you hit all the liberal talking points (denouncing Jesus, denouncing republicans, denouncing Kansas) DESPITE the total lack of substantial argument or information in your article.
I am not a fan of most republican policies myself, but bigotry and stereotypes are wrong regardless of which side they come from.
like
dislike
