Comments for: “The Ties That Bind: Louisiana Gov. Jindal And The Religious Right”

This will be an interesting situation to watch. If Jindal does poorly as governor, his Roman Catholicism will surely be targeted. If he does well, it will be ignored. Or maybe he’ll just cave in to the pressure to change sects.

“Pro-family environment” = Demonize gays, put cameras in everyone’s bedroom, make abortion illegal and teach abstinence only and ID in the schools.
Then they can go on to create a full blown theocracy from that point.
Louisiana is ripe for this hideous agenda.

What I found ironic is the idea of Republicans creating an ethical environment.

Look at the list of most looked up at conservapdeia; it’s all sexual and mostly homosexual. Consider the administration of a man who claimed he was born again, and had a regent University grad claim the fifth. Then look at the number of traditional family value Republicans that have been sunk by scandals in the last seven years.

Louisianna will find itself in a very messed up condition after republicans rape the state treasury, and ignore the poor and needy, like they have done nationally.

They have no clue about the christian concepts of taking care of the truly poor (poor=rich in conservospeak)and no clue about the truly secular nation that our Constitution, rather, out forefathers, established, and to which Mike Huckabee implicitly admitted by stating it would be easier to amend the Constitution to conform to God’s word.

Eventually Americans will see them as the failures they are, and that will dent their political future for decades to come.

“Jindal’s “top priority” would be to revamp ethics laws to make Louisiana more attractive to businesses “that have shied away from my home state because of its history of political corruption.”
…
Advocates of church-state separation need to watch this situation closely.”

…because we certainly wouldn’t want a guy to bring business to his state and reduce corruption. A politician who wants to help his state? Sounds fishy. Better deep a close eye on that one.

You’re correct, Rob. The “traditional family values” Repuglicans include so many closet cases like Senator Closet Queen Craig and “the reverend” Ted Haggard that it’s pathetic.

These hypocrites build their careers and personal fortunes and empires on demonizing gays at the same time they’re out trying to find anonymous sex with other guys at rest stops and in restrooms.

Speaking of Sen. Craig - the ACLU apparently believes that Craig was entitled to some privacy in his little (public) restroom escapade. Generally, I support the ACLU, but not for this one.

I find it amusing that the RR, and people like Craig, make it a regular habit to denigrate the ACLU…until ACLU steps in for them.

But, in this case, what Constitutional right did Craig have to have sex in a public bathroom stall? And what about the police officer’s right to privacy?

Rob says:
…Look at the list of most looked up at conservapdeia; it’s all sexual and mostly homosexual.

Rob, that is because the RRR has major hangups with sex, and gay sex causes them to have anurisms.
Larry Craig, and his bathroom habits are really none of my business, BUT I really don’t think that there should be sex of any kind in public restrooms. A metal stall does not change the picture. One’s sexual identity does not change the picture. I am angered by the ACLU’s defense of this. It is with all sincerity that I ask - can someone help me see the Constitutional angle on this. Is there a constitutional right to privacy when engaging in sex in a public place? I do intend to contact my local ACLU and ask them personally what the hell they are defending here, but I’d love some other views on it.

Actually, Alb, I *would* argue that sex in a restroom stall — creepy a setting and context as it is — *is* a private affair.

If it weren’t, users would be guilty of public urination or public defecation. And I’m quite sure that men’s room stalls get used for a, um, third purpose — even if no other man is involved.

There *is* an expectation of privacy. That’s why stalls have doors.

P.S. I know this is the wrong thread, but I’m repeating it here in case everyone has stopped checking the correct thread:

__________

Here’s a chance to politely correct a reporter on “values voters”:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p…..lina_N.htm

There is an “accuracy” link at the bottom of the article that solicits for reported inaccuracies.

I did my part.

Sorry about the link…

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....lina_N.htm

I agree with you, Albatross. I don’t agree with the ACLU on this issue either.

Years ago, for financial reasons, I had to decide which organizations to continue supporting, and which to cease supporting. I no longer contribute to ACLU.

Sorry, ACLU, but I had to make a decision. Maybe Senator Closet Queen Craig will send you a donation in my stead.

Just for the record, it is not Senator Closet Queen Craig’s restroom solicitations that disturb me. It is his lying, and his total hypocrisy.

He has lived a lie all his adult life, and all along, he has demonized gay people while he himself is as gay as I am.

As I have said before, AU is the best spent freedom dollar by far.

David, I agree that there is a certain expectation of privacy in restrooms, but that the privacy is for the restrooms intended purpose. Sex is not part of that purpose. Imagine a mother who has to send her 12 year-old son into the men’s room because he can’t go in the ladies room and he encounters his senator engaged in homosexual–or even heterosexual or solo sex–in the men’s room. I’d be calling for the men engaged in improper restroom usage to be castrated, but I’ll settle for successfully prosecuted.

I agree, Titania. On the prosecuted part.