Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Another Democrat Senator Questions Trump Nominee’s Religious Views
In confirmation hearings for Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo, Senator Corey Booker chided the Presbyterian Sunday School teacher for holding to the same view of same-sex marriage that most Americans held just a few years ago. Pompeo, you will be shocked to learn, is against it.
The senator went on to justify his marriage questions by alluding to the persecution of homosexuals in other countries. Here is a part of their exchange, according to The Federalist:
Pompeo: “My respect for every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, is the same.”
Booker: “You’re going to be secretary of state of the United States at a time that we have an increase of hate speech and hate actions against Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Indian Americans. Hate acts are on the increase against these Americans. You’re going to be representing this country and values abroad in places where gay individuals are under untold persecution, face untold violence. Your views do matter. You’re going to be dealing with Muslim states on Muslim issues. I do not necessarily concur that you are putting forth the values of our nation when you believe there are people in our country that are perverse, and where you think that you create different categories of Americans and their obligations when it comes to condemning of violence.”
Elsewhere in his questions, Booker grilled the nominee on his view of Muslims, and on freedom of the press. Apparently unaware that monotheistic religions, by definition, deny one another’s deities; he complained about Pompeo’s comments on those who worship “other gods.”
Absent from Booker’s questioning was any mention of Christians being persecuted, in the most extreme forms, in any of the nations (many of them majority-Muslim nations) about which Booker is so concerned.
It might be understandable that Booker’s not worried about a Christian Secretary of State paying due heed to the persecution of Christians in other nations. It is, however, unfortunate that Booker sees no irony in his expressing concern about the persecution of homosexuals, and Muslims, and even journalists, while suggesting that Christians need not apply to cabinet positions.
This doesn’t surprise anyone who’s been paying attention. Trump appointees Amy Barrett and Russell Vought were similarly questioned about their dangerously unfashionable adherence to traditional Christian beliefs. Beliefs that were par for the course just a few years ago, and are still the norm for millions of Americans.
Let’s be clear that being asked some absurd questions at a confirmation hearing is not the same as being imprisoned or martyred for one’s faith. And, yes, the two previous nominees were confirmed. But what direction are we heading in, when Democratic Senators feel at liberty to so publicly declare widely-held religious views unacceptable? Is this the “Christian privilege” that we’ve been hearing about recently?
Published in Politics
That is fair.
I don’t think his thing about gays is particularly relevant to the role of SoS (except wrt HR), and it’s a matter of how he can be expected to behave (fill his role) rather what he believes (slightly different focus), but wrt Muslims, let me quote one of MFJ’s again:
Why this focus on Muslims?
Pompeo’s record is, at best, mixed.
To be fair:
However:
Not to mention
Is this clear headed? Is it focused on domestic politics? And if so, at what cost?
What anti-Christian comments did Booker make? Specifically.
Did he even mention Christians or Christianity?
Zafar – many of the arguments you have cited were also made against Trump. Perhaps it’s because of their fear of Iran, but the Sunni world accepted Trump in his trip a year ago. Wrt the Muslim Brotherhood, they are a terrorist group:
https://clarionproject.org/muslim_brotherhood_explanatory_memorandum/
The issue is whether these conspiracy theories are given credence or encouragement (and of course whether they’re conspiracy theories or the truth). What Gaffney and Gabriel personally believe about Islam or anything else is tangential – iow, I believe it’s off topic. What they claim about American citizens, however, is relevant.
For example:
Which is just nutty.
Also consider:
Which again seems…crazy?
America’s best relationships with “Sunni Governments” are with those that need it: eg Saudi Arabia (esp post the MSB ascendency) and Sisi’s Egypt. Honestly, Trump just needed to show up.
America’s relationships with “Sunni Governments” that don’t need it so desperately (eg Turkey) are more challenging, and those are the ones that need to be worked on and improved.
I read (I think the whole?) memorandum courtesy Frank Gaffney, and it seems more a secret society with grandiose ambitions and some unfortunate phrasing than a terrorist group. The CIA seems to look at it that way anyway. You get that they expect people to convert to Islam once they see the shining examples of moral probity etc. that the MB wants Muslims in America to be, right?
Love this point:
Though I should be used to it by now, it still astonishes me how some people can be completely oblivious to their hypocrisy regarding their own stated beliefs in tolerance and multiculturalism. All diverse cultures are welcome in New York, except of course for “creepy” Bible-belt Christians! Ick! Send them back where they came from!!!
Note that the Obama administration removed references to Islam from terrorism manuals. https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-administration-pulls-references-islam-terror-training-materials-044605689.html They reacted to pressure from Muslim groups.
The Obama administration characterized the Ft Hood shooting as workplace violence. Shouldn’t something have been done about Maj Hassan prior to the shooting. The San Bernardino shooting included the immigration of the female shooter under questionable circumstances. It seems to me that the previous administration was living in a fool’s paradise. They were allowing and encouraging the immigration of people who were hostile to the US constitution.
What percentage of Muslims in the West believe that Muslim apostates should be killed? Do they agree that Islam should be immune from criticism (see the Charlie Hebdo murders in France). Note that when Yale Press published a book about the Muhammad cartoons, they refused to include cartoons since they felt it was too dangerous. Far too many Muslims do not believe in freedom of religion which includes the right to leave Islam. I heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak in NYC in 2014. A friend of hers had his throat slit in the Netherlands by a Muslim. You may respond that these are extremists. But they are passively or actively supported by many more. The wife of a leftist friend was an adjunct prof at DePaul in Chicago on 9-11. A few days later, a Muslim student came to her upset that half of her Muslim friends were exchanging candy to celebrate the 9-11 attacks. This illustrate some both that not all Muslim are hostile to the West but many are and pretending that this is not the case will not change the facts.
More later
That’s a great question – don’t know the answer.
Unfortunately the respectable survey (Pew) that asks that doesn’t include American Muslims (or Indian Muslims, which is irritating):
Anyway: a wealth of surveys.
Muslims in Europe.
Muslims on Sharia.
Muslims in the US is particularly interesting, because it includes a comparison between the US General and US Muslim population’s opinions, often like this:
Or like this:
Which is all data – which means it can be rationally questioned (so can the methodology), but at least it’s not just assertions, right?
We see this argument all the time. “You can’t call those people terrorists! They’ll get mad and blow something up!”
What, now you don’t trust the CIA?
I have never trusted the CIA. Intelligence agencies are a necessary evil, but they are not transparent and not deserving of anyone’s “trust.” Also, the CIA is not supposed to opine on political questions, which this is. The job of the CIA is to provide facts to the President and the Congress, and then shut up.
Well they’re also supposed to provide an assessment of risks, right? Which, in this case, they did in an internal (?) report.
But I guess they could be lying for some political reason. It’s certainly possible, though I don’t see what they’d gain from it.
He mentioned a Christian named Mike Pompeo, and asked him about his (Christian) religious beliefs. I gave some more detail about this in comment #10, on the first page.
Booker asked Pompeo to defend a comment he made (quoted, really) in a Christian church (about “perversion”). That passage is quoted in the Federalist article I mentioned, and the speech I believe Booker is referring to is linked in reply #10.
That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss Pompeo’s relationship to Muslims. Of course, if I were Booker, I wouldn’t have mentioned the SPLC as being a source for information on hate groups. They have, themselves, been guilty of inspiring hatred.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/southern-poverty-law-center-website-triggered-frc-shooting/article/2520748
I don’t know how persuasive that would have been.
Sorry, I missed it.
This one?
I quite liked it, especially this bit which wasn’t quoted : – )
I guess it is a serious question: can religious people serve a secular state and implement its policies without bias or reservation?
Some surely can, but others may have difficulty – it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask an individual (rather than assume about a whole group).
Risk assessment? What you quoted was not a risk assessment. It was self-contradictory gobbledygook. Of course the CIA is not lying about the risk of terrorist attacks by members of the MB. That is an obvious risk, that does not require the most expensive intelligence apparatus in the world to identify. The MB has many members who are terrorists. We know that. What is ridiculous is to say that because we know they are terrorists, we shouldn’t call them terrorists, because they will then retaliate with terrorist acts. That is a political opinion about diplomatic rhetoric, and a damn stupid one at that. If the Obama Administration has taught us anything it is that pretending that we don’t notice Islamist terrorists does not stop them from attacking us.
Article VI, Section 3: …; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
And, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams
The ideal is a “secular state and a religious people” [he means Christian, although he is a Jew] — Dennis Prager.
This is the secret to America’s success in self-government.
Because all, even most, of them aren’t.
I don’t think that’s exactly what the CIA said. Can you see the difference? Or are all attacks against US interests terrorism, by definition?
It’s an assessment of the risk of having a big mouth.
Things are far from perfect now, but they could get a lot worse – which would be unfortunate, and doubly so if it was avoidable, or that people in positions of power contributed to it by tending to their vote share rather than their duty. Also, as they could get worse perhaps a little humility about why they haven’t yet, no matter how irksome the conclusions?
They’ve done nothing else during my lifetime.
Oh really? So in order to recognize a terrorist organization we must prove some minimum percentage of their members have actually committed terrorist acts? You suggest either 100% or 50%+1. Is there any organization in the world that meets your criteria? Hammas? No. Hezbollah? No. Even ISIS or al ‘Queda or al Shabaab? No. So there is no such thing as a terrorist organization. Oh good! You’ve solved that problem.
I understand the phrase “attacks against US interests” to mean terrorist attacks. But that’s part of the problem with using gobbledygook euphemisms rather than speaking clearly and truthfully. So please tell us, what “attacks” do you think the CIA was talking about?
You call it having a big mouth. I call it speaking the truth. As I said, that is a choice of diplomatic rhetoric. It is not the job of the CIA to tell our leaders to be quiet, lest they be seen as having a “big mouth.” That’s the job of the State Department, but the State Department is a rant for another day.
It is not a serious question. First, because Booker wouldn’t ask a non-Christian religious person to apologize for having traditional, non-violent religious views that happen to conflict with the secular orthodoxy of the moment. Secondly, because religious people have been serving in government since the beginning. People who believe that homosexuality is a perversion are working, and voting, and paying taxes, and holding political office all over the country, as we have for hundreds of years. We are not new here.
One thing that is new is that we no longer have an interest in persecuting people for their sex lives. Or, at least, I don’t predict I’d get much Christian support in the U.S., for repealing Lawrence v Texas. And look at the thanks we get from the likes of Booker. Booker’s ilk have forgotten this is our country, as much as it is anyone else’s. It is hardly “serious” to suggest that people like us are somehow less capable of serving than non-Christians. Or the religious less capable than the non-religious. Religion is not a contagion from which the people, or the government must be shielded. That is not what religious freedom means. Rather the opposite, in fact.
Larry3435 (View Comment):
But it is their job to report on possible results. Ie risks. Of having a big mouth and/or speaking the truth. Why should there never be negative consequences to doing what feels right? In the real world there often are.
Attacks against US interests can be military, economic or even diplomatic. Imho they can also take the form of refusing to cooperate, or even just being deliberately obstructive.
What’s the point, if you don’t mind my asking, of insisting on classifying the MB as a terrorist group even though it arguably isn’t? What benefits does it gain you and what is their price?
Trump had, dare I say it, endearing qualities to many people. Yes, he’s brash, boastful, really earthy with his language. I believe he appealed to a lot of people because they saw a little bit of themselves in some aspect of Trump.
Booker on the other hand, is obnoxious, and is a career politician with a highly questionable track record in elected office. As much as it pains me to say it, many white people saw just how racially polarizing the first black President was. White voters would have every cause to believe Booker would be much worse . . .
Sounds like it might be a new thing for “Don’t ask don’t tell” Pompeo. Just going by his record.
If the Democrats insist on running an electable black for President it should be Colin Powell. However, Powell is over 80, and the Dems are going for younger, more hip candidates in an attempt to snooker young voters.
What’s the point of classifying any organization as a terrorist organization? Why do we do it at all? Why do we identify certain countries as “state sponsors of terrorism”?
As I understand it, the reason is that we are in a war, and in any war you need to identify your enemies. And to do it accurately. We didn’t refuse to call Hitler’s Reich “Nazis,” because we worried that it might hurt the feelings of the German people. (Not “all, or even most” of the German people were Nazis, by the way.) We didn’t refuse to call the Soviet Union “communists.” Where did this idea come from that we dare not call evil people evil, because then they might do more evil? Has any country ever adopted that mode of diplomacy before? Ever?
Yup.
Simply not liking a group’s ideology and politics does not automatically make that group terrorist. No matter how rhetorically convenient.
Even being profoundly opposed to that ideology doesn’t make it so. We need to be grown up about it. Imho.
Are you just being snarky, now? Yes, 15 years ago, there were criminal penalties for homosexuality. Not so much anymore. So it’s relatively new. That doesn’t mean Mike Pompeo, or any other government official, must now believe that homosexuality is morally proper. Isn’t that a positive development, that we could let people live their lives, despite disagreeing with what they do? Sounds like secular government, to me.
Not good enough, Sock. You have to positively affirm it.
To whom? I don’t usually get a CIA report.