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
From Article VI of you-know-what: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Doesn’t this make any question concerning religion off limits, even for a Senate confirmation hearing? Maybe potential appointees should sue the living daylights out of Booker and his ilk for such questions . . .
Booker should be censured by the Senate. He is in violation of his oath to the Constitution. Call your senators.
Did anyone ask then Justice-nominee Ginsburg if her Jewish beliefs would influence her opinions and votes in the Supreme Court?
Booker (if he was a Senator back then): Ms. Ginsburg. As a Jewish person, do you support the Old Testament punishment of stoning to death for adultery? As a Supreme Court justice, would you rule in favor of such a punishment? And if so, why wouldn’t that disqualify you from your nomination, given our Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment”? I demand an answer!
And yet, ironically, it is now that very chain of “liberal, communist coffee shops” that finds itself in the crosshairs of protestors chanting:
It’s drawing a very long bow to use that to disallow any question about someone’s attitudes towards homosexuality.
Asking about gay people is not a proxy for asking about Christian beliefs. There are plenty of Christians who don’t have an issue with The Gay.
Sure. But asking his opinion isn’t irrelevant or off topic either. Isn’t that the point of him meeting this committee?
Would it not, similarly, be appropriate to ask a potential Ambassador to Israel about his attitude towards Jews, and specially if he has a personal record of voting against Jewish civil rights in the legislature?
That any office-holding Republican feels compelled to publicly expound on the personal private activity of other people is not a problem with the Democrats who attack them for it but with the Republican who makes himself vulnerable by sticking his nose in other people’s business.
Ah, I get it. Freedom of speech for thee, but not for me.
You’re ignoring some relevant facts. In this specific case, Booker was specifically referring to something Pompeo said in a religious setting. Pompeo approvingly quoted a now-famous prayer, that refers to homosexuality as perversion. In other words, Pompeo was affirming a well-known tenet of Christianity, in a Christian church. He was not speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, about current events. He was talking to other American Christians, about Christian sexual ethics.
It would be nice if there were some way of interpreting this, so that it didn’t look like a major, American political party has a problem with Christians who believe in Christianity. After all, it would be right in line with what Democrats have already said in recent confirmation hearings. I’d ask you to explain why it isn’t, but you’ve already sympathized with the Democrat’s “concerns.”
He’s got the freedom to say it, but it’s a stupid thing to get mired down in, and a sure-fire political loser in the long-term. It rightfully perpetuates the image of Republicans as theocratic moral scolds who are intolerant of different lifestyles.
Unlike, I suppose, leftist moral scolds who are intolerant of different lifestyles, or even opinions.
I guess that makes it okay. :-)
Are you talking about Pompeo speaking in a church, about various issues, to include homosexuality? Or something else?
Many people have the curious idea that moral disapproval equals intolerance, so I feel I must ask for clarity.
I’m no expert on Islam, but from what I understand, it disapproves of both homosexuality and alcoholic beverages – both of which have been banned in American history. If Pompeo were a Muslim, and Booker took him to task for talking about those moral teachings, in a Mosque, I wonder what people would be saying about this.
It’s actually a refusal to argue. Which would have made sense, because the conservatives were not the ones arguing for a change to an ancient tradition, or centuries of American law. But for some reason, conservatives accepted the burden of proving that the law shouldn’t be changed. Instead, the Left should have been made to show that marriage laws needed to change. They never did. That would have meant an appeal to reason. They preferred to “argue” by assertion and name-calling.
Most people on a Ricochet would approve.
Certainly just about nobody would vehemently object.
If you refuse to argue often you lose the argument.
Did you notice a lack of argument on the side of social conservatives? It was not argument that won or lost the same-sex “marriage” issue. It was, as I said, assertion and name-calling.
You’re saying no one would object to a Muslim nominee being questioned about whether he talked about Islamic teachings against homosexuality or alcohol, in a mosque? I would. To be honest, I may not start a thread on it, as I’m not a Muslim, but I wouldn’t be OK with it.
There was plenty of argument on the part of social conservatives here on Ricochet, and plenty of name-calling as well. But in my case, I was persuaded to switch from being against (even aghast at) SSM, to being in favor, by the argument. And this was back in the 90’s, long before there was name-calling. Even bright blue California repeatedly voted to ban SSM, long after my conversion.
The lengthy SSM wars here on Ricochet only served to cement my conviction. I am not denying that the left always tries to be the thought police, which is appalling and horrifying. But I can be appalled and horrified by their tactics without being forced to reject a conclusion that I reached by reason, long before those tactics began.
“Arguments” in favor of SSM are really just assertion of a different view of marriage, usually accompanied by name-calling, or similar accusations of hatred, etc.
Some people have the even curiouser idea that moral disapproval equals theocracy.
Yes, many people have those curious ideas about Republicans and conservatives. That’s my point. Curious or not, these perceptions are a huge wall preventing other conservative ideas from reaching young secular voters.
We live in an age where one of the primary motivators of political action is disgust with a caricature of the opponent. What is the caricature of conservatives? Religious white men who hate gays and other minority groups. I’m not saying that Pompeo hates gays or that his moral disapproval equals intolerance, I’m saying that it’s easily portrayed and digested that way. And it’s a self-inflicted PR problem.
There’s a conflict within conservatism: the desire to affirm and maintain traditional ideas of community through family and religion, and the ideal of a small government that doesn’t interfere with personal private choices and activities. While you and I probably agree that these two impulses are not directly in conflict, it’s not apparent to those on the outside who see in religion an unhealthy obsession with other people’s private lives, and use that to reinforce their caricatures.
There’s a tone-deafness that plagues social conservatives, and I fear it will increasingly marginalize ideas that might otherwise appeal to a broader coalition.
OK, but let’s be specific about things that are actually mistakes on the Right’s part. Usually, the suggested antitode to the “PR problem” is for the GOP to simply lay down on the so-called social issues, as if they hold no importance. I hope you won’t blame me if I assume that’s your solution, unless you clarify.
As I’ve said before, PR is not entirely in the GOP’s hands. As we know, the Left has an institutional advantage there.
Yes, and I say it’s a forced error to let the people who slander you most effectively determine your expression of your position, or lack thereof. Get better at expressing your position, don’t be silent. Silence is either interpreted as agreement or submission. Frank Luntz has great advice on this.
Leftism is racist, bigoted, intolerant bullying (Zafar excepted). It needs standing up to.
Good arguments. I’m going to start a new post on this.
Update: Posted here.
Let me offer you this to ponder – it is the standard quote (from Archbishop Charles Chaput) that I give on tolerance:
I think we can agree on this. But not the left. They don’t want us to tolerate them, they want us to affirm them – it’s part of their holy trinity of equality, diversity, and affirmation.
(Sorry I’m late… ‘been busy.)
Corey Booker was not attempting any kind of real discourse. He simply reached into his ammo box, grabbed something, and used it to attack Pompeo. None of Corey’s words matter, or even make sense, and should not be taken seriously.
But here’s the zinger… Corey himself is no position to bring this topic up. A simple Wikipedia check finds…
It would have been a blast if Pompeo was pre-coached for this and whipped it around. Something like, “Senator Booker, this is nether the time nor place for dealing with your personal internal issues with homosexuality that you’ve written about.”