FRC praised Marvin Olasky’s defense of Sen. Santorum.
Good politics, good theology, and good constitutional law go together here.
Good politics? Santorum made a highly divisive policy statement having nothing to do with Republican goals in 2004. Gays and small-government advocates from both major parties merely held him accountable for his remarks. Is it good politics for one of the nation’s highest-ranking Republicans to issue gratuitious, divisive, and poorly reasoned attacks on voters at the beginning of a campaign season?
Good theology? Olasky mashes together two theologies that could not possibly be more different:
- Christian fundamentalism, which is utterly lacking in respect for church history, tradition, and philosophy; and
- Orthodox Judaism, which appreciates few of the Christian right’s reinterpretations of the Bible, and places an almost supreme value on history, tradition, and philosophy.
Good constitutional law? Even the religious right believes the Supreme Court is about to reverse at least part of its flawed 1986 ruling which permitted unequal treatment to heterosexual and homosexual sodomy.
…The George W. Bush who was tough enough to stand up to supporters of Saddam should refuse to be pushed around by supporters of sodomy.
Given his own family’s problems with alcohol and financial misdealings, Bush does not share Santorum’s outspoken contempt for privacy, nor is Bush’s disapproval of homosexuality as extreme as Santorum’s.
It would appear that gays are not the ones pushing Bush around.
Addendum: Olasky sure has cojones. He calls Andrew Sullivan a “liberal writer.“