For Ramadan, Tolerance is a One Way Street

By Lloyd the Idiot

Remember a year ago when the debate was raging over then-candidate David Ramadan’s religious persuasion?  Remember how the nuts of the Anti-Sharia Task Force screamed that he couldn’t possibly represent “true” Americans because he was a Muslim and the Muslim faith was fundamentally at odds with an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of Virginia and the United States?  Remember how ridiculous all that was?

Ramadan sure doesn’t.

In voting against the confirmation of an openly homosexual nominee for a district court judgeship on the basis of his sexual preference, or even his perceived inability to apply Virginia laws on same sex marriages because of his sexual preference, Ramadan is every bit as guilty of the bigotry and prejudice of which he himself was the victim only one year ago.

Of all the “no” votes on the nominee, Ramadan’s stands out as the most  hypocritical and disgusting of them all.

 

HT: Novascout for the thought provoking post and Loudoun Progress for the photo


Comments

  • Thanks, Jack. Your post helps prove my point about the real reason behind the vote – it had nothing to do with “integrity.”

  • Jack says:

    Yes, it does — the candidate is integrally immoral.

  • Funny,

    I was just discussing the general behavior of projection with a close family member and we agree that it represents the internal state of the subject who projects, not the object of the projection.

  • “Integrally immoral”

    Truly, your command of the language and rhetorical abilities are astounding.

  • BlackOut says:

    Fascinating. Just for kicks I did a bracketed google search of “integrally immoral”. Jack has the distinction of being the 9th person to use that obscure pairing of words amongst the vast content of the internet.

    He may be ground breaking on the use of the English language but his views on homosexuality are stuck in the last century.

  • liberal anthropologist says:

    Jack,

    All people… All. Are inherently immoral. Ronald Reagan was immoral. You are immoral. As I said on your post at NVTH, can we get rid of all the immoral people?

    Every time you bring morality to bear as the reason for doing things in government , you open a can of worms. Study the constitution.

    Oh yeah. I forgot. You don’t think of yourself as a conservative. The bible overrides the constitution for you.

    Is that true? Do you put the bible before the constitution? Would you agree that you are religion driven in all that you do vids a vis government? Kind of like the Taliban?

  • Jack isn’t that whacked. The Catholic terminology is “intrinsically disordered”. I wonder if that means that a GLBT person can’t fly straight or shoot straight?

    But, in the case of Tracy Thorne-Begland, he did both and his moral discernment was spot on. What would have been the proper action, to come out in uniform, to practice civil disobedience, to say that don’t-ask don’t-tell is an immoral directive, or to resign? IMHO, It took much more integrity and courage to risk a top-flight career than it would have taken to resign.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Jonathan, while under a military oath during the time of that military policy, I’d say D, then C.

    Which would also have ended the career, so your opinion can remain intact.

    Come out in uniform and practice civil disobedience IS more exciting, though.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “Come out in uniform and practice civil disobedience IS more exciting, though.”

    Or more effective perhaps…? It demonstrates the absurdity of the policy.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Interesting that Barb’s professed favorite delegate, Jim LeMunyon, voted for the gay nominee.

  • Partisanship over principle. Maybe Barbara is continuing to unwittingly represent the Loudoun County Government Reform Commission. She doesn’t seem to be able to control herself. Disobedience trumps civility.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Will government reform include the banishment of gays?

    That would make Farris, Dick Black and company happy, along with the radical Muslims like the Safa Group who funnel money to Republican candidates because, as Dick Black says, the super Christians and the strict Muslims have so much in common.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Eric, it is only more effective if the most important thing ATM is the activism. Was it effective in helping him get enough votes?
    ———————————————
    Yes, LI, he did. Is there a problem with that? Sorry, but I think we have more important things overall to worry about than the latest dog whistle that anyone who disagrees with anything Obama does is a racist, anyone who doesn’t froth with praise over everyone gay is a homophobe, anyone who doesn’t want to force private religious institutions to provide free birth control hates women, and so on. Who is the party of social issues again? LeMunyon is not Marshall–yes, and that’s why I vote for LeMunyon. Greason, Ramadan, Minchew aren’t Marshall either, except in the alternate-reality-based world, where lack of a proved negative ALWAYS proves a positive.
    —————————————–

    Actually Jonathan (and speaking of conflation!) I chose from among the alternatives YOU provided. Had he chosen D then C, he could have been true to both his sworn oath, and his personal desire to be active on the issue. Oops. What is uncivil about making choices from your options? Oh, wait, I know: they aren’t choices. They’re a dog whistle, and that makes me a de facto homophobe. (Wish you could have stayed a moment the other evening–after you declined the invitation to join in the snacks the previous meeting on the grounds that you don’t eat anything that’s touched plastic, I deliberately made sure to only use metal, glass and paper in what I prepared to share, so that you COULD join in if you wanted. Ah well, another time. I’ll continue to avoid plastic in that capacity, but not overall, lest your objection is not chemical compounds possibly leaching into the food, but the fact that plastic is a petro product, which I do NOT object to.)
    ——————————————

    LI, breathe. If you hyperventilate any further, you might float away before you pop.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    If orders are considered immoral, are soldiers required to perform them?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Gee eb, this is JUST like My Lai! You’re right! Maybe after Obama wins again, we can have some progressive Nuremburg trials or something.

    (and isn’t this about NOT legislating morals, for some? Unless it’s the wrong morals? Funny how that cuts both ways, isn’t it?)

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “Eric, it is only more effective if the most important thing ATM is the activism.”

    That makes no sense, Barb. You are suggesting that the point of any protest is activism in and of itself. It is like suggesting that Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus for the sole purpose of becoming a prominent figure among civil rights activists. Too cynical for me, Barb. Some actions are actually based on principle.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Did Barbara just Godwin the thread?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Eric, I don’t mean to a Rosa Parks figure, but to those (like you) who use her as a symbol.

    ——————————————————-

    Sorry eb and Liz, but no: it hearkens back to my problem with the various polarizing issues being touted in absolutes: i.e., disagreement with Obama? RACISM! Failure to enthusiastically champion anything gay-related? HOMOPHOBIA! and so on.

    “Immoral orders” has a meaning far beyond a policy (put in place by the first white black Democratic President) one disagrees with.

    Just as Bob Marshall holds himself as a champion of morals, there are gay activists who hold themselves as same–David and Jonathan being among them. David and Jonathan’s morals obviously disagree with Bob’s.

    I thought part of the point was that we shouldn’t be legislating morals?

    Unless there’s an opportunity to point out the most recent figurative squirrel running by, and shout “racist” or “homophobe” on cue.

    (I’ll remember the Godwin ref next time Jonathan calls someone a Nazi or Communist, thanks! As it is now part of the process.)

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “Eric, I don’t mean to a Rosa Parks figure, but to those (like you) who use her as a symbol.”

    I don’t think we were discussing me, Barb. Was it not the actual Rosa Parks figure (in this instance) who?:

    “Come [came] out in uniform and practice[d] civil disobedience…”

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Yes, Eric, and my response was based on the “choices” Jonathan offered:

    ” What would have been the proper action, to come out in uniform, to practice civil disobedience, to say that don’t-ask don’t-tell is an immoral directive, or to resign?”

    As I said, to choose D, then C would have kept his oath intact, and allowed him to bear witness.

    A & B is more attractive from an activist standpoint, as I said, but D then C covers every base with honor, leaving little wiggle room for criticism, other than of a sexual moral issue by those so inclined. They’d have none on the oath, because he’d have honored it, and he is entitled to any opinion he wants, when not bound by any oath to the contrary.

    As noted, the military is not a democracy (neither is the church, and neither are WE–we’re a Republic, but I digress, as usual)

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “i.e., disagreement with Obama? RACISM! Failure to enthusiastically champion anything gay-related? HOMOPHOBIA! and so on.”

    Oh dear. Please take this narrative and save it for after Labor Day. It’s much too early for this.

    I really don’t think this thing is about legislating morals. It’s about rights (which is certainly related).

    Not having the same rights as others would not be moral, correct?

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “As I said, to choose D, then C would have kept his oath intact, and allowed him to bear witness.”

    WWRPD, Barb?

  • BlackOut says:

    This whole oath thing is a big diversion.

    Thorne-Bergland went public and then very shortly afterwards a whole heck of a lot of people including higher-ups supported and agreed that DADT needed to be implemented. So lots of people with power and authority agreed with Thorne-Bergland’s moral initiative to challenge the policy. So all this outrage goes no where with me.

  • Agreed, BO. Like I said before, it’s a post hoc rationalization done only after Marshall went postal over the slate approved by the Court Committee, and used the nominee’s gay activism as the only stated reason for opposing him. The Rs HAD to come up with something somewhat more palatable to the general population, and the oath breaking was convenient.

    Looks like Barbara was just one of those they were able to fool.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Actually Lloyd, what I’m having trouble with is the (Racist! Homophobe!) declaration that every single person who voted against him agrees 100% with Bob Marshall, word for word for word, and since they said something different here’s what they really secretly mean, and so on, which allows for a lot of broad brush recyclings of various squirrels.

    I can vote against him in the senate primary, (not for this, but for years’ worth of a variety of things) and plan to vote FOR someone else. Those who consider him a Christianist!Homophobe! can cross over and vote FOR him, since he writes his own cartoon narratives and that will make for good chaos for Kaine, maybe.

    That still leaves him in the GA when he loses the senate primary.

    And I can’t vote for him or against him.

    And there he shall be until he stops winning the seat.

  • liz says:

    Dearest Barbara,

    Bob Marshall gave your party a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that they were NOT bigots. All they had to do was vote YES on the candidate he’d singled out for being gay.

    One vote, ONE VOTE and they would have been able to say, “See? Republicans are FINE with Gay folks.” Instead, they chose to stand with Bob.

    This is one of those instances where if you don’t agree with the raging homophobe who has made the sexuality of the candidate an issue, you need to stand up and say so BEFORE you vote against the candidate. You can’t just vote with the raging homophobe (or abstain) and only justify it later without everyone feeling pretty damned sure that you are standing on the side of bigotry.

    In other words, if there’s a bigot in the room and you’re not calling him out, and you’re voting like he wants you to, then you can’t blame us for thinking you’re a bigot, too.

  • AFF says:

    What Liz said.

    Standing up to bullies and bigots is harder than being quiet and going with the flow.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    This vote will remain a big stain on Virginia’s national reputation. Once again, don’t forget the local Republicans who had the courage to vote yes in the face of the religious right pressure – Barbara Comstock, Tom Rust, and Jim LeMunyon.

  • Wolverine says:

    No, Jonathan. Your attempt at demeaning falls on its face, as usual, because you lack knowledge.

    US Navy and US Naval Reserve

    1. One gold bar : Ensign
    2. One silver bar: Lieutenant (junior-grade)
    3. Two silver bars: Lieutenant.

    I could show you my commissioning certificate for No. 1 and the BUPERS notifications for Nos. 2 and 3; but you seem to have shown yourself not to be worth the effort.

  • Yeah, Barb, is Marshall a bigot or not? Sounds like you’re conceding he is.

  • Or Wolverine, I could have accepted your personal history at face value and left it alone. I know nothing about you but went blathering on, questioning your story and your motivations. It was offensive and gratuitous. I appreciate your willingness to come out with your BUPERS notifications. Congrats. You’re an “activist”.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Dear Liz: umm, voting “yes” would have “shown” that the entire party is not bigoted?

    Maybe in the alternate reality based world. Put here in the real one, it doesn’t really matter how they voted, because the “homophobe!” meme must be served at all opportunities.

    See, you’re forgetting that some Rs DID vote yes. Did they do it to show “the world” that they aren’t “bigots”? God, I hope not. I hope they did it because they thought he was a good candidate for the job.

  • David says:

    As noted many times before, many Republicans did the right thing. The ones who did the wrong thing may get the opportunity for a do-over to preserve their integrity.

    And here’s a clear, concise explanation of what they are currently dissembling about.

  • BlackOut says:

    Oh man! TAG, Minchew and Ramadan should have consulted the author of that article linked by David. Compelling and debunks the cover up used to hide true motives. The oath thing only playing in to the justifiers.

    And based on all three of these guys saying they don’t have any issues with gays serving and denounce any discrimination, how about they re-address the legislation banning employment discrimination against homosexuals. That would set the record straight.

    BTW, the author of that article is: “John Hutson is a retired Navy admiral and dean emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law. “

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Hmm… I’m not sure that article got the oath right. That one sounds like the one for political positions and not for service members.

  • BlackOut says:

    That would be a good question to pose to the Admiral who wrote the article.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    “As noted many times before, many Republicans did the right thing.” The criteria most recently set by Liz was “One vote, ONE VOTE”, and as noted in the voting record, there was more than one R yes.

    Perhaps where they failed to gain notice–to the point of being nonexistent for the sake of the passionate “Homophobe!” narrative–is the fact that they didn’t also hold a press conference to state that they support this gay man, all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered men and women, and so on, which PROVES…that their vote had an element of pandering, which is apparently okay as long as the right single issues are being pandered TO?

    Marshall is primarily a pander (IMO); a reliable “no” vote on a variety of single issues, some of which (again, IMO) are in conflict with one another.

    Hence my upcoming “no” vote for him in the primary.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I confused the oath of enlistment with the officers oath — which is a little different. The article is correct for officers…

  • House GOP Veterans Speak says:

    I think I just connected the dots on something:
    Check out: http://www.vpap.org/donors/profile/money_out_details/59971?committee_id=1639
    Delegate Loupassi, you have some serious explaining to do.

  • […] All this just reminds me of his disgusting, disturbing tactics during the last campaign in 2011, and makes me sick to my stomach when I think about another round.  Keep in mind that, because he’s now the incumbent, he gets to choose the method of nomination: primary, convention or canvass.   It will be interesting to where Ramadan thinks his chances are better.  It also will be interesting to see who, if anyone, steps up to unseat this first termer who, in virtually all circles, has failed to impress. […]

Leave Comment