Illbay apparently can't tell the difference. It's the same sort of curious blindness that leads one to assert that unless a legislator publically condones homosexual behavior, he does not and cannot properly represent his constituents who engage in homosexual behavior.
But a good legislator can and will fully and effectively represent a broad range of people without surrendering or compromising his own moral and religious beliefs and standards. Under our system of government, this can be done.
No, Kevin, quite the OPPOSITE. I am saying that when you represent your consitutency you don't pick and choose which constitutents you will respect and which you won't.
Homosexuality is not a religion. Homosexuality doesn't teach a laudable moral code which, despite all the uninformed bigotry that is frequently exhibitted here, Islam does.
I have no particular use for the Muslim religion personally, but I DO have a use for the principles of religious plurality that I believe makes our nation superior to ALL OTHERS ON EARTH. I do not ever want to see us stoop to the level of the Muslim nations, or even of historic Europe in its disregard for matters of conscience.
One thing that has been made abundantly clear as we have begun rolling up al-Qa'ida: These people aren't very religious (KSM has been an eye-opening case in point). Murderers very rarely are.
It is unfair to continue to cast this whole struggle as a religious one. That makes us no better than the demagogues among the radical "Islamists".
In the end, this was disgraceful behavior on the part of these Republicans. I would have expected something idiotic like this from the Democrat Left, but not from our people. I am ashamed of them.