Posts on James Holsinger

Last week, we noted that the Family Research Council had suddenly fallen silent regarding the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger to be Surgeon General after initially praising his "impeccable" credentials and issuing a prayer alert hoping that he would “receive an honest and fair hearing.” 

Of course, at that time, all that was known about the nominee was that he once wrote a report claiming that homosexual sex was dangerous and unnatural – and that was enough for FRC to come running to his defense.  

But then FRC found out that Holsinger had once "testified in support of loosening regulations around cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research" and suddenly Holsinger’s impeccable credentials didn’t matter quite as much and all FRC would say was that the organization was “not supportive of his nomination right now.”

That was last week, and FRC is no longer being circumspect:

At his confirmation hearing yesterday Dr. Holsinger recanted his earlier statement, saying his views had "evolved" and that the issues he raised are not relevant in public health discussions today. While not an expert in human anatomy, I am 100% sure that human beings have not "evolved" into asexual beings, as Dr. Holsinger's new comments would suggest. Dr. Holsinger's confirmation should not fail because of his views, but because of his seeming lack of conviction on any of them.

Got that?  It’s not because of Holsinger’s “views” might not match FRC’s that he should not be confirmed, but because he is not sufficiently committed to them.  So, if Holsinger had initially claimed that homosexuality was not dangerous and unnatural and stuck by that view in his confirmation hearing, would FRC have supported his nomination, since he had demonstrated enough “conviction”?   

But FRC is not satisfied with simply opposing this specific nominee - they are now calling for the office of the Surgeon General to be eliminated all together:

So to save the taxpayers’ money, to eliminate yet another unneeded voice in the health-care cacophony, to free up a uniform for the local high school’s Pirates of Penzance performance and to save C-SPAN viewers from any more surgeon-general alumni reunion tours like last week’s hearings — eliminate the Office of Surgeon General today.

As we noted a few weeks ago, whenever any of President Bush’s nominee’s come under fire for their controversial views, the Right’s primary response is to accuse those who raise such concerns of being anti-whatever-said-nominee- happens-to-be (i.e., anti-Latino, anti-woman, anti-Christian.)  

And so it is no surprise that they would use this tactic to defend Dr. James Holsinger, President Bush's nominee for surgeon general who has exhibited an open hostility to homosexuals, by claiming that he is being targeted for his religious beliefs and is somehow the victim of an unconstitutional religious test.  

In anticipation of his Senate confirmation hearing today, several right-wing groups issued press releases echoing this charge:

Americans for Truth: "Are we prepared to hang a sign on the doors of government that says, 'Christians Need Not Apply'?"

Concerned Women for America: Holsinger's nomination has become unfairly politicized due to both his medical findings on homosexual behavior and his religious beliefs …it is inappropriate and unconstitutional to subject Dr. Holsinger to a religious litmus test.

Institute for Religion and Democracy: These critics of Dr. Holsinger would seem to establish a new litmus test for public office--a test that would exclude any nominee who is an orthodox Christian with traditional beliefs about sexual ethics. This would appear to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the provision in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution stipulating that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

What makes Holsinger’s nomination particularly interesting is the sudden silence of the Family Research Council which, just last month, issued a prayer alert regarding his nomination:

Dr. Holsinger's credentials are impeccable. He served as Kentucky's health secretary, chancellor of the University of Kentucky's medical center, has taught at several medical schools and spent over three decades in the Army Reserve, retiring in 1993 as a major general. Holsinger is being subjected to character assassination for doing precisely what a Surgeon General should do, bring health facts to light.

* Pray that Dr. Holsinger will receive an honest and fair hearing from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Since then, FRC seems to have learned something that caused them to stop defending Holsinger. What possibly could it have been?

Tom McCluskey, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, said that Dr. Holsinger spoke to a Kentucky state legislature committee in 2002 and "testified in support of loosening regulations around cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research."

"We're not supportive of his nomination right now," Mr. McCluskey said, adding that "we've been told he's come around on the issue, but the surgeon general is such a strong bully pulpit position that we want to be sure."

So when Holsinger was claiming that homosexuality was unnatural and dangerous, FRC defended him by hailing his impeccable credentials and willingness to tell the truth. But when they found out that his views on stem-cell research might not match their own, they grew concerned that he might use his “bully pulpit” to advocate for a position at odd with theirs and suddenly his supposed impeccable credentials and willingness to tell the truth weren’t so impressive.  

As we have noted repeatedly over the last several years, the Right has developed various means to defend controversial Bush administration nominations against those who raise concerns about a nominee’s views by accusing anyone who might voice such concerns of being in some way a bigot. 

As we noted recently, the Right has routinely accused those who opposed nominees such as Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown of being, respectively, anti-Latino, anti-woman, and straight out racist. 

Perhaps the most common accusation is that those who raise concerns about a nominee’s views are motivated by anti-religious bias, which is a charge they’ve thrown around multiple times, most notably regarding opposition to William Pryor and John Roberts.  

And they are at it again, this time in defending Dr. James Holsinger, President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, who has exhibited an open hostility to homosexuals.

Paul Weyrich levels the accusation:

In spite of his qualifications, radical homosexual activists are intent on defeating his nomination, in blatant violation of Article VI of the Constitution, because of his religious beliefs

So does Al Mohler:

In other words, Dr. Holsinger's opponents are not directing their attention to his medical experience or qualifications, but to his beliefs and responsibilities as a Christian and a member of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church.

…

The nomination of Dr. James Holsinger promises now to be a defining moment in American history. Will it now be necessary for a nominee to deny the teachings of his or her own church in order to be confirmed by the United States Senate?

It seems that, for the Right, any criticism of a nominee is out-of-line if the views for which the nominee is being criticized are, in some way, rooted in his or her religious faith, thereby allowing them to ignore the issue at hand, which is the nominee’s actual writings and record. 

But for some reason, the Right seems to have a different standard for Democrats and feels free to openly disparage not only their views, but their respective faiths directly.  

For example, not too long ago, the National Clergy Council openly declared that “[Sen. Barack] Obama's Christianity woefully deficient.” 

Or what about Don Feder’s recent broadside:

Democrats are to traditional religion what Islam is to tolerance.

…

It's not that Democrats aren't religious - rather that they practice a religion alien to both Christianity and Judaism.

Its doctrine includes support for abortion on demand, hate crimes legislation, the Kyoto Treaty, driver's licenses for illegal aliens, multiculturalism and a socialism of property and values.

Its priesthood is feminists, environmentalists, gay-activists and radical secularists, presided over by its college of cardinals --Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Maher, Barbra Streisand and Al Franken.

It calls for atonement for the sins of sexism, homophobia, the religious right, the gun lobby, pharmaceutical companies, big oil, Guantanamo, Halliburton and trans-fatty acids.

Its vision of Kingdom Come looks a lot like San Francisco on a Saturday night.

Or what about Paul Weyrich himself, who once attacked John Kerry, Tom Harkin and Dick Durbin for being “nothing but hypocrites” who were” trying to take advantage of their Catholic faith when its suits their purposes on the campaign trail, but shirking the obligations that really come with that faith” and called on the media to differentiate between “politicians [who] have taken stands in accordance with their faith and are therefore ‘observant,’ true Catholics and which ones are non-observant, only claiming to be Catholic.”

Apparently, for the Right, opposing a Bush nominee is proof of blatant religious bigotry, whereas directly denigrating the faith of Democrats is perfectly acceptable.   

When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that he would not reappoint Gen. Peter Pace to serve a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the reasoning behind the decision was relatively clear:

General Pace’s reputation has nevertheless become intertwined with the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the heavy tolls that the subsequent counter-insurgency fights have inflicted on the United States military. He has been criticized by some senior officers who saw him as too deferential to civilian leadership, in particular former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and too inattentive to the impact of prolonged war-fighting on the Army, Marines and their National Guard and Reserve elements.

…

The defense secretary, though, said his conversations with senior lawmakers of both parties had led him to conclude that “the focus of his confirmation process would have been on the past, rather than the future” and “that there was the very real prospect the process would be quite contentious.”

A confirmation debate over the Bush administration’s handling of war in Iraq and the role Pace played in the debacle would undoubtedly have been “contentious” and so the administration decided that it would be easier to just replace Pace than to go through with such hearings.  

Case closed?  Not if your job requires that you have an almost single-minded dedication to uncovering evidence of nefarious homosexual plottings and maneuverings regarding the military:    

"General Pace made statements that were opposed by the homosexual activist community, and that issue is why the administration chose not to fight for his reconfirmation," says [Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness]. "The administration chose to switch rather than fight -- and in this case, I think that is mistaken."

Three months ago, Pace stated that he supported the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy because “homosexual acts between individuals are immoral.”   According to Donnelly, it was because of this that the Bush administration is now attempting to appease gay activists by sacrificing Pace in the middle of the war he has overseen for the last two years.  

That makes sense, because if there is one thing the Bush administration is constantly trying to avoid, it’s angering gay activists by nominating people who exhibit an open hostility to homosexuals:  

President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, Kentucky cardiologist Dr. James Holsinger, has come under fire from gay-rights groups for, among other things, voting to expel a lesbian pastor from the United Methodist Church and writing in 1991 that gay sex is unnatural and unhealthy.

Also, Holsinger helped found a Methodist congregation that, according to gay-rights activists, believes homosexuality is a matter of choice and can be "cured."

…

As president of the Methodist Church's national Judicial Council, Holsinger voted last year to support a pastor who blocked a gay man from joining a congregation. In 2004, he voted to expel a lesbian from the clergy. The majority of the panel voted to keep the lesbian associate pastor in place, citing questions about whether she had openly declared her homosexuality, but Holsinger dissented.

Sixteen years ago, he wrote a paper for the church in which he likened the reproductive organs to male and female "pipe fittings" and argued that homosexuality is therefore biologically unnatural.

"When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur," Holsinger wrote, citing studies showing higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases among gay men and the risk of injury from anal sex.