Skip to content

The Religious Right Supports Affirmative Action

January 6, 2010

I can’t believe it.  Several prominent folks from the religious right are coming out strongly in support of the idea that a job candidate’s qualifications can be eclipsed in importance by demographic issues. 

If you think that I am making this up, think again.  Here’s Matt Barber Director of Cultural Affairs from the Liberty (HA!) Counsel:

He may very well be qualified for this position, but…

Of course, I am taking his quotation out of context for the time being to show that Barber thinks it’s appropriate to judge issues other than a job candidate’s qualification for the job in question. 

So what’s all this about?  Barack Obama has appointed Amanda Simpson as the Senior Technical Advisor to the U.S. Department of Commerce.  Simpson has an M.S. in engineering, an M.B.A., and an undergraduate degree in physics.  She has 30 years’ experience in private aerospace and defense work.  Her job at Commerce is to oversee the export of weapons to foreign countries.  Given her credentials, this should be right in her wheelhouse.

Case closed.  Right?

Well, not to the theocrats on the right.  They object to Simpson because she is transgender.  Here’s Barber in context:

He may very well be qualified for this position but it appears that he was not picked (merely) for his qualifications, he was picked because of his wardrobe.  That is not diversity or tolerance.  It’s political correctness run amok.

Peter LaBarbara from Americans for Truth (HA!) About Homosexuality added this:

Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama administration?  How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go?  Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby.

Obama is pandering to the gay lobby by hiring someone to do a job for which she is qualified. Ostensibly, Barber and LaBarbera would prefer that Obama hired someone else for the position because of their gripes with Simpson’s gender. Note that they have no complaints with her qualifications. Sounds like affirmative action to me.

When we look back on this in 50 years, it will be similar to the way we now feel about the racists who threw black cats on the field to protest and harass Jackie Robinson.  In the bright light of history, this primitive and ugly behavior will appear withered and rotten to almost everybody.

Update: I almost forgot.  The article I used as a source comes from the Catholic News Agency.  The news agency of an organization whose leadership is comprised of old virgin men.  Of all the people to gripe about transgendered people, I’d think that the organization with that kink built into its hierarchy would be a little more understanding of sexual behavior that deviates from the norm.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. PeeJ permalink
    January 9, 2010 4:13 pm

    You use that word, “virgin.” I do not think it means what you think it means.

  2. Barry permalink*
    January 9, 2010 4:29 pm

    My understanding is that a virgin is someone who has not had sexual intercourse.

    I believe that a normal sexual history involves sexual intercourse.

    I also think that a kink is a deviation from normative sexual experience for the purpose of some sort of psychological or sexual gratification.

    It seems that Catholic clergy abstain from sexual contact for some kind of religious gratification.

    Therefore, their virginity is a kink.

    Unless you’re commenting on priests not being virgins because many of them actually do have sex and others rape children. That’s true too.

    Basically, the Church doesn’t know a fucking thing about sex, and anyone who takes their advice on the issue is submitting to proudly ignorant people.

    If I were going to jump out of a plane with the intention of living once I reached the ground, I wouldn’t go to an instructor who:
    A. has never jumped out of a plane himself; and,
    B. claims that parachutes are not 100% effective, and in fact make you fall faster.

  3. Proud Kuffar permalink
    January 10, 2010 11:48 pm

    I don’t like godbots. They are bullies of a dangerous and odious stripe.

    • Barry permalink*
      January 10, 2010 11:55 pm

      I like the way you put that, Proud Kuffar. In this case, they aim to bully someone out of a job because:

      1. they believe they understand more about her gender than she does; and, 2. they don’t like it.

      That her qualifications are meaningless says quite a bit about those who would deny her the position.

      Proud bigotry turns my stomach.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: