From the Family Research Council (emphasis added):



Just my humble opinion, but I believe every bible-believing Christian should do everything in their power to see that Ehrlich, who does not represent our values, is not re-elected. If that means we wind up with somebody just as bad but associated with the other political party, then at least we'll be dealing with the devil we know, instead of a demon in angel's guise. If the Republicans choose this type of man to represent their party, IMHO they deserve to fail and will absolutely NOT be getting MY vote. Any Christian who's seriously considering voting for such a man needs to carefuly examine his or her conscience, at the very least, in my opinion.

You may disagree with my stand, and I respect your right to do so completely, but at least now we all know exactly where Robert Ehrlich stands: side by side and hand in hand with the radical pro-homosexual activists, and willing to act against people of faith who believe the Bible and dare to exercise their freedom of speech.

P.S. - It's fortunate for Ehrlich that Smith was an appointee rather than a government employee. Had he been an employee fired for this, he would have no problem winning a lawsuit to be reinstated because all he did was honestly and openly state his personal religious beliefs in an on-topic discussion in an forum totally outside his scope of employment. Many others who have been fired for doing exactly that have won lawsuits against their former employers. Even so I think he should consider filing suit and I'm not totally convinced this matter is settled. People of faith should not be discriminated for exercising their religious beliefs, including voicing them in an appropriate forum... I believe we have at least one constitutional amendment that guarantees those rights.

Is Maryland on the road to becoming a state where it's illegal to be a bible-believing Christian? Is that where Ehrlich is taking us? Looks like it to me!

Looks like Ehrlich just exercised his right to fire one of his appointees for making comments in public that he didn't agree with.

Next.

And in so doing, demonstrated his bias against Catholics and Christians in general. All I am doing is pointing that out. I think you're right, Ehrlich is clearly taking a stand against someone whom he disagrees with, and therefore in support of the activist pro-homosexuals. I'm just making sure everyone sees it and notes it and I encourage them to respond in whatever manner their conscience tells them they should.

I also think it amounts to illegal discrimination, but on that you disagree. The courts and the United States Constitution have settled the matter when this kind of thing has taken place in the context of an employment relationship - in which case it constitutes a violation of the employee's civil rights. One cannot say for certain how the law might apply in the case of an appoiintment such as this, because it hasn't really been tried in the courts, but I have my view and you have yours. However, I would point out that employers are usuallly not free to discriminate when they choose to do so on the basis of religious beliefs, and IMHO, politicians should only be able to do so when the religious beliefs in question DIRECTLY conflict with the nature of the appointee's role.

I don't think that one's view on homosexuality has anything to do with his ability to give advice on the operation of the D.C area's commuter rail service, so this move by Ehrlich is a particuarly bold, blatant attack on Catholics and other bible-believing Christians, that must not go unnoticed, is all.

Those who do NOT care, simply do not care and have nothing positive to contribute to this thread. I definitely understand that those who actively support the pro-homosexual movement would applaud Ehrlich and are free to vote for him. Those who don't, IMO should not vote for him because he has now taken a very clear and aggressive stand on the issue by doing this.

I do also wish to point out where this kind of thing leads. In Canada they have no free speech and certain Bible verses are considered criminal "hate speech". You can be prosecuted in Canada for simply quoting scripture. I do not like it when I see our nation heading that direction, and I will not hesitate to speak out when I see any politician engaging in unwarranted attacks on people for their biblical Christian beliefs.

So you say, I say he was just demonstrating his more moderate stance on the issue. Just because he's a republican doesn't mean he has to be far right in his religious views.

Gee here we go again... BMIC hogging up all the bandwidth calling people Christian haters and militant homosexuals. Most of the time most of us here don’t really care to read about how Christians are being persecuted every time one of them gets fired. "We come here to follow a brief, succinct give and take."

What ever happened to the idea of “stick to posting links…”? At least my post about Ann Coulter had a link and was posted in its entirety.

I just spent about 20 mins. Googling their names along with relevant phrases and words such as “D.C. Metro Board” and “homosexual”, and this is what I learned.

1. Graham has been on the Metro board since 1999, represents DC’s ward 1, and is openly gay.

2. Smith was appointed in 2003 to represent Montgomery County and has been controversial from the beginning.

3. As a rule of thumb he has opposed Graham on most issues.

4. He vehemently opposes running the metro to Dulles because he’s too short sighted to see the benefit to Marylanders.

5. It was his plan to make the night trains shorter, two to three cars, to save money. The result has been injuries on the platform because the loading area is 25% the normal distance, and thousands of stranded travelers in the middle of the night, which in turn has led to an increase in crime during those hours.

6. Even though Graham is gay he voted to allow a Virginia chapter of PFOX (Parents and Friends of X-Gays) to post signs in the metro stations that were testimonials of people who were once gay and are now straight. That doesn’t sound like a "militant homosexual" to me.

What this boils down to IMO is the fact that The Family Research Council has had a real hard-on for Ehrlich ever since he signed the law on stem cell research. Their problem is that they know their readers and in order to get them excited they have to turn the opposition into demon homosexuals who persecute Christians.

It's too bad they can't just have a brief, succinct give and take like we do here.

FIRST: the views that Smith espoused are in fact NOT "moderate", as evidenced by the fact that everywhere that protection of marriage has been put to a popular vote, it has won convincingly. The view that you would seem to be characterizing as "moderate" is one that the majority of Americans including myself call "radical pro-homosexual" and "activist". Indeed the belief that homosexuality is "deviant" is not at all a radical or extremist, nor even a particularly religious view. Not only does the Bible teach it, but simple common sense tells us that homosexuality is not the norm, and therefore in fact deviates from it. Thus, one must admit that it is "deviant" even if they don't choose to believe that it's morally wrong.

SECOND: taking action to remove someone from a position of responsibility because of personal views that they hold that have no bearing whatsoever on the area for which they are responsible is not a "moderate" act. It is a radical, aggressive act intended to show a willingness to agressively deny opportunities to those who hold those views, even where there is no reasonable justification for doing so. I could see removing Smith from a position having to do with issues important to homosexuals, but this isn't.

I just can't see any way to view this as anything but a bold attack on everyone who holds to the biblical, and in point of fact, common sense view that homosexuality is not normal.

It may be instructive to consider the alternative. If Ehrlich had fired a homosexual appointee from the Metro Board simply because he had stated a belief that homosexuality is normal on a cable TV show when asked, wouldn't you expect the public at large, and not just the far left-wingers, to be incensed?

So here, too I expect the average citizen OUGHT to be outraged. Even if you don't agree with Smith's views, can't you see that he ought not to have been discriminated against for holding them? I guess not, but surely you get my point.

I don't see anything in there saying he supports homosexuals other then the person's opinion that wrote that?

He took action against someone because they stated that homosexuality is "deviant". How is that NOT an action in support of homosexuals?

P.S. - Leave it to the liberals to change this to a debate about the person who reported the violation rather than the violation itself. Typical unfair tactic.

Well, let's wait and see what Ehrich himself says about it. Not that many of us will be fooled. Idiot just put the necessary words in his mouth, and I'm sure he has even more capable libs on his staff doing so.

It sounds to me like the action of someone running for office.

Demonize him all you want B. This "liberal" voted for him in 2002 but will vote NOT EHRLICH this time.

I would bet that the only people who find Smith's firing to be outrageous will be the religious right.

And BMIC.

I think it may be, at that. But the Republicans don't usually choose to portray themselves as the pro-homosexual activists. If that's what they want to do in Maryland, then okay fine... I'm just making sure we're all aware that's what they're doing.

Udmas, to you every person who goes to church on Sunday morning is a member of the "religious right". That makes us mainstream American citizens, not the "way out there kooks" you would like everyone to think they are.

You must be kidding right? This board is practically a ghost town. All I'm doing is trying to liven it up a bit by posting something on topic that I have an interest in. You do the same in the main political boards all the time. Can't I at least get some respect for trying to keep this place alive?

As annoyed as I get by most of the stuff you post, at least I do grant that you are a major contributor, even if I don't much like what you contribute. How boring would this place be without us to keep it lively?

Can't you tell by now?

I agree about the site. It's too bad but I guess that's life.

I read most of the threads posted here, at least the ones that interest me, though I typically only comment on statements that I disagree with. I don't know why that is but your threads usually satisfy both criteria.

But very often there are also things that we agree on which aren't discussed much. In this case we both voted for Ehrlich I assume, we're both disappointed in the job he's done, and we won't vote for him again. However I don't think he's anti-Catholic or Christian, and no way do I think he's pro-homosexual. I don't believe you do either.

Anyway, I learned something from this thread which I posted above. Some may think it's trivial but I believe that all knowledge is good. Especially when you have to go find it for yourself.

No I don't think every person that goes to church is a member of the religious right.

I do think that the people that will get the most upset about this are people of the religious right and not the moderate Sunday church goers.

I doubt that he realizes how anti-Catholic and anti-Christian he is, and I definitely do believe he's made a definite choice to be pro-homosexual because he thinks it will earn him more votes than he loses for it.


Well of course that just makes sense, that the more conservative or morally-minded church goers will be more upset than those you call "more moderate". But my point is that I believe that every Bible-believing Christian should be upset, and I dare to suggest that MOST church goers at least think they believe the Bible and should therefore be upset, because it is their right to express their beliefs that is being threatened.

If Ehrlich wanted to get votes from the gay community, he wouldn't have given a huge sum of taxpayer money to a Baptist convention, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to promote the anti-gay-marriage amendment.

we, either you're woefully ignorant or you're intentionally trying to deceive the voters.

The MD GOP sent out an e-mail to their supporters list just this past week touting Ehrlich's proven "moderate" stance, specifically pointing out his support for some sort of gay-friendly family legislation as well as the stem cell research without any ethical restrictions bill (though of course they didn't point out the lack of ethical restrictions). This idiot and the Republican party in Maryland are actively promoting his pro-homosexual record and they mistakenly think it's going to win him the election.

Are catholics not christian? You sound like the KKK twits I ran into in the south in the 50's that tried to prevent us from finding a church on sunday by giving out bad directions. Maybe your thought proocesses would be better suited to the 18TH century Frederick, Md durung the Anti-catholic riots there.

Lou-cy Lou, You seem to be having a MAJOR problem with reading comprehension lately. Did you have a stroke or something recently? In my posts I have consistently referred to Catholics as a subset of all bible-believing Christians, as I understand them to properly be.

You seem to be having a serious mental deficiency here - maybe you should get to an ER and get that checked out? I'm serious - there's hardly any other reasonable explanation for your post. In no way did I ever intend to imply that Catholics were not Christians or to attack Catholics in any way. If you're NOT having a stroke, then I demand an apology. I personally resent your defamation by claiming I have attacked Catholics or Catholicism in this thread. The record is very clearly otherwise.

[quote name='BMIC' post='58135' date='Jun 17 2006, 09:24 AM']From the Family Research Council (emphasis added):

[quote]Maryland governor, Robert Ehrlich ( R ) caved in to radical homosexual activists and fired Robert J. Smith as his appointee to the Washington, D.C. Metro Board. All sides agree that Smith is an unusually diligent member of the Metro Board and that he actually reads the detailed financial reports of the capital region's excellent subway system. So what was Smith's offense? He expressed his belief as a Roman Catholic that homosexual behavior is "deviant."[/quote]

Uhh, isn't the lieutenant governor - appointed by Erlich - Catholic? Seems to me the guy was fired for speaking up about homosexuals not for being Catholic. So who would you replace Erlich with the left-wing O'Mally?

Nothing changes the fact that Ehrlich s now marketing himself as a friend to the homosexual rights groups. So my vote is "none of the above" if necessary. But it certainly won't be for Ehrlich. IMO he either needs to be kicked out of the Republican party, or if the Reps have chosen to go pro-homosexual, we need a bona fide third party to be formed which will truly stand for conservative moral vlaues. The Maryland GOP is touting the guy's pro-homosexual record, so either the whole GOP organization in MD needs to clean house, or if they don't - which would only be justified if the GOP nationwide has now officially decided to be 100% in support of pro-homosexual activism- it's time to form a third party.

Please do

Next thing you know. Ehrlich will try to run, to be the next President. I wouldn't doubt it.

------------
YOU RELIGIOUS NUTS ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS COUNTRY!! You have a Pavlovian reaction to everything without using your brain. You are incapable of rational thought or reasoning.

I'm eagerly awaiting BMIC's reply.

I reply quite effectively every time I enter the voting booth. That's the best reply I can give. At 70+% of the U.S. population, Christians shouldn't have to apologize to anyone for promoting their views.

BTW, yesterday Ehrlich's campaign sent out an urgent request for donations, stating how badly he's falling behind O'Malley. All I could say was... "take a flying leap". He's gone and dug his own political grave. The same way Bob Dole did in his failed Presidential bid.

Damn, I didn't get that request. I may have to call the Republican Central Committee to get one. If you don't mind being ignored again B, don't vote for Govenor Ehrlich. If I recall correctly, both Paris Glendenning and Donald "would you look at the butt on that girl" Schaffer. Both were surprised to learn Washington County was in Maryland as opposed to West Virginia.