From Wisconsin conservative James Wigderson:
Stroebel does criticize the organization for hostility towards Hagedorn’s faith. And he has a point. For while Jordahl and Johnson claim the Realtors are not hostile to Hagedorn’s personal beliefs, consider that the criticisms directed at Hagedorn include no instance of allowing his faith to color his legal opinions as an Appeals Court Judge.
Instead, the criticisms of Hagedorn are strictly on two points: 1) Hagedorn stating on his blog before he became a judge that legalizing sodomy could lead to legalizing bestiality and incest, and 2) Hagedorn serving on the board of a Christian school that has standards of conduct that do not allow homosexual behavior by the staff.
In the case of the former, what may have been hyperbole may still bear out. What was once taboo is gaining more public acceptance including plural marriage, incest, and bestiality. Not that long ago, it was unthinkable that the courts would overrule state laws prohibiting gay marriage. Governor Jim Doyle even publicly criticized attempts to define marriage in the state constitution because he said the law would never be interpreted to allow same-sex marriages. Can we honestly say that courts, unmoored from its prior limits, will not someday overturn laws prohibiting the behaviors Hagedorn listed?
“…hostility toward the faith…”
That some of your beliefs and practices are part of your faith does not mean that they must be respected or that those who disrespect them are “anti-religious zealots” or in favor of “unconstitutional religious tests.” Surely conservative Christians, who never let us forget how terrible Islam is, can understand this — unless, of course, they’re a bunch of entitled idiots who consistently demand special treatment and whine when others are treated equally.
“…but now we have activists on the Left that are willing to impose such tests…”
There is a difference between a religious test and a belief test, hazy as it may sometimes be. There is also a difference between a religious test and people freely deciding not to support someone because of his religious beliefs.
“What was once taboo is gaining more public acceptance including plural marriage, incest, and bestiality.”
And this is because sodomy was legalized? One might as well blame the legality of vaginal intercourse. We ought to question the intellect of anyone who makes such an argument.
The cause is something more fundamental: a growing tolerance of behavior that does not harm other people (or even oneself), which encompasses much more than sexual practices. If the legalization of other such behaviors follows from it, so be it. Let those who want to restrict freedom make their case against it.
“the Realtors are saying that the difference of opinion is their hostility to what Hagedorn believes – and not any fear that his beliefs will hurt the interests of the Realtors.”
What if–and this is a wild idea–the Realtors have a better idea of their “interests” than Wigderson does and are free to define them as they please, for better or worse?
“what right does the WRA hold dear that will be able to stand against the omnipotent state without the rule of law to protect it?”
There’s the drama queen we know. A group withdraws its support for a candidate over moral differences (or whatever you think the real motive is) and Wigderson is already talking about the “omnipotent state” and the loss of the “rule of law.” (He forgot to mention Nazis!) He claims that he and conservatives do not want to deny the Realtors their First Amendment rights or otherwise force them to support this candidate, but then frames the issue as the end of our country if they do not.
Which is it: are the Realtors free to withdraw support for their own reasons or not? And do conservatives themselves value this freedom or not? The answer is obvious.
Between Trump and F&U’s coverage of Wigderson and LaFerrara, I get about all I can take of Republicans each week.