Comments on: James Holsinger nomination hearings today: Open Forum

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:55:01 +0000

Ugh… clumsy wording. This is better:

My issue isn’t that he once endorsed anti-gay ideas – which he no longer views as accurately reflecting his position.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:52:22 +0000

The paper is not “outdated”. It did not reflect the current knowledge on the day he wrote it… and if indeed he even glanced at the documents he included in his bibliography he had to have known that.

My issue isn’t that he once ascribed to anti-gay ideas. My issue is that he was willing to distort research for the purpose of deceiving those who trusted him to provide an accurate assessment. It’s a matter of character and integrity, not a matter of undeveloped ideology.

The last Surgeon General admitted that he was willing to allow political activists to distort the truth and edit his positions. This nominee seems willing to be active in the distortion.

By: Mike Airhart

Mike Airhart — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:07:07 +0000

I'm not surprised that Holsinger has changed his mind in the past 16 years, however, I am displeased that there is, as yet, little information available regarding his current views. Specifically, does he now analyze the health risks of specific sexual behaviors and related factors (such as the use of precautions), or does he still judge the irrelevant orientation of whomever is engaging in said behaviors? I suspect the former, but he hasn't completely ruled out the latter. He admits that the 1991 paper is outdated; unfortunately, Christianity Today rallied in defense of that paper just yesterday and I fear that religious-rightists will increase, rather than decrease, their usage of that outdated paper in developing propaganda going forward.