WTHR has a story entitled Hostettler not backing down from his words.
From the story:
Washington D.C., June 23 – “Democrats can’t help themselves when it
comes to demonizing and denigrating Christians.” John Hostettler
retracted those words on the House floor, but he nonetheless believes
they are true.
. . .
Hostettler says procedural threats forced him to strike his words on the House floor, but won’t silence him elsewhere. “I’ll continue to voice my concerns about this bigoted approach to Christians and especially evangelical Christians until folks on their side decide to drop it.”
Not only is he nuts. He’s spineless. If he honestly believes Democrats simply can’t help themselves from demonizing Christians, he should’ve stuck by his guns. (Well, figuratively. I’m not sure the conditions of Hostettler’s probation allow him to possess firearms.)
See my previous entry for details. And see Taking Down Words for more about the procedure that turned Hostettler yellow.
Update: Per the suggestion at Taking Down Words, I went to the Congressional record for the transcript of Rep. Hostettler backing down on the House of Representatives. Some of the discussion follows:
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence I spoke.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I think the House needs to understand why I objected to the language of the gentleman.
As I understand it, the language that the gentleman is saying he will withdraw is the following: “Like moth to a flame, Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians.”
What I would have asked the gentleman, since he referred earlier in his remarks to me and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), I would have asked him if he really believed that the gentleman from New York’s (Mr. Israel) efforts to attach similar language in the Committee on Armed Services, the language that the gentleman referred to earlier in his discussion, whether he really thought that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) was engaging in an anti-Christian act. I would have asked him whether he really thought that the language that I was trying to offer to protect people of all religions at the Air Force Academy, whether he really thought I was being anti-Christian. I would have asked him if he thought that the chaplain at the Air Force Academy who laid her career on the line in order to protect the religious freedom of those cadets who she felt were being intimidated, whether her actions were anti-Christian.
[Time: 16:30]
I would have asked whether he thinks that the kind of conduct which the superintendent of the Academy has already admitted occurred, which among other things had one cadet calling another a “filthy Jew,” or when they had cadets who did not subscribe to a specific kind of Christianity being told that they were going to, “burn in hell,” I would have asked him whether or not the Chaplain’s objection to that kind of conduct was antiChristian?
I would have suggested that when Mr. Whitaker, the official spokesman for the Academy indicated that he thought the problem at the Academy was one of “insensitivity and ignorance,” I would have asked whether or not, unfortunately, we did not often see those same qualities displayed elsewhere, including on the floor of this House?
And I would have suggested that I think his outburst, and the specific language he used, is perhaps a perfect example of why we need to pass the language in my amendment, which states, “coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain of command at the Academy, as has been reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the Academy.
And I would add, also, of those who serve in this House and speak on this floor. So those are the questions I would have asked. If the gentleman is withdrawing those words, fine, I think it is constructive that he do so.
But, before I do that, I would, under my reservation, yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the words that we heard, as unfortunate and as hurtful as they were, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, testimony for the passage of our amendment.
I have never heard it suggested that by somehow saying that with a personal expression of religious observance and freedom, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wrote in his amendment, as I included in my amendment, could somehow be characterized in the way it just was.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will just state for the record, with respect to the Air Force Academy, by one estimate, of the 117 Academy cadets, staff members and faculty members who complained about religious intimidation and proselytizing, eight happened to be Jewish, one happens to be atheist, 10 happen to be Catholic, and all of the rest happen to be Protestants.
So this is not being for or against any one faith, I would say to the gentleman. This is about respect for all faiths. And that is why we offer this amendment, and that is why we believe now more than ever that it is critical that it be passed, and that the American people know that we embrace religious viewpoints in our military, but we also want respect for the spiritual values of all people.
Mr. OBEY. Continuing my reservation, Mr. Chairman. I would simply say that perhaps the speech of my good friend from Florida (Mr. Young) urging that we stop talking on this amendment and get to the vote, perhaps his speech came 5 minutes too late. It is too bad, not too late, because if we had voted before the last speaker, the House would not have seen this unfortunate event present itself.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I think perhaps the best thing to do in the interests of restoring a decent amount of civility and comity to the House this afternoon is for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) as he has suggested, to withdraw his words and for us to get onto a vote and pass this amendment to make quite clear that every Member of this House, save perhaps a few, recognize that we have an obligation to each and every cadet at the Air Force Academy, to see that they can practice their religion without fear of ridicule, without fear of condemnation, without fear of intimidation by anyone else, be they Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion that anyone of us can think of.
This language in the committee bill, the language which we are restoring by my amendment, is an effort to protect all religions, all religions. I would ask for an aye vote when the amendment comes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the words designated by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) are withdrawn.
There was no objection.
[…] IN-08: Ellsworth defeats Hostettler By Doug Looks like John Hostettler used up his 9 lives already. It’s being projected that he will go down to defeat to Brad Ellsworth in the bloody eighth. I respected him for voting against the war in Iraq and generally voting his conscience. But Hostettler was far too radical with some of his views for my tastes. For example he characterized the Democrats as “demonizing and denigrating Christians.” He was against “divorce on demand.” In an effort to establish fully human life begins at conception, he proposed giving people a child tax credit if they had a miscarriage. And, he was in favor of defunding the U.S. Marshal’s Office in order to prevent them from enforcing judicial orders with which he disagreed. […]